Axial Shortening Effects of Repeated Low-level Red-light Therapy in Children With High Myopia: A Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial
Liu G, Liu L, Rong H, Li L, Liu X, Jia Z, Zhang H, Wang B, Song D, Hu J, Shi X, Du B, Wei R
American journal of ophthalmology · 28 citations
How it was studied
- Design
- Randomized controlled trial (indexed by PubMed)
- Studied in
- People
- Main outcome
- Health markers and function
Who paid for it
- Funding
- Independent funding
- Government
- National Natural Science Foundation of China
- Government
- National Key Clinical Specialty Discipline Construction Program of China
Based on 2 listed funder(s).
Publication
- Published
- 2024-10-16 · Am J Ophthalmol · vol. 270 · pp. 203–215
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Cited
- 47 citations · more than 99% of similar papers · 12.3× the field average
- Impact
- Top 10% most cited in its field
- References
- 54 works
- Access
- Open access (hybrid journal) · CC-BY-NC-ND
- Research areas
- Ophthalmology and Visual Impairment Studies · Retinopathy of Prematurity Studies · Corneal surgery and disorders
- Keywords
- Medicine, Randomized controlled trial, Ophthalmology, Internal medicine
- MeSH
- humans, myopia, degenerative, disease progression, tomography, optical coherence, refraction, ocular, treatment outcome, phototherapy, follow-up studies, single-blind method, visual acuity, child, female, male, axial length, eye
13 authors
From CN
- Guihua LiuTianjin Medical University Eye Hospital; Tianjin Medical University
- Lin LiuTianjin Medical University Eye Hospital; Tianjin Medical University
- Hua RongTianjin Medical University Eye Hospital; Tianjin Medical University
- Li LiBeijing Children’s Hospital
- Xuan LiuBeijing Tsinghua Chang Gung Hospital
- Zhiyang JiaHospital of Hebei Province; Hebei General Hospital
Abstract
Purpose
To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of repeated low-level red-light (RLRL) in delaying the progression of high myopes with -6.00 diopters (D) or worse.
Design
Multicenter, randomized, parallel-group, single-blind clinical trial. A total of 202 high myopic children aged 7 to 12 years with cycloplegia spherical equivalent (SE) refraction ≤-6.00 D, astigmatism less than 2.50 D, and anisometropia of 1.50 D or less were enrolled from March 2022 to December 2022. Follow-up was completed in December 2023.
Methods
Eligible participants were randomly allocated to the intervention (RLRL + single vision spectacle) or the control group (single vision spectacle). The RLRL treatment was administered every day for 3 minutes, twice a day, with an interval of at least 4 hours. The primary outcome was the change in axial length (AL) at 12 months compared with baseline. Secondary outcomes included changes in SE, changes in choroidal thickness (ChT), and changes in retinal thickness (RT) in different circle sectors. Outcomes were analyzed by means of intention-to-treat and per-protocol methods.
Results
After 12 months of treatment, AL and SE changes were -0.11 ± 0.25 mm and 0.18 ± 0.63 D for the RLRL group and 0.32 ± 0.09 mm and -0.80 ± 0.42 D for the control group, respectively. Axial shortening >0.05 mm was 59% in the RLRL and 0% in the control group at 12 months. ChT and RT from a single center were analyzed. In the RLRL group, ChT was thickened in all sectors at 12 months. RT was increased in parafoveal and perifoveal circles. In the control group, all sectors of ChT and only perifoveal RT were significantly thinner at 12 months. The multivariate linear regression model revealed significant correlations between changes in the ChT central foveal circle and RT perifoveal circle at 1 month and AL changes at 12 months. No fundus structure changes, afterimage exceeding 6 minutes, or best-corrected visual acuity decrease were reported.
Conclusions
RLRL could effectively shorten the AL and inhibit the progression of myopia in high myopic patients with -6.00 D or worse. AL shortening is sustained over 12 months of treatment. These observed changes appeared to be associated with increases in ChT and RT.
Abstract via Europe PMC. Copyright remains with the authors or publisher (CC BY-NC-ND).
Community trust
Loading…
How much do you trust this study's findings?
Comments
Sign in to rate, comment on or flag this study.Sign inSomething wrong here?
Flag this study if its information, labels or funding look wrong. An editor reviews every flag.
Sign in to rate, comment on or flag this study.Sign inEducational information about published research. Not medical advice, and not a recommendation to start or stop anything.