SIGNIFICANCE: Identifying children at highest risk for rapid myopia progression and/or rapid axial elongation could help prioritize who should receive clinical treatment or be enrolled in randomized clinical trials. Our models suggest that these goals are difficult to accomplish. PURPOSE: This study aimed to develop models predicting future refractive error and axial length using children's baseline data and history of myopia progression and axial elongation. METHODS: Models predicting refractive error and axial length were created using randomly assigned training and test data sets from 916 myopic participants in the Collaborative Longitudinal Evaluation of Ethnicity and Refractive Error Study. Subjects were 7 to 14 years of age at study entry with three consecutive annual visits that included cycloplegic A-scan ultrasound and autorefraction. The effect of adding prior change in axial length and refractive error was evaluated for each model. RESULTS: Age, ethnicity, and greater myopia were significant predictors of future refractive error and axial length, whereas prior progression or elongation, near work, time outdoors, and parental myopia were not. The 95% limits for the difference between actual and predicted change were ±0.22 D and ±0.14 mm without prior change data compared with ±0.26 D and ±0.16 mm with prior change data. Sensitivity and specificity for identifying fast progressors were between 60.8 and 63.2%, respectively, when the cut points were close to the sample average. Positive predictive value and sample yield were even lower when the cut points were more extreme. CONCLUSIONS: Young, more myopic Asian American children in the Collaborative Longitudinal Evaluation of Ethnicity and Refractive Error Study were the most likely to progress rapidly. Clinical trials should expect average progression rates that reflect sample demographics and may have difficulty recruiting generalizable samples that progress faster than that average. Knowing progression or elongation history does not seem to help the clinical decision regarding initiating myopia control.
SIGNIFICANCE: Identifying children at highest risk for rapid myopia progression and/or rapid axial elongation could help prioritize who should receive clinical treatment or be enrolled in randomized clinical trials. Our models suggest that these goals are difficult to accomplish. PURPOSE: This study aimed to develop models predicting future refractive error and axial length using children's baseline data and history of myopia progression and axial elongation. METHODS: Models predicting refractive error and axial length were created using randomly assigned training and test data sets from 916 myopic participants in the Collaborative Longitudinal Evaluation of Ethnicity and Refractive Error Study. Subjects were 7 to 14 years of age at study entry with three consecutive annual visits that included cycloplegic A-scan ultrasound and autorefraction. The effect of adding prior change in axial length and refractive error was evaluated for each model. RESULTS: Age, ethnicity, and greater myopia were significant predictors of future refractive error and axial length, whereas prior progression or elongation, near work, time outdoors, and parental myopia were not. The 95% limits for the difference between actual and predicted change were ±0.22 D and ±0.14 mm without prior change data compared with ±0.26 D and ±0.16 mm with prior change data. Sensitivity and specificity for identifying fast progressors were between 60.8 and 63.2%, respectively, when the cut points were close to the sample average. Positive predictive value and sample yield were even lower when the cut points were more extreme. CONCLUSIONS: Young, more myopic Asian American children in the Collaborative Longitudinal Evaluation of Ethnicity and Refractive Error Study were the most likely to progress rapidly. Clinical trials should expect average progression rates that reflect sample demographics and may have difficulty recruiting generalizable samples that progress faster than that average. Knowing progression or elongation history does not seem to help the clinical decision regarding initiating myopia control.
Authors: Leslie Donovan; Padmaja Sankaridurg; Arthur Ho; Thomas Naduvilath; Earl L Smith; Brien A Holden Journal: Optom Vis Sci Date: 2012-01 Impact factor: 1.973
Authors: Daniel Kurtz; Leslie Hyman; Jane E Gwiazda; Ruth Manny; Li Ming Dong; Ying Wang; Mitchell Scheiman Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2007-02 Impact factor: 4.799
Authors: Lisa A Jones; Loraine T Sinnott; Donald O Mutti; Gladys L Mitchell; Melvin L Moeschberger; Karla Zadnik Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2007-08 Impact factor: 4.799
Authors: Jeffrey J Walline; Maria K Walker; Donald O Mutti; Lisa A Jones-Jordan; Loraine T Sinnott; Amber Gaume Giannoni; Katherine M Bickle; Krystal L Schulle; Alex Nixon; Gilbert E Pierce; David A Berntsen Journal: JAMA Date: 2020-08-11 Impact factor: 56.272