Visual performance of single-vision contact lenses utilizing opaque, nonrefractive features for potential myopia management

SIGNIFICANCE: Contact lenses (CLs) utilizing opaque, nonrefractive features may purposefully modulate retinal ganglion cell activity away from the baseline activity. This is a nonrefractive mechanism that may reduce myopia progression. However, the visual performance of CLs with opaque features is unknown. PURPOSE: This study aimed to compare the visual performance and binocular/accommodative function of CLs with opaque features (test) against MiSight (control-1) and single-vision (control-2) CLs. METHODS: This was a prospective, randomized, unmasked, cross-over study where 35 myopic CL wearers (18 to 39 years) wore each design for at least 5 days. Visual performance was subjectively assessed using 1 to 10 numeric ratings comprising clarity of vision, lack of ghosting, vision when driving, overall vision satisfaction, and willingness to purchase (yes/no: based on vision and myopia efficacy). Visual acuity measurements comprised monocular and binocular high and low contrast visual acuity at 6 m, and binocular high contrast visual acuity at 70 and 40 cm. Binocular function was assessed using heterophorias at 3 m and 40 cm. Accommodative function was assessed using monocular accommodative facility (MAF) at 40 cm and dynamic monocular accommodative response (AR: 6 m, 70 cm, and 40 cm). RESULTS: Test was rated higher than control-1 (p<0.001) and control-2 was rated higher than test (p≤0.0052) for all subjective ratings. More participants were willing to purchase test compared with control-1 for vision and myopia efficacy (p<0.001), while there was no difference between test and control-2 for either question (p>0.7). Both controls were better than test for all acuity-based measurements (p≤0.0013). MAF at 40 cm was better with test compared with control-1 (p=0.010) and not different to control-2 (p>0.99). AR was higher with test than both controls at 70 cm (p<0.0001), higher than control-1 at 40 cm (p<0.0001), and not different to control-2 at 40 cm (p=0.12). There were no differences between CLs for AR at 6 m or heterophorias at 3 m or 40 cm (p>0.1). CONCLUSIONS: Compared with control-1, the test offered better visual performance, a higher proportion of participants willing to purchase, and better MAF. Compared with control-2, the test offered worse visual performance, but the proportion of participants willing to purchase was not different, and accommodative function was comparable.