ARVO2025 Recap #4 - Models of eye growth

Authors: Sander Kneepkens¹^,², Gareth Lingham³^,⁴, Dirk Jan van Hemert¹^,², Jan Roelof Polling¹, Willem Tideman¹^,⁵, James Loughman⁴, Niall C. Strang⁶, Weizhong Lan⁷^,⁸, Jeremy Guggenheim⁹, Kathryn Saunders¹⁰, Seang-Mei Saw¹¹, Siofra Christine Harrington⁴, Laura Guisasola¹², Amanda French¹³, Rigmor C. Baraas¹⁴, David A. Mackey³, Jason Yam¹⁵, Olavi Pärssinen¹⁶, Caroline C. W. Klaver¹¹^,¹⁷, Ian Flitcroft⁴^,¹⁸

1. Ophthalmology, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, Zuid Holland, Netherlands
2. The Generation R study group, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, Zuid Holland, Netherlands
3. Centre for Ophthalmology and Visual Science, University of Western Australia, Perth, Western Australia, Australia
4. Centre for Eye Research Ireland, Technological University Dublin, Dublin, Ireland
5. Ophthalmology, St. Martini Hospital, Groningen, Groningen, Netherlands
6. Department of Vision Sciences, Glasgow Caledonian University, Glasgow, Glasgow, United Kingdom
7. Aier Academy of Ophthalmology, Central South University, Changsha, Hunan, China
8. Aier School of Optometry and Vision Science, Hubei University of Science and Technology, Xianning, China
9. School of Optometry & Vision Sciences, Cardiff University, Cardiff, Cardiff, United Kingdom
10. Centre for Optometry and Vision Science, Ulster University, Coleraine, Coleraine, United Kingdom
11. Saw Swee Hock School of Public Health, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore
12. Department of Optics and Optometry, Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya, Terrassa, Catalunya, Spain
13. Discipline of Orthoptics, University of Technology Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
14. National Centre for Optics, Vision and Eye Care, University of South-Eastern Norway, Kongsberg, Norway
15. Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China
16. Gerontology Research Centre and Faculty of Sport and Health Sciences, University of Jyväskylä, Jyvaskyla, Finland
17. Department of Ophthalmology, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, Gelderland, Netherlands
18. Temple Street Children's Hospital, Dublin, Ireland

This study aimed to develop region- and gender-specific reference growth charts for axial length using global data from the CREAM-KIDS consortium. Data from 172,788 children and young adults across 16 cohorts were analysed, incorporating cross-sectional and longitudinal measurements from Asia, Europe, and Australia. Mean axial length increased with age and was consistently higher in males; for example, Asian male values ranged from 22.32 mm (age 0–5) to 24.86 mm (age 15–20), while European females ranged from 22.28 mm to 23.80 mm (age 5–30). The study provided comprehensive axial length growth charts that account for regional and sex differences, and improve the ability to distinguish normal from excessive eye growth.

[Link to abstract]

Authors:
Kristen L Kerber¹, Raymond T Kraker², Catherine Jordan³, Magdalena Stec⁴, Katherine K Weise⁵, Michael X Repka⁶, Safal Khanal⁵, Danielle L Chandler², Wesley T Beaulieu², Stacy L Pineles⁷, Jonathan M Holmes⁸, Susan A Cotter⁹

1. New England College of Optometry, Boston, Massachusetts, United States
2. Jaeb Center for Health Research, Tampa, Florida, United States
3. Nationwide Children's Hospital, Columbus, Ohio, United States
4. Division of Ophthalmology, Ann & Robert H. Lurie Children's Hospital of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois, United States
5. The University of Alabama at Birmingham School of Optometry, Birmingham, Alabama, United States
6. Johns Hopkins Medicine Wilmer Eye Institute, Baltimore, Maryland, United States
7. University of California Los Angeles Jules Stein Eye Institute, Los Angeles, California, United States
8. Ophthalmology and Vision Science, University of Arizona-Tucson, Tucson, Arizona, United States
9. Southern California College of Optometry, Fullerton, California, United States

Based on a previous randomized clinical trial which followed myopic children (n=187) aged 5-12 years for 30 months, a pooled analysis was performed to evaluate whether baseline demographic and clinical factors were associated with a change in astigmatism. Over 30 months, astigmatism increased by a mean of 0.28D, with greater increases in eyes that were more myopic at baseline (+0.35D for moderate myopia vs +0.23D for low myopia). Eyes with against-the-rule astigmatism showed the smallest change (+0.04D). The modest changes in astigmatism suggest that more frequent examinations - beyond those required to monitor myopia progression, are not warranted.

[Link to abstract]

Authors:
Mark A Bullimore¹, Xu Cheng², Monica Jong², Alex Nixon², Noel A Brennan²

1. College of Optometry, University of Houston, Houston, Texas, United States
2. Johnson & Johnson MedTech, Jacksonville, Florida, United States

Axial length centile growth curves developed in context of the rising prevalence of myopia have not yet been evaluated in detail with regards to how well they represent emmetropic and myopic eye growth, and assist in monitoring myopia progression. A literature review identified 6 published centile growth charts and compared them with modelled trajectories for emmetropic and myopic eyes using a representative set of baseline axial lengths. While centile curves reflected emmetropic growth at lower percentiles, they underestimated axial elongation in myopic eyes - even at higher percentiles. To avoid potential mismanagement, treatment efficacy should be assessed on the basis of published models of myopic eye growth.

[Link to abstract]

Authors:
Noel A Brennan¹, Xu Cheng¹, Monica Jong¹, Alex Nixon¹, Mark A Bullimore²

1. Johnson & Johnson MedTech, New Brunswick, New Jersey, United States
2. Optometry, University of Houston, Houston, Texas, United States

To improve understanding of myopia control treatment efficacy, researchers conducted an investigation to estimate the proportion of children receiving myopia treatment who still exhibit axial elongation greater than the mean of age-matched controls. Data sourced from 32 clinical trials of myopia control interventions was used to estimate the proportion of treated subjects with excessive axial elongation. The model found that with 1-year efficacy values of 0.10, 0.15, 0.20, and 0.25mm; 26%, 17%, 11%, and 7% of treated individuals, respectively, still exceeded the control group mean for axial elongation. The authors suggests this variability reflects the absolute nature of myopia control efficacy and natural differences in progression rates, rather than treatment failure.

[Link to abstract]