Regional/ethnic differences in ocular axial elongation and refractive error progression in myopic and non‐myopic children.

Aim Methods Results Conclusions To determine the regional and ethnic differences in ocular axial elongation and refractive error progression in myopic and non‐myopic children.A retrospective analysis of 15 longitudinal clinical and population‐based studies was conducted in the UK, Sweden, Australia (classified as European), China, and Vietnam (classified as East Asian) between 2005 and 2021. A total of 14,593 data points from 6208 participants aged 6–16 years with spherical equivalent from +6 to −6 D were analysed. Progression was annualised from longitudinal axial length and cycloplegic spherical equivalent (SE) refraction. Generalised estimating equation models including main effects and interactions were used for model building. Age and region‐specific estimates for myopes and non‐myopes and confidence intervals are reported.Factors affecting axial elongation and SE progression in children included being myopic, followed by age, region/ethnicity and sex. The magnitude of regional/ethnic differences was dependent on myopia and age. Axial elongation and SE progression were lower in European compared with East Asian children, but differences were reduced with increasing age and differences in axial elongation were larger in myopes than non‐myopes. Age‐specific regional/ethnic differences indicated that axial elongation for a 6‐year‐old East Asian myopic child was greater than a European child by 0.15 mm/year (0.58 vs. 0.43 mm/year) and by 0.09 mm/year (0.35 vs. 0.26 mm/year) for a 10‐year‐old myope. SE progression was lower in a 6‐year‐old European myope by 0.48 D/year and at 10 years of age by 0.34 D/year compared with an East Asian myope.There are regional/ethnic differences in age‐specific refractive and axial growth patterns in both myopic and non‐myopic eyes, with more marked differences in younger East Asian children who demonstrated a higher axial growth and greater negative SE shift than their non‐Asian peers. Regional/ethnic differences in progression reflect environmental and ethnic variations. Age and region/ethnicity‐specific estimates could contribute as a reference for future comparisons. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]