Purpose Alpha-adrenergic receptors (ARs) may potentially play a critical role in controlling myopia, with subtype-specific signalling pathways mediating distinct effects. This study systematically investigated the efficacy of three subtype-specific pharmacological agents in myopia control and dose–response relationships in lens-induced myopia (LIM) chick models. Methods White Leghorn chicks were randomised to a phosphate-buffered saline (PBS) control group or treated groups receiving metaraminol (α1-AR agonist), lofexidine (α2-AR agonist) or cirazoline (a dual α1‑AR agonist and α2‑AR antagonist) at low (3 nmol), medium (30 nmol) or high (300 nmol) doses. A −10 D single-vision lens was fitted to the right eye for 7 days to induce myopia, with intravitreal injections administered at baseline and on days 2, 4 and 6. Natural ocular recovery was allowed for another 7 days. Interocular differences (IOD) in spherical equivalent refraction (SER) and ocular biometrics were compared. Results After 7 days of lens wear, all drug groups exhibited lower myopia progression than the control group. Lofexidine showed potent and consistent myopia-inhibiting effects. The IOD in SER, vitreous chamber depth (VCD) and axial length (AL) were significantly reduced at three doses compared with PBS control (all p < 0.05). Metaraminol and cirazoline exhibited significant efficacy mainly at medium and high doses. All three α-AR modulators alleviated choroidal thinning at both 30 and 300 nmol doses. During recovery, all treatment groups trended toward emmetropia, without significant differences from the PBS group. Conclusions This first head-to-head in vivo comparison of three subtypes of α-AR modulators in the chick LIM model demonstrates the potent myopia-suppressive effects of α2-AR agonist lofexidine at low dose. α1-AR agonist metaraminol required a distinct threshold dose to achieve efficacy and blockade of α2-AR with cirazoline may counteract anti-myopic protection. These findings provide crucial subtype-specific preclinical insights for the rational development of future drugs for myopia.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Uddin et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: