Essilor Stellest 2.0 Lenses Show Early Myopia-Control Effects in Children, With Longer-Term Data Supporting Original Lens
Publication date: October 21, 2026
Product: Essilor Stellest 2.0 spectacle lenses featuring highly aspherical lenslet target (HALT) Max technology
Research presented at: European Society of Cataract and Refractive Surgeons (ESCRS) meeting, London
Funding: EssilorLuxottica funded the studies described in the report.
1-Minute Summary
Children wearing Essilor Stellest 2.0 spectacle lenses for 6 months experienced less myopia progression and axial elongation than children wearing single-vision lenses, according to interim results from a randomized, double-masked clinical trial conducted in China and reported by EssilorLuxottica.
The company reported that children wearing Stellest 2.0 had 0.51 diopters (D) less myopia progression and 0.21 mm less axial elongation than children wearing single-vision lenses after 6 months. These changes were described as comparable in magnitude to the treatment effects previously reported after 1 year of wearing the original Essilor Stellest lenses in a separate Chinese study.
Additional 2-year findings for the original Stellest lenses came from a randomized study involving 159 children across nine US sites. Compared with single-vision lens wearers, children wearing the original Stellest lenses had 0.64 D less myopia progression and 0.24 mm less axial elongation at 2 years. The reported benefit was greatest among children aged 6 to 8 years, who experienced 1.03 D less myopia progression, corresponding to an 87% reduction relative to the comparison group.
The findings support further investigation of spectacle-based myopia management in children. However, the 6-month Stellest 2.0 results are interim, company-reported findings, and the newer lens had not been cleared by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), according to the report. Results from separate studies should not be interpreted as proof that Stellest 2.0 is twice as effective as the original lens.
Why This Matters
Myopia, or nearsightedness, develops when the eyeโs optical system causes distant objects to appear blurred. In children, myopia may progress as the eye grows, increasing the likelihood of more substantial refractive error later in life.
Conventional single-vision spectacles correct blurred vision but are not specifically designed to slow the progression of myopia. Spectacle lenses developed for myopia management aim to provide visual correction while also influencing the signals involved in eye growth.
The reported findings are relevant to eye care professionals who counsel families about myopia management. The early results for Stellest 2.0 suggest that a newer lens design may produce measurable changes in refractive progression and axial elongation within 6 months. The 2-year results for the original Stellest lens provide additional information about the persistence of treatment effects over a longer period.
Nevertheless, the findings arise from different studies with different populations and follow-up periods. Clinicians should consider the full evidence, the childโs age and rate of progression, the availability and regulatory status of treatment options, and the need for ongoing monitoring.
Study at a Glance
| Feature | Stellest 2.0 study | Original Stellest study |
|---|---|---|
| Study type | Interim results from a randomized, double-masked clinical trial | Randomized clinical study |
| Location | China | United States |
| Participants | Sample size not provided in the supplied report | 159 children across 9 US sites |
| Intervention | Essilor Stellest 2.0 lenses with HALT Max technology | Original Essilor Stellest spectacle lenses |
| Comparator | Single-vision spectacle lenses | Single-vision spectacle lenses |
| Follow-up reported | 6 months | 2 years |
| Myopia progression finding | 0.51 D less progression than with single-vision lenses | 0.64 D less progression than with single-vision lenses at 2 years |
| Axial elongation finding | 0.21 mm less axial elongation than with single-vision lenses | 0.24 mm less axial elongation than with single-vision lenses at 2 years |
| Wear schedule reported | Not provided in the supplied report | At least 10 hours daily on at least 6 days per week |
| Additional age-specific result | Not provided | Children aged 6โ8 years had 1.03 D less myopia progression, corresponding to an 87% reduction |
| Regulatory status | Not FDA-cleared, according to the report | The supplied report does not detail the productโs regulatory status in every jurisdiction |
| Funding | EssilorLuxottica | EssilorLuxottica |
| Publication status | Interim findings presented at a company symposium; complete paper not provided | Study reported as published in JAMA Ophthalmology |
What the Researchers Found
1. Stellest 2.0 showed measurable effects after 6 months
According to an EssilorLuxottica press release, the interim results from a randomized, double-masked clinical trial conducted in China showed that children wearing Stellest 2.0 lenses had less myopia progression and less axial elongation than children wearing single-vision spectacles.
| Outcome at 6 months | Reported difference favoring Stellest 2.0 |
|---|---|
| Myopia progression | 0.51 D less |
| Axial elongation | 0.21 mm less |
Myopia progression is commonly assessed through changes in refractive error, expressed in diopters. Axial elongation refers to an increase in the length of the eye and is an important structural measure in childhood myopia.
The reported differences suggest that the Stellest 2.0 lens design may help slow both refractive progression and eye growth over the first 6 months of use. However, the supplied news report does not include the trialโs sample size, baseline characteristics, confidence intervals, exact P values, or detailed adverse-event findings.
2. The 6-month Stellest 2.0 results were compared with 1-year findings for the original lens
In a separate study conducted in China, children wearing the original Essilor Stellest lenses had 0.53 D less myopia progression and 0.23 mm less axial elongation after 1 year than children wearing single-vision lenses.
| Outcome | Stellest 2.0 at 6 months | Original Stellest at 1 year |
|---|---|---|
| Difference in myopia progression | 0.51 D less | 0.53 D less |
| Difference in axial elongation | 0.21 mm less | 0.23 mm less |
The numerical differences are similar, leading the company to describe the newer lensโs treatment effect as occurring more rapidly.
Yang Xiao, the principal investigator and a professor at Zhongshan Ophthalmic Center at Sun Yat-sen University in China, said:
โThe treatment response appears to be effectively twice as fast.โ
Xiao added:
โThese findings add important clinical evidence from China to the global body of research on HALT Max technology.โ
These comments reflect the investigatorsโ interpretation of the findings. Because the results came from separate studies with different follow-up durations, the numerical similarity does not establish that Stellest 2.0 is twice as effective or that its benefit is directly comparable under identical conditions.
Davide Schinetti, chief operating officer and research and development officer at EssilorLuxottica, also described the results as encouraging:
โThe magnitude and speed of the treatment response observed at 6 months are very encouraging and have not been previously observed across our Stellest clinical research ever.โ
The 6-month findings remain interim results reported through a company announcement and conference presentation.
3. The original Stellest lens showed a treatment effect at 2 years
Longer-term evidence for the original Stellest lens was reported in a study published in JAMA Ophthalmology. The study enrolled 159 children across nine US sites and randomly assigned them to wear either single-vision lenses or original Essilor Stellest lenses.
Children assigned to the Stellest group were instructed to wear the lenses for at least 10 hours per day on at least 6 days per week.
At 2 years, the Stellest group had less myopia progression and less axial elongation than the single-vision group.
| Outcome at 2 years | Difference favoring original Stellest lenses |
|---|---|
| Myopia progression | 0.64 D less |
| Axial elongation | 0.24 mm less |
These results provide longer-term evidence for the original lens. They do not establish that Stellest 2.0 produces the same 2-year outcomes, because the report provides only interim 6-month findings for the newer lens.
4. Children aged 6 to 8 years had the greatest reported benefit
The 2-year study of the original Stellest lenses found a particularly large difference among children aged 6 to 8 years.
| Outcome in children aged 6โ8 years | Reported finding |
|---|---|
| Difference in myopia progression versus single-vision lenses | 1.03 D less |
| Reported relative reduction in myopia progression | 87% |
Jason Shen, PhD, director of vision science research at EssilorLuxottica and a study author, emphasized the importance of managing myopia early:
โBecause younger children typically experience faster progression and face a greater risk of developing higher levels of myopia, this finding reinforces the clinical importance of initiating myopia management early.โ
The age-specific result supports careful assessment of myopia progression in younger children. However, the supplied report does not provide the subgroupโs sample size or confidence interval, so the precision of this estimate cannot be assessed from the news article alone.
5. The findings support active management rather than correction alone
Shen summarized the broader implication of the research by stating that:
โmyopia in children can be actively managed rather than simply correctedโ
He also described HAL spectacle lenses as a noninvasive option:
โHAL lenses provide eye care professionals with a familiar, noninvasive spectacle-based option that can be considered as part of an individualized approach to childhood myopia management.โ
Shen emphasized that:
โRegular eye examinations and appropriate monitoring remain important throughout treatment.โ
These comments reinforce the distinction between correcting a childโs current refractive error and attempting to slow future progression. The reported findings do not mean that every child with myopia requires the same intervention; management should be individualized.
Clinical Significance
The reported findings add to the evidence supporting spectacle-based approaches to childhood myopia management.
For eye care professionals, the 6-month Stellest 2.0 results suggest that measurable differences in refractive progression and axial elongation may be detectable within a relatively short period. The 2-year original Stellest findings provide additional evidence that the treatment effect can persist over longer follow-up.
However, the clinical meaning of these results depends on the study methods, baseline progression rates, adherence, age, and the magnitude and precision of the treatment differences. The company-reported comparisons between Stellest 2.0 at 6 months and the original lens at 1 year should not be interpreted as a direct head-to-head comparison.
The newer lensโs regulatory status is also important. The report states that Stellest 2.0 had not been cleared by the FDA. Clinicians should verify current local regulatory status and product labeling before considering clinical use.
What Doctors Should Know
-
Distinguish the two lens versions: The 6-month findings concern Stellest 2.0, whereas the 2-year findings concern the original Stellest lens.
-
Interpret cross-study comparisons cautiously: Similar numerical differences at different time points do not prove that the newer lens works twice as fast.
-
Assess progression individually: Age, baseline refractive error, prior progression, and adherence are relevant when discussing myopia management.
-
Monitor refractive error and eye growth: Regular eye examinations help clinicians assess whether a management strategy is appropriate and whether progression continues.
-
Discuss the evidence accurately: The Stellest 2.0 results were interim findings reported through a company release and symposium presentation.
-
Check regulatory status: According to the supplied report, Stellest 2.0 had not been FDA-cleared at the time of publication.
-
Consider potential conflicts of interest: EssilorLuxottica funded the studies described in the report, and Jason Shen is employed by the company as director of vision science research.
-
Avoid extrapolating long-term outcomes: The original lensโs 2-year findings cannot automatically be applied to Stellest 2.0 without longer-term data for the newer design.
Limitations
Several limitations should be considered when interpreting the findings.
-
Interim data for Stellest 2.0: The newer lens results cover 6 months, and the supplied report does not provide complete trial results or longer-term follow-up.
-
Missing sample size and statistical details: The number of participants in the Stellest 2.0 trial, confidence intervals, exact P values, baseline characteristics, and detailed adverse-event results were not provided.
-
Comparison across separate studies: The reported comparison between Stellest 2.0 at 6 months and the original lens at 1 year involves different studies and cannot establish comparative superiority.
-
Industry funding: EssilorLuxottica funded the studies described in the report. Industry funding does not automatically invalidate the results, but independent replication and transparent reporting are important.
-
Limited detail on safety and adherence: The supplied article does not provide a full account of adverse events, adherence rates, or discontinuations in the Stellest 2.0 study.
-
Limited generalizability: The Stellest 2.0 interim findings came from a trial conducted in China, whereas the 2-year original-lens study involved children at nine US sites. Differences in population and study conditions may affect how results translate across settings.
-
Regulatory uncertainty: Stellest 2.0 had not been FDA-cleared according to the report. Its current regulatory status should be verified before making product-specific clinical recommendations.
Original Research / DOI
Stellest 2.0 study: Interim results from a randomized, double-masked clinical trial conducted in China. The results were presented during a company symposium at the European Society of Cataract and Refractive Surgeons meeting in London.
Original Stellest study: A randomized study involving 159 children across nine US sites, reported as published in JAMA Ophthalmology.
DOI: Not provided.
Funding and disclosures: EssilorLuxottica funded the studies. Jason Shen reported his role as director of vision science research at EssilorLuxottica. The complete study papers should be consulted for the full author disclosures, trial methods, sample sizes, confidence intervals, and safety results.
Bottom Line
Interim findings suggest that children wearing Essilor Stellest 2.0 lenses experienced less myopia progression and axial elongation after 6 months than children wearing single-vision spectacles. Separate 2-year findings for the original Stellest lens also showed sustained differences favoring the myopia-control lenses, with the largest reported benefit among children aged 6 to 8 years.
The findings support continued research into spectacle-based myopia management. However, the two lens versions were evaluated in separate studies, the Stellest 2.0 results remain interim, and the newer lens had not been FDA-cleared according to the report. Larger, fully reported and longer-term studies are needed to clarify the magnitude, durability, safety, and generalizability of the newer lensโs effects.
ย
