We would like to thank Dr Sharma and his associates for their interest in our paper. We also appreciate them for noticing the typographical errors in our paper. They noted that the logMAR values reported in Table 5 should have been written as positive numbers. The absolute values of these numbers are all correct and the confusion on our part occurred because we had followed a paper by Dr Holladay; in that paper (Table 1), logMAR values are also reported as negative numbers. Therefore, this will not affect our conclusion.

We compared manifest refraction between the 2 arms in different follow-up visits. As stated under Follow-up examinations , “All measurements were carried out by 1 optometrist, who was masked to the randomization list, with the same devices throughout the study.”

The effect of chronic use of topical beta-adrenergic blockers in patients with reversible airways disease is controversial. Although it has been reported that acute administration of timolol in patients with asthma leads to a drop in FEV1 compared to placebo, such an effect was not observed in long-term use of beta-adrenergic blockers in patients with reversible airway disease. It has been suggested that such observed differences may be attributable to upregulation of β2 receptors during chronic treatment. However, it is better to use caution when administering topical beta-adrenergic blockers to patients with reversible airway disease. We did not have any patients with any systemic diseases such as asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, or cardiovascular disease who may be at risk for such side effects. Although administration of timolol might be associated with behavioral changes, it was not the purpose of our study to investigate such effects and these are best done in large studies with enough sample sizes. As we stated in our limitation paragraph, topical therapy, especially in the long term, is not without potential side effects; and as with all pharmacologic therapy in medicine, one must always weigh the risks vs benefits.

As we stated in our limitation paragraph, we totally agree that serial elevation topography would have strengthened our hypothesis. As we have mentioned in the discussion, another clinical trial with control-matched postsurgical patients without myopic regression and with the evaluation of the keratometric changes as well as the posterior corneal forward shift in 2 parallel groups is necessary to assess the proposed hypothesis.

As we mentioned in the paper, we performed topography on all eligible patients (n = 124; Figure 1) to exclude any keratoconus, ectatic corneal disorder, and keratoconus suspect. That is one of the reasons that we excluded 22 eligible patients. Dr Sharma and his associates surely know that there are numerous reasons that may cause best-corrected distance visual acuity to be less than 20/20.

Once again, we thank Dr Sharma and his associates for their interest and compliments.