A 12-month prospective clinical trial of comfilcon A silicone-hydrogel contact lenses worn on a 30-day continuous wear basis.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the clinical performance of comfilcon A (Biofinity) during 12 months of continuous wear compared to other silicone-hydrogel lenses. METHOD: Forty-five subjects were fitted in one eye with the comfilcon A (test) lens. For 22 subjects, the other eye was fitted with lotrafilcon A (group A) and for the remaining 23 subjects the other eye was fitted with balafilcon A (group B). Twelve-month data are presented on 48 measured variables. RESULTS: There were no serious adverse events during the course of the study. A total of 33 subjects completed the study, with only 4 discontinuations for lens-related reasons, spread proportionately between the lenses. On preference scales, the test lens was superior to both control lenses for comfort (p<0.05) and overall preference (p<0.05) and in group A for vision (p<0.05). On grading scales, the test lens scored better than both control lenses for overall comfort (p<0.1 for group A, p<0.05 for group B), comfort during the day (p<0.05), end-of-day comfort (p<0.05) and overall preference (p<0.05), and better in group A for general vision quality (p<0.01), night vision quality (p<0.01) and handling (p<0.05). All lenses performed to a comparable degree on the basis of microcysts and corneal staining. There were significant differences between lenses in producing limbal redness (p<0.05), bulbar conjunctival hyperemia (p<0.1) and conjunctival NaFl staining (p<0.01) with the control lens in group A showing the greatest effect and the control lens in group B the least. CONCLUSION: Comfilcon A offers performance advantages over first generation silicone-hydrogel materials for continuous wear.     

The effect of lens wear on refractive index of conventional hydrogel and silicone-hydrogel contact lenses: a comparative study.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this work was to evaluate the ability of four silicone-hydrogel contact lenses (galyfilcon A, balafilcon A, lotrafilcon A and lotrafilcon B) to retain their equilibrium water content before and after wear, through measurements of refractive index and compare with that of a conventional disposable hydrogel contact lens (etafilcon A). METHODS: The refractive indices of 115 contact lenses were measured using an automated refractometer (CLR 12-70, Index Instruments, Cambridge, U.K.) before and after a schedule of daily wear by 58 patients for 30 days in the case of silicone-hydrogel lenses and 15 days for the conventional contact lenses. RESULTS: In the silicone-hydrogel contact lenses the changes on the refractive indices were not statistically significant, however after being worn the refractive index of the conventional etalfilcon A hydrogel contact lens increased significantly (p<0.001). CONCLUSION: The results presented here show that after being worn the silicone-hydrogel contact lens, show more capacity to retain or to reach their initial equilibrium water content than conventional hydrogel contact lenses. This suggests that the silicone-hydrogel contact lenses are less susceptible to spoilation over time maintaining its biocompatibility and contributing to the clinical success of lens performance.     

Multi-centre evaluation of two daily disposable contact lenses.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the clinical performance of two daily disposable contact lenses: 1-DAY ACUVUE (1DA) (etafilcon A, Johnson & Johnson Vision Care) and FOCUS DAILIES with AquaComfort (FD) (nelfilcon A, CIBA Vision, Inc.), which contains a quickly released moisture enhancing agent, polyvinyl alcohol (PVA). METHODS: This was a 1-week, daily wear, subject-masked, bilateral, parallel group study with subjects randomly assigned to one of two daily disposable soft contact lenses. Subjects were existing soft contact lens wearers in the age range 18-39 years with a spherical refraction between -0.50 and -6.00 D. Subjects were assessed at baseline and after 1 week. Assessments included both subjective (symptoms, wearing time, vision) and objective (lens fit and ocular health) outcomes. RESULTS: Twenty clinical sites enrolled 282 subjects (74% female) of whom 276 (98%) successfully completed the study. Significantly more 1DA wearers reported higher mean comfort scores than with FD (3.95 versus 3.41, respectively, P<0.0001). End-of-day comfort means were also significantly higher with the 1DA group compared to the FD group (3.3 versus 3.0, P=0.03). The 1DA group reported significantly longer mean overall wearing time (1DA was worn on average 0.66+/-0.30 h longer than FD, P=0.03) and longer mean comfortable wearing time (1DA was worn on average 1.73+/-0.35 h longer than FD, P<0.0001). The 1DA lens generally showed significantly better on-eye fitting in terms of movement in primary (P<0.0001) and upgaze (P<0.0001) and ease of removal from the eye (92% versus 63%, P<0.0001) compared to FD. There was significantly less corneal staining observed with the 1DA wearing eyes compared with the FD wearing eyes (23% versus 45%, respectively, P<0.0001). Finally, there was a weak correlation between corneal staining and comfort for FD (r=0.27, P=0.002, n=136), but not for 1DA (r=-0.11, P=0.18, n=140). CONCLUSION: Subjective and objective clinical performance differences between two commonly used daily disposable lenses highlight that, although both lenses may be considered as clinically acceptable, these lenses should not be regarded as interchangeable.     

Clinical performance of daily disposable soft contact lenses using sustained release technology.

PURPOSE: Polyvinyl alcohol (PVA) is a successful tear film stabiliser and is widely used in comfort drops and some soft contact lens materials. A PVA-containing lens, nelfilcon A has been modified to include additional (non-functional) PVA in order to provide improved comfort. This study aims to examine the clinical performance of this nelfilcon A lens with AquaRelease (AquaRelease). METHODS: Two contralateral, investigator masked, open label, subjective and objective evaluations were conducted. The first examined the effect of adding increased molecular weight PVA to nelfilcon A (n=5), and the second compared this AquaRelease lens to ocufilcon B (n=34). The principal measures were non-invasive break-up time (NIBUT) and subjective comfort, which were assessed at the beginning and end of a week of daily wear, and three times throughout 1 day at 8, 12 and 16 h. RESULTS: All subjects successfully completed the daily wearing schedule of 16h. On initial insertion, subjective comfort and NIBUT improved for AquaRelease than original nelfilcon A lenses (p<0.05). Initial comfort was better for AquaRelease compared to ocufilcon B lenses (p=0.01); however, NIBUT was not statistically different (11.7+/-15.6s versus 8.4+/-6.8s; p=0.26). Subjective comfort decreased with time (p<0.001), but there was no significant difference between AquaRelease and ocufilcon B lenses (p=0.16). NIBUT was not significantly affected by time (p=0.56) or between lenses (p=0.33). At the end of a weeks' wear, subjective initial, end-of-day, overall comfort and vision were rated significantly better with AquaRelease than ocufilcon B (p<0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Release of additional non-functionalised PVA from the nelfilcon A lenses appears to enhance comfortable contact lens wear.     

Osmolality and buffering agents in soft contact lens packaging solutions.

AIM: The study determined the effects of packaging solution osmolality and buffering agent on soft contact lens parameters. METHODS: One lens type from each FDA contact lens material category was equilibrated to phosphate buffered saline (PBS) or borate buffered saline (BBS), at three osmolality concentrations: 270, 310 and 414 mOsmol/kg. Lens diameter (LD), base curve (BOZR) and back vertex power (BVP) were measured and compared to nominal packaging label values. RESULTS: Statistically significant differences were found in all three parameters across all osmolality levels for both buffering agents. Etafilcon A showed the largest amount of parameter change, followed by alphafilcon A and balafilcon A. Lotrafilcon A was the least affected. LD of alphafilcon A lenses (greater than +/- 0.2 mm) and BVP of lotrafilcon A and etafilcon A lenses (greater than +/- 0.25 D) measured outside the International Standards Organization (ISO) tolerance from their packaging labels when measured in solutions that mimicked their packaging solutions. CONCLUSION: Osmolality and buffering agents influence lens parameters. Packaging solutions can vary the parameters of some lens types from their nominal value to outside the tolerance range set by ISO.     

The influence of lens material and lens wear on the removal and viability of Staphylococcus epidermidis

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the influence of lens material and lens wear on the removal capability of Staphylococcus epidermidis. Assessment of viability of remaining adhered bacteria was another goal of this work. Four silicone hydrogel materials (galyfilcon A, balafilcon A, lotrafilcon A, lotrafilcon B) and one conventional hydrogel material (etafilcon A) were assayed. METHODS: Detachment studies on S. epidermidis were carried out in a parallel plate flow chamber. Contact lenses (CLs) were fitted to the bottom of the flow chamber and a bacterial suspension was perfused into the system, promoting bacterial adhesion. Afterwards, detachment was stimulated using a multipurpose solution (MPS, ReNu Multiplus) and the percentage of removed bacteria estimated through microscopic observation and enumeration. Remaining adhered bacteria were stained with propidium iodide (PI) and enumerated in order to assess their viability. Additionally, the worn lenses were observed by confocal laser scanning microscopy (CLSM) to visualize bacterial distribution along the lens surfaces. RESULTS: Bacterial removal was significant (p<0.05) for both unworn and worn galyfilcon A and etafilcon A. Galyfilcon A exhibited a detachment percentage of 59.1 and 63.5 while etafilcon A of 62.6 and 69.3, both for unworn and worn lenses, respectively. As far as bacterial viability is concerned, it was found that worn lenses exhibit a superior amount of non-viable bacteria than unworn CLs. Images obtained by CLSM revealed an irregular bacterial distribution for all lens materials. CONCLUSIONS: It appears that surface and/or bulk structure of the lens material affects removal of S. epidermidis while CL wear influences their viability.     

The use of daily disposable lenses in problematic reusable contact lens wearers

PurposeReplacing soft contact lenses (CLs) on a daily basis brings a number of advantages, most notably, reduced exposure to deposits, disinfectants, allergens, and other contaminants. This retrospective study estimated the prevalence of problems in current wearers of reusable soft CLs and tested the effect of refitting “problem” patients with daily disposable (DD) hydrogel lenses.MethodsPrevalence was estimated from 398 current reusable CL wearers for: frequent/constant discomfort or dryness, ≥2 h of uncomfortable wear, ≥grade 2 conjunctival hyperaemia (0–4), or ≥grade 3 corneal staining (0–15). In the second part of the study, 217 reusable CL wearers classified as problem patients were randomly refitted with DD lenses manufactured from one of two materials: etafilcon A (n = 96) or nelfilcon A (n = 121) and reassessed 1 week later.ResultsThirty-nine percent (154/398) had some qualifying criterion: reduced comfortable wearing time (CWT), 20%; dryness, 20%; irritation, 5%; corneal staining, 8%; and hyperaemia, 7%. After refitting with DDs, the prevalence of reduced CWT was decreased from 65% to 51% (P = 0.0039), dryness from 60% to 41% (P < 0.0001) and corneal staining from 28% to 21% (P = 0.04). There was no significant change in the prevalence of irritation, or hyperaemia. Some differences were noted between the two lens materials.ConclusionsA high proportion of reusable soft lens wearers encounter clinically relevant signs or symptoms with their current CLs. This study provides evidence that refitting with DD lenses is a useful strategy for alleviating some of the common problems of CL wear.     

Evaluation of daily disposable senofilcon A contact lenses in a symptomatic population

PurposeTo evaluate the comfort performance of ACUVUE OASYS® 1-Day with HydraLuxe? Technology among symptomatic contact lens wearers by using Contact Lens User Experience (CLUE) comfort scores and Contact Lens Dry Eye Questionnaire 8 (CLDEQ-8) discomfort and dryness scores.MethodsThree clinical trials evaluated comfort and dryness when refitting symptomatic contact lens wearers to ACUVUE OASYS® 1-Day with HydraLuxe? lenses. This analysis combined the CLUE comfort and CLDEQ-8 scores obtained at baseline and 2-week follow-up and compared average scores between visits. Subjects were grouped by habitual lens modality (daily disposable or daily wear reusable) and habitual lens material (silicone hydrogel or hydrogel). The analysis included data from 107 subjects.ResultsSignificant increases in mean CLUE comfort scores between baseline and 2–week follow-up occurred in all subject groups across habitual lens modality and material, indicating an improvement in overall comfort. CLUE comfort score improved clinically (≥5-point increase) among 75.7% of subjects (81/107). Similarly, significant decrease in mean CLDEQ-8 scores between baseline and 2-week follow-up occurred in all subject groups, indicating a decrease in the prevalence of dryness and discomfort symptoms. CLDEQ-8 score improved clinically (≥3-point reduction) among 82.2% of subjects (88/107). A majority of subjects (57.0%) became asymptomatic (CLDEQ-8 score ≤ 11 points) after 2 weeks of bilateral wear.ConclusionRefitting symptomatic contact lens patients to ACUVUE OASYS® 1-Day with HydraLuxe? can improve overall comfort and reduce symptoms of dryness and discomfort, irrespective of the previous lens modality or habitual lens material.     

The influence of water content of hydrogel contact lenses when fitting patients with 'tear film deficiency'.

THe fitting of patients presenting a deficient tear film with hydrogel contact lenses offers a challenge to the professional who must choose between materials having either a low or a high water content. Conflicting conclusions from previous studies concerning the better option led the authors to design a single-centre, double masked, clinical study. Twenty-six subjects deemed to have 'tear film deficiency' were fitted with a low water content hydrogel lens on one eye and a high water content one on the other eye. Each subject wore the lenses on a daily wear basis (about 10 hours a day) for 30 days. A detailed questionnaire about subjective considerations, such as comfort and ocular appearance, was completed by the subjects at the end of every day of contact lens wear. The data obtained from these questionnaires and those recorded at three follow-up visits led to the final conclusions. THe questionnaires showed no statistically significant difference between the two eyes in dryness sensation, redness, light sensitivity, blurred vision or overall comfort. During the follow-up visits, no observed sign showed a clinically significant difference between the two eyes. Accordingly, the authors conclude that the water content of hydrogel lens is not a key factor when fitting hydrogel lenses to patients with 'tear film deficiency'.     

Central thickness of hydrogel contact lenses as a predictor of success when fitting patients with tear deficiency.

A randomized, double masked, study was designed in order to investigate the relationship between the central thickness of hydrogel contact lenses and the overall comfort of patients with tear deficiency. To allow for statistical analysis, a thin lens was fitted in one eye and a thicker lens of the same characteristics in the contralateral eye. Subjects were asked to wear the lenses for 30 days on a normal daily wear basis and to graduate several factors such as comfort, dryness sensation, redness, photophobia, tearing, quality of vision and others. The results indicate that thicker lenses were preferred in terms of comfort, dryness sensation, photophobia and handling whereas thinner lenses were considered to give a better quality of vision. As a whole, thicker lenses were better tolerated by the patient. Central thickness was found to be of significant relevance when choosing a contact lens, especially when the tear film is deficient.     

Efficacy of two silicone-hydrogel contact lenses for bandage use after photorefractive keratectomy

PurposeTo evaluate the efficacy of two silicone hydrogel (SiH) contact lenses, approved for continuous wear for one week, following photorefractive keratectomy (PRK).MethodsForty seven myopic patients (94 eyes) undergone bilateral PRK were enrolled in this prospective, double-masked, comparative study. One eye of each patient was fitted with a Lotrafilcon B lens (Ciba Vision, Duluth, US; 30-day recommended replacement) whereas the fellow eye was fitted with an Asmofilcon A lens (Menicon, Nagoya, Japan; 14-day recommended replacement). Epithelial defect size was assessed using slit lamp biomicroscopy on the day of surgery and at days 1–4 post-operatively. Uncorrected and best-corrected visual acuity and retinal straylight (C-Quant, Oculus Optigerate, Germany) were evaluated pre-operatively and one month post-operatively.ResultsAverage epithelial defect size for Asmofilcon A and Lotrafilcon B was 25.5 ± 11.0 mm² vs. 27.1 ± 9.9 mm² at day 1 (p = 0.007) and 6.3 ± 7.0 mm² vs. 9.2 ± 9.5 mm² at day 2 (p = 0.012) post-operatively. Re-epithelialization at day 3 was completed in 87.2% of the eyes fitted with Asmofilcon A lenses, compared to 74.5% with Lotrafilcon B lenses (p = 0.012). At the 3rd post-operative day 29.8% of re-epithelialized eyes showed irregular suture with Lotrafilcon B, compared to 12.8% eyes with Asmofilcon A lenses (p < 0.001). Finally, no statistically significant differences were found post-operatively between the two lenses retinal straylight (p = 0.98) and best-corrected visual acuity (p = 0.68).ConclusionsSiH lenses can be used as an effective bandage after PRK due to the limited time requested for achieving complete corneal re-epithelialization. Faster and smoother epithelial healing is provided with Asmofilcon A over Lotrafilcon B lenses.     

Characterization of patients who report compliant and non-compliant overnight wear of soft contact lenses

Purpose

To describe compliant and non-compliant overnight wear (EW) of soft contact lenses from a large observational study.

Methods

A retrospective chart review of 3211 SCL patients with known EW status (aged 8–33 yrs, SCL power +8.00 to −12.00 D) captured data from 10,516 clinical visits (2006–2009). Status of EW was either daily wear (DW), compliant EW (overnight wear of US Food & Drug Administration (US FDA) EW-approved lenses), non-compliant EW (overnight wear of DW-approved lenses). The effect of demographic and clinical characteristics on the likelihood of reporting EW was examined using logistic regression. Additionally, the effect of these same characteristics on the likelihood of non-compliant EW was assessed with logistic models.

Results

Eight-hundred and eight patients (25.2%) reported EW. Non-compliant EW was reported by 6% of wearers (13 hydrogel, 2 silicone hydrogel brands) In multivariate models, patient age and lens replacement schedule were significant factors for EW (vs. DW) and for non-compliant (vs. compliant) EW (p < 0.0001). Other factors significantly related to EW were gender, smoking, lens material, sphere power, and years of CL wear (p ≤ 0.007, all).

Conclusions

Young people (ages 18–25 yrs), males, smokers, myopes, silicone hydrogel lens wearers and patients with >1 yr of CL wear were significantly more likely to report EW. Non-compliant EW occurred often in young people and daily disposable wearers, though many brands had non-compliant EW use. Understanding who is likely to wear EW and non-compliant EW will help clinicians pointedly counsel patients more at risk on best practices with EW.     

Randomized crossover trial of silicone hydrogel contact lenses

PurposeThe aim of the current study is to assess, using new technologies, the interaction of four monthly silicone hydrogel contact lenses on the ocular surface and the comfort over 15 days of use.MethodsProspective cross-over, randomized and double-masked study including four materials (lotrafilcon-B, samfilcon-A , comfilcon-A and filcom-V3). Clinical examination was performed in the following order: tear meniscus height, first break-up of the tear film, the average time of all tear film breakup incidents, bulbar redness, limbal redness (Keratograph 5M ,Oculus, Germany); central corneal thickness (Pentacam, Oculus, Germany), thermography values (FLIR A325; FLIR Systems Inc., USA), and slit-lamp evaluations, including ocular surface staining. Finally, subjective comfort was obtained from Contact Lens Dry Eye Questionnaire-8.ResultsThe impact of contact lens wear on the ocular surface didn’t show statistically significant changes over time except for corneal and conjunctival staining grades on day 15 compared to day 1 for the comfilcon A group (P = .003 and P = .01, respectively). Contact lens stability and impact on the ocular surface during contact lens wear didn’t show statistically significant changes over time except in the case of the comfilcon A material with respect to the irritation item (P = .01).ConclusionsThese results suggest that the impact of monthly silicone hydrogel contact lens materials on the ocular surface after and during contact lens wear, contact lens stability over time, and subjective comfort did not reveal any significant changes over 15 days of use for any of the materials.     

Exploring the factors which impact overall satisfaction with single vision contact lenses

PurposeTo explore the impact of subjective factors (lens handling, comfort and vision) on overall single vision contact lens satisfaction.MethodsCorrelation analysis of a prospective, randomised, double-masked, bilateral crossover study involving 55 adapted lens wearers fitted with somofilcon A (SiHy) (clariti® 1 day, CooperVision) and etafilcon A (Hy) (1 DAY ACUVUE® MOIST, Johnson & Johnson Vision) was conducted. Subjective ratings of lens handling, comfort and vision collected after 1 week of lens wear for each lens type were correlated with overall satisfaction. Data were analysed by combining data for both lens types and also for each lens separately.ResultsFor the combined analysis, significant correlations (p < 0.01) were found between subjective ratings of overall satisfaction and ratings of handing for application (r = 0.64), handling for removal (r = 0.50), comfort upon application (r = 0.59), comfort at end of day (r = 0.61), overall satisfaction with comfort (r = 0.88) and overall satisfaction with vision (r = 0.64).Correlation analysis of the per lens data showed that lens specific correlations of overall satisfaction with handling for lens application varied greatly with lens material (SiHy: r = 0.26, p = 0.05 vs Hy: r = 0.72, p < 0.01). Correlation strength of comfort upon application/at end of day with overall satisfaction also varied with lens material (Application: SiHy: r = 0.40 vs Hy: r = 0.61; End of day: SiHy: r = 0.76 vs Hy: r = 0.58; all p ≤ 0.01).ConclusionOverall satisfaction was significantly correlated with the specific subjective evaluations of handling, vision and comfort. Correlations of overall satisfaction and ease of handling for each lens type suggest that, for habitual contact lens wearers, dissatisfaction with handling at the time of lens application can play a major role in overall dissatisfaction with a lens. Handling for application had a similar correlation (r) value as vision, suggesting that handling for application should not be underestimated when considering overall patient satisfaction.     

Uptake and release of polyhexamethylene biguanide (PHMB) from hydrogel and silicone hydrogel contact lenses using a radiolabel methodology

PurposeThe purpose of this study was to evaluate the uptake and release of radiolabelled polyhexamethylene biguanide (PHMB) on reusable daily wear contact lenses (CLs) over 7 days.MethodsThree silicone hydrogel (SH) contact lens materials (lotrafilcon B, balafilcon A, senofilcon A) and two conventional hydrogel (CH) materials (etafilcon A, omafilcon A) were examined. In experiment 1 (1-day study), CLs were soaked in 2 mL of phosphate buffered solution (PBS) containing radiolabelled ¹⁴C PHMB (1 µg/mL) for 8 h. The release kinetics of ¹⁴C PHMB from the CLs was measured at t = 0.25, 0.5, 1, 2, 4, 8, and 24 h in fresh 2 mL PBS. In experiment 2 (7-day study), the CLs were soaked in the ¹⁴C PHMB (1 µg/mL) solution for 8 h followed by a 16-hour release in 2 mL PBS. The lens cycle was repeated daily for 7 days. After both experiments, the residual amount of PHMB remaining within the lenses was extracted to determine the total uptake of PHMB.ResultsIn experiment 1, the total uptake of PHMB for etafilcon A was significantly greater than senofilcon A (p = 0.01). There were no significant differences in total uptake of PHMB between other lens materials (p > 0.05). Etafilcon A released more PHMB compared to all other lens types over a 24-hr period (p < 0.001). In experiment 2, all CL materials continued to sorb more PHMB over time (p < 0.001). By day 7, the amount of PHMB sorbed by etafilcon A was significantly greater than senofilcon A (p = 0.02). After day 2, the CH materials released significantly more PHMB than the SH materials (p < 0.01).ConclusionThe CL materials continued to sorb PHMB with no signs of saturation after 7 days. All lens materials released a consistent amount of PHMB each day. Radioactive labelling provides a sensitive method of assessing the uptake and release of PHMB from CL materials.     

In-eye performance of soft contact lenses made from different materials.

The in-eye performance of soft contact lenses may be affected by the material from which they are fabricated and may alter during wear. This study describes clinical and laboratory experiments that were conducted in order to examine the in-eye performance of eight soft contact lenses manufactured from different materials; these materials (and nominal water contents) were: HEMA/VP 40%, HEMA/VP 55%, HEMA/VP 70%, VP/MMA 55%, VP/MMA 70%, HEMA 40%, HEMA/MAA 55% and HEMA/MAA 70% (HEMA: 2-hydroxy-ethyl methacrylate, VP: vinyl pyrrolidone, MMA: methyl methacrylate, MAA: methacrylic acid). Two lenses from each of the eight soft contact lens groups were used in experiments concerning their parameter stability. Six subjects were fitted with lenses for 1 day. Verification of back optic zone radius, total diameter, back vertex power, centre thickness and water content was undertaken at 20 degrees C. In vitro measurements of total diameter were taken at 35 degrees C before lens fitting and after 6 h of lens wear. In vivo measurements of lens centration, up-gaze lag, post-blink movement, total diameter and subjective assessment of comfort were taken (a) immediately after lens insertion (1 min), (b) 20 min later and (c) 6 h later (same day). The majority of differences of the in vivo parameters between lens types (with respect to lens centration, lag, movement on blink, lens total diameter and comfort) were not found to be statistically significant throughout the 6 h wearing period. It was also found that lenses increase in diameter when first placed on the eye and decrease in diameter when they were removed from the eye. The information generated in study concerning the in-eye performance of soft contact lens materials may assist the contact lens industry and contact lens practitioners in developing and prescribing soft lenses with optimal performance characteristics.     

Relative primary adhesion of Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Serratia marcescens and Staphylococcus aureus to HEMA-type contact lenses and an extended wear silicone hydrogel contact lens of high oxygen permeability.

PURPOSE: To compare multiple strains of Pseudomonas aeruginosa and representative isolates of Staphylococcus aureus and Serratia marcescens for their relative primary adhesion to a high Dk silicone hydrogel lens (36% H2O) with that of a HEMA-type lens (58% H2O). METHODS: A radiolabeled cell procedure with a 2-h cell exposure was employed for enumerating bacteria on unworn and worn silicone hydrogel (balafilcon A) and HEMA-type (etafilcon A) hydrogel lenses. RESULTS: The degree of primary adhesion of P. aeruginosa to 7-day worn balafilcon A lens was similar to the degree of adhesion to unworn balafilcon A lenses. The degree of primary adhesion by clinical strains to unworn balafilcon A lenses and etafilcon lenses was strain variable, but did not differ markedly for the two lenses with a given strain of P. aeruginosa. Relative to most of the pseudomonad strains, adhesion to the hydrogel lenses by S. aureus and S. marcescens was non-significant. CONCLUSION: Adhesion of strains of P. aeruginosa to a hydrogel contact lens does not appear to differ appreciably between the HEMA-type etafilcon A and the high Dk silicone hydrogel balafilcon A lens.     

In vitro deposition of lysozyme on etafilcon A and balafilcon A hydrogel contact lenses: effects on adhesion and survival of Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Staphylococcus aureus.

PURPOSE: To compare lysozyme adsorption and absorption and bacterial adhesion interactions on conventional (etafilcon A) and silicone (balafilcon A) hydrogel contact lenses. METHOD: Lysozyme concentrations and activities associated with the lenses were determined after solvent extraction (trifluoroacetic acid/acetonitrile) and directly on the lenses without extraction with micrococcal- and micro-bicinchoninic acid (BCA) assays. Cells of bacteria with radiolabeled leucine and a cell recovery procedure were used in determinations of bacterial adhesion to lenses. RESULTS: Lysozyme was adsorbed and absorbed to the conventional etafilcon A lens at about a 10-fold greater concentration than to the balafilcon A silicone hydrogel lens. Enzyme activities on the surfaces of both lenses were similar but replenished after saline extraction only with the etafilcon A lens. Lysozyme on the lens surface showed significant lysis of Micrococcus luteus but had a negligible effect on the adhesion and survival of Staphylococcus aureus. Lysozyme did not appear to affect the survival of Pseudomonas aeruginosa on lenses. CONCLUSION: In vitro experiments show that concentrations of active lysozyme on the surface of the etafilcon A lens, unlike the balafilcon A lens which showed negligible absorption, may be sustained from the lens matrix. Lysozyme deposited on hydrogel lenses had marked activity against M. luteus but relatively minor effects on the primary adhesion of P. aeruginosa and S. aureus.     

Ten years of disposable contact lenses - a review of benefits and risks

The performance and benefits as well as the risks and complications of disposable soft lenses (single use disposable or re-used 2-4 weeks) are reviewed in relation to corneal physiology. Modern designs and advanced technology have resulted in disposable lenses providing excellent visual performance. Fewer subjective symptoms (e.g. dryness and grittiness), slit-lamp findings (such as injection and tarsal abnormalities), and inflammatory responses (papillary conjunctivitis; contact lens-induced acute red eye) have been reported with disposable lenses than with conventional soft lenses. The risk of contact lens-induced keratitis (CLIK) has been reported to be higher for daily wear of disposable lenses than for other lens types by UK investigators. Other studies have shown the risk of CLIK with disposable lenses to be equal to that with conventional soft lenses, and in two extensive Swedish studies, the incidence of severe keratitis was found to be significantly lower for daily wear (DW) of disposable lenses than for DW of conventional soft and rigid gas permeable lenses. Both the total complication rate and the number of unscheduled visits are found to be significantly lower for disposable lenses than for conventional soft lenses in several studies. Comfort has been reported to be significantly better and overall satisfaction significantly greater with disposable lenses than with conventional soft lenses according to many studies. These may be important reasons why the success rate for disposable lens wear is reported to be fairly high, generally 70-90%. The importance of appropriate care for 're-usable disposable lenses' must be stressed. One day disposable lenses, if used as directed, will eliminate the risk factors of inadequate cleaning and disinfection as well as contaminated lens cases.     

Rebound tonometry measurements over extended-wear bandage contact lenses

BackgroundThe aim of this study was to assess the validity of rebound tonometry measurements obtained over eyes wearing extended-wear bandage contact lenses with the highest oxygen transmissibility (Dk/t) value of 175 @ -3.00 D.MethodsA total of 151 normal eyes were included in this prospective pretest-posttest study. A rebound tonometer (iCare PRO) was used to collect intraocular pressure readings from “naked” eyes (eyes without contact lenses) and the same eyes wearing extended-wear lotrafilcon A bandage contact lenses (Alcon Air Optix Night & Day Aqua Contact Lenses). The mean pre- and post-application values were pooled and compared using the paired t-test.ResultsThe application of extended-wear lotrafilcon A contact lenses over normal eyes did not cause a statistically significant change in the intraocular pressure measurements obtained using an iCare PRO tonometer (13.74 ± 2.15 mm Hg vs. 13.77 ± 2.26 mm Hg, p-value = 0.6506).ConclusionBased on this study conducted on normal eyes, the removal of extended-wear bandage contact lenses is not necessary when taking intraocular pressure measurements using the iCare PRO rebound tonometer.