Performance of Daily Disposable Contact Lenses in Symptomatic Wearers
Main Article Content
Abstract
Purpose
To evaluate the performance of delefilcon A water gradient and narafilcon A silicone hydrogel daily dispos-able contact lenses (CLs) in symptomatic soft CL wearers.
Methods
This multicenter, open-label, crossover study randomized 121 soft CL wearers with symptoms of CL dis-comfort to delefilcon A or narafilcon A for 2 weeks, followed by the alternate lens for 2 weeks. Subjects rated end-of-day (EOD) comfort, EOD dryness, and quality of vision, and investigators rated fit, surface deposits, and surface wettability.
Results
After 2 weeks, all subjective measures were better for delefilcon A than for narafilcon A, including EOD comfort (8.3 ± 1.9 vs. 6.6 ± 2.2), EOD dryness (8.0 ± 2.2 vs. 5.8 ± 2.6), and quality of vision (8.9 ± 1.4 vs. 7.9 ± 1.7), all p<.0001. Average daily wear time (DWT; 13.0 ± 2.8 vs. 12.3 ± 2.6 hr) and average comfort-able DWT (11.6 ± 3.9 vs. 9.3 ± 3.8 hr) were longer for delefilcon A lenses (p<.0001). The proportions of right and left lenses without front surface deposits were twofold higher for delefilcon A than for narafilcon A, and surface wettability was significantly higher for delefilcon A than for narafilcon A p<.0001).
Conclusion
In this population of symptomatic CL wearers, delefilcon A lenses showed superior subjective ratings for comfort, dryness, quality of vision, DWT, and comfortable DWT and better investigator-rated lens sur-face attributes including fewer surface deposits and superior wettability than did narafilcon A lenses after 2 weeks of wear.
Downloads
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
Copyright of articles published in all DPG titles is retained by the author(s). The author(s) grants DPG the rights to publish the article and identify itself as the original publisher. The author grants DPG exclusive commercial rights to the article. The author grants any party the rights to use the article freely for non-commercial purposes provided that the original work is properly cited.
References
2. Efron N, Nichols JJ, Woods CA, Morgan PB. Trends in US contact lens prescribing 2002 to 2014. Optom Vis Sci 2015;92(7):758–67.
3. Cho P, Boost MV. Daily disposable lenses: the better alternative. Cont Lens Anterior Eye 2013;36(1):4–12.
4. Ichijima H1, Karino S, Sakata H, Cavanagh HD. Improve-ment of subjective symptoms and eye complications when changing from 2-week frequent replacement to daily disposable contact lenses in a subscriber mem-
bership system. Eye Contact Lens 2016;42(3):190–5 5. Fahmy M, Long B, Giles T, Wang CH. Comfort-enhanced
daily disposable contact lens reduces symptoms among weekly/monthly wear patients. Eye Contact Lens 2010;36(4):215–9.
6. Jones L, Brennan NA, Gonzalez-Meijome J, et al; members of the TFOS International Workshop on Contact Lens Discomfort. The TFOS International Workshop on Contact Lens Discomfort: report of the contact lens materials, design, and care subcommittee. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2013;54(11):TFOS37–70.
7. Keir N, Jones L. Wettability and silicone hydrogel lenses: a review. Eye Contact Lens 2013;39(1):100–8.
8. Stapleton F, Tan J. Impact of contact lens material, design, and fitting on discomfort. Eye Contact Lens
2017;43(1):32–9.
9. Dumbleton K, Woods CA, Jones LW, Fonn D. The
impact of contemporary contact lenses on contact lens discontinuation. Eye Contact Lens 2013;39(1):93–9.
10. Dumbleton K, Caffery B, Dogru M, et al; members of the TFOS International Workshop on Contact Lens Discomfort. The TFOS International Workshop on Contact Lens Discomfort: report of the subcom-mittee on epidemiology. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2013;54(11):TFOS20–36.
11. DAILIES TOTAL1 [package insert]. Fort Worth, TX: Alcon Laboratories, Inc; 2016.
12. Szczesna-Iskander DH. Comparison of tear film surface quality measured in vivo on water gradient silicone hydrogel and hydrogel contact lenses. Eye Contact Lens. 2014;40(1):23–27.
13. Michaud L, Forcier P. Comparing two different daily disposable lenses for improving discomfort related to contact lens wear. Cont Lens Anterior Eye 2016;39(3):203–9.
14. Insua Pereira F, Lira M. Comfort, ocular dryness, and equilibrium water content changes of daily disposable contact lenses. Eye Contact Lens 2018;44 Suppl 2:S233–40.
15. Marx S, Lauenborg B, Kern JR. Performance evalu-ation of delefilcon A water gradient daily disposable contact lenses in first-time contact lens wearers. Cont Lens Anterior Eye 2018;41(4):335–41.
16. Varikooty J, Schulze MM, Dumbleton K, et al. Clinical performance of three silicone hydrogel daily disposable lenses. Optom Vis Sci 2015;92(3):301–11.
17. Varikooty J, Keir N, Richter D, et al. Comfort response of three silicone hydrogel daily disposable contact lenses. Optom Vis Sci 2013;90(9):945–53.
18. Sterner O, Aeschlimann R, Zürcher S, et al. Friction measurements on contact lenses in a physiologically relevant environment: effect of testing conditions on friction. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2016;57(13):5383–92.
19. Vidal-Rohr M, Wolffsohn JS, Davies LN, Cerviño A. Effect of contact lens surface properties on comfort, tear stability and ocular physiology. Cont Lens Anterior Eye 2018;41(1):117–21.
20. Lau C, Tosatti S, Mundorf M, et al. Comparison of the lubricity and surface roughness of 5 cosmetic contact lenses. Eye Contact Lens 2018;44 Suppl 2: S256–65.
21. Maissa C, Nelson J, DeCenzo-Verbeten T, et al. Evalu-ation of the lubricity of Dailies Total1 contact lenses after wear. Optom Vis Sci 2014;91(8):e-abstract 145195.
22. Campbell R, Kame G, Leach N, et al. Clinical benefits of a new multipurpose disinfecting solution in silicone hydrogel and soft contact lens users. Eye Contact Lens 2012;38(2):93–101.
23. Young G, Keir N, Hunt C, Woods CA. Clinical evalu-ation of long-term users of two contact lens care pre-servative systems. Eye Contact Lens 2009;35(2):50–8.
24. Lievens CW, Kannarr S, Zoota L, Lemp J. Lid papillae improvement with hydrogen peroxide lens care solution use. Optom Vis Sci 2016;93(8):933–42.
25. Likert R. A technique for the measurement of attitudes. Arch Psychology 1932;140:1–55.