EVALUATION OF WEAR EXPERIENCE WITH WATER SURFACE DAILY DISPOSABLE LENSES IN SATISFIED REUSABLE SOFT CONTACT LENS WEARERS
Main Article Content
Abstract
Purpose: Soft contact lens wearers are often prescribed the same lens material and modality for multiple years if patients express satisfaction and no significant problems with lens fit or ocular health are noted upon evaluation. Despite their satisfaction, other lenses may exist that could provide additional health or
convenience benefits and a satisfied lens wear experience.
Methods: In this study, wearers of a specific monthly replacement lens brand (comfilcon A) were recruited for an open-label study. The habitual contact lens prescription was optimized for 2 weeks of wear, and participants confirmed that they were satisfied with their habitual lenses before being refit with daily disposable lenses (verofilcon A). Participants responded to visual analog scale (VAS) survey about their initial impressions of the lenses. After 2 weeks of lens wear, participants completed a final study visit and completed surveys about lens wear experiences with the daily disposable study lenses.
Results: Fifteen male and 15 female participants completed the study. Median (IQR) binocular LogMAR visual acuity was –0.20(0.12), equivalent to 20/12.5 Snellen acuity. Initial impression surveys revealed a median (interquartile range) of 92.5(22.3) for quality of vision; 95.0(19.3) for comfort; and 91.5(19.3) for satisfaction. At the final visit, median scores for EOD quality of vision was 86.5(24.0); EOD comfort was 84.5(30.3), and EOD dryness 25.5 (47.0). Median overall VAS scores were 92.5(16.0) for vision; 88.0(18.3) for comfort, and 17.5(25.8) for dryness. Median satisfaction with the study lenses was scored 9(2.8) on a 1-10 scale.
Conclusions: In this study, satisfied wearers of comfilcon A reusable lens were refit with verofilcon A daily disposable lenses and showed high satisfaction scores with the new lenses, showing that refitting these patients can allow patients to have lenses with more frequent replacement and maintain satisfaction with daily lens 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. Chalmers RL, Keay L, McNally J, Kern J. Multicenter case-control study of the role of lens materials and care products on the development of corneal infiltrates. Optom Vis Sci. 2012;89(3):316–325.
https://doi.org/10.1097/OPX.0b013e318240c7ff
3. Rueff EM, Wolfe J, Bailey MD. A study of contact lens compliance in a non-clinical setting. Cont Lens Anterior Eye. 2019;42(5):557–561. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clae.2019.03.001
4. Barr JT. “Generic” Soft Contact Lenses: Scientific, Clinical, and Regulatory Matters. Contact Lens Spectrum. 2021;2021:37–40.
5. Rex J, Knowles T, Zhao X, Lemp J, Maissa C, Perry SS. Elemental Composition at Silicone Hydrogel Contact Lens Surfaces. Eye Contact Lens. 2018;44 Suppl 2:S221–S226. https://doi.org/10.1097/ICL.0000000000000454
6. Stapleton F, Tan J. Impact of Contact Lens Material, Design, and Fitting on Discomfort. Eye Contact Lens. 2017;43(1):32–39. https://doi.org/10.1097/ICL.0000000000000318
7. Nichols JJ, Willcox MD, Bron AJ, et al. The TFOS International Workshop on Contact Lens Discomfort: executive summary. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2013;54(11):TFOS7–TFOS13. https://doi.org/10.1167/iovs.13-13212
8. Miller J, Giedd B, Subbaraman LN. Clinical Comparison of a Silicone Hydrogel and a Conventional Hydrogel Daily Disposable Contact Lens. Clin Ophthalmol. 2021;15:4339–4345.https://doi.org/10.2147/OPTH.S332651
9. Rutschilling R, Fogt JS. Wear Experience of a Water Surface Daily Disposable Contact Lens in Existing Silicone Hydrogel Planned Replacement Lens Wearers. Clin Optom (Auckl). 2022;14:27– 34. https://doi.org/10.2147/OPTO.S353666
10. Fogt JS, Patton K. Long Day Wear Experience with Water Surface Daily Disposable Contact Lenses. Clin Optom (Auckl). 2022;14:93–99. https://doi.org/10.2147/OPTO.S367891
11. Orsborn G, Dumbleton K. Eye care professionals’ perceptions of the benefits of daily disposable silicone hydrogel contact lenses. Cont Lens Anterior Eye. 2019;42(4):373–379. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clae.2019.02.012
12. Harris PA, Taylor R, Minor BL, et al. The REDCap consortium: Building an international community of software platform partners. J Biomed Inform. 2019;95:103208. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbi.2019.103208
13. Harris PA, Taylor R, Thielke R, Payne J, Gonzalez N, Conde JG. Research electronic data capture (REDCap)-A metadata-driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research informatics support. J Biomed Inform. 2009;42(2):377–381. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbi.2008.08.010
14. Koh S, Chalmers R, Kabata D, Shintani A, Nishida K. Translation and Validation of the 8-Item Contact Lens Dry Eye Questionnaire (CLDEQ-8) among Japanese Soft Contact Lens Wearers: the J-CLDEQ-8. Invest Ophth Vis Sci. 2019;60(9). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clae.2019.03.002
15. McMonnies CW. An Amplifying Cascade of Contact Lens-Related End-of-Day Hyperaemia and Dryness Symptoms. Curr Eye Res. 2018;43(7):839–847. https://doi.org/10.1080/02713683.2018.1457163
16. Willcox MD, Zhao Z, Naduvilath T, Lazon de la Jara P. Cytokine changes in tears and relationship to contact lens discomfort. Mol Vis. 2015;21:293–305.
17. Sapkota K, Franco S, Lira M. Daily versus monthly disposable contact lens: Which is better for ocular surface physiology and comfort? Cont Lens Anterior Eye. 2018;41(3):252–257. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clae.2017.12.005
18. 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):215–219.
https://doi.org/10.1097/ICL.0b013e3181e5859f
19. Chalmers RL, Begley CG, Moody K, Hickson-Curran SB. Contact Lens Dry Eye Questionnaire-8 (CLDEQ-8) and Opinion of Contact Lens Performance. Optometry Vision Sci. 2012;89(10):1435–1442.
https://doi.org/10.1097/OPX.0b013e318269c90d
20. Diec J, Naduvilath T, Tilia D, Bakaraju RC. The Relationship Between Vision and Comfort in Contact Lens Wear. Eye Contact Lens. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1097/ICL.0000000000000743
21. Porazinski AD, Donshik PC. Giant papillary conjunctivitis in frequent replacement contact lens wearers: a retrospective study. CLAO J. 1999;25(3):142–147.
22. Morgan PB, Efron N, Toshida H, Nichols JJ. An international analysis of contact lens compliance. Cont Lens Anterior Eye. 2011;34(5):223–228. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clae.2011.08.001
23. Carnt N, Stapleton F. Strategies for the prevention of contact lens-related Acanthamoeba keratitis: a review. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt. 2016;36(2): 77–92. https://doi.org/10.1111/opo.12271