Evaluating the Performance of Verofilcon A Daily Disposable Contact Lenses in a Group of Heavy Digital Device Users.

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the performance of verofilcon A daily disposable contact lenses (CL) in CL wearers who identified themselves as heavy digital device users. This prospective, non-masked, open-label study enrolled CL wearers who reported ≥6 hours digital device use per day. Participants were dispensed with the verofilcon A study lenses for 14±2 days, to be worn for at least 5 days a week and 10 hours per day, while continuing their normal routine of digital device use. Participants rated the lens performance at the Day 14 visit using a 0-100 (with 100 being best) scale. Ratings were completed at lens insertion, after 6 hours of digital device use, just before CL removal and for overall experience. Participants also completed a 4-point (strongly agree/disagree, slightly agree/disagree) Likert scale-based questionnaire. Thirty-two participants were eligible and completed the study (27 females; age 25.8 ± 6.0 years, ranging from 19 to 40). Overall lens performance ratings at the Day 14 visit (mean ± standard deviation) for comfort, dryness, and clarity of vision were 91 ± 11, 88 ± 11, and 92 ± 9, respectively. Subjective ratings were stable throughout the day with no significant differences after insertion, after 6 hours of digital device use and before CL removal (all p>0.05). The majority of participants agreed that the study lenses performed well, provided good all-day comfort (28/32; p<0.01) and good all-day vision (29/32; p<0.01). Participants also agreed that after ≥6 hours of digital device use they were satisfied with CL comfort (27/32; p<0.01), vision (29/32; p<0.01) and that the lenses provided good performance (26/32; p<0.01). Verofilcon A lenses were found to perform well, with high ratings for comfort, dryness and vision that remained high throughout the day, during extensive digital device use.

Informations de copyright

© 2023 Schulze et al.

Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts

All authors are affiliated with CORE. Over the past three years, CORE has received research funding and/or honoraria from Alcon Inc, Azura Ophthalmics, Bausch + Lomb Corp, CooperVision, Essilor, Hoya, i-Med Pharma, Johnson & Johnson Vision, Menicon, Novartis, Ophtecs, Oté Pharma, Santen, SightGlass, SightSage, Topcon, Visioneering Tech Inc. Over the past 3 years, Daddi Fadel has received financial support or lectureship honoraria from the following companies: Augmented Vision Labs, Baush & Lomb, Boston Materials, Bostonsight, British Contact Lens Association, Chio by Cliara, Contamac, DMV, Eaglet Eye, EasyLac, Hakim Group, Medlac, Medmont, Menicon, Multilens, Occhio x Occhio, Oculus, OptiforuM, Scleral Lens Society, Scope, SynergEyes, Swisslens, Topcon healthcare, Wave Software. The authors report no other conflicts of interest in this work.