Comparison of comfort and tear stability with two novel silicone-hydrogel daily disposable contact lenses.
Daily disposable soft contact lens
Narafilcon A
Noninvasive tear break-up time
Silicone hydrogel
Verofilcon A
Journal
International ophthalmology
ISSN: 1573-2630
Titre abrégé: Int Ophthalmol
Pays: Netherlands
ID NLM: 7904294
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
14 Mar 2024
14 Mar 2024
Historique:
received:
03
01
2024
accepted:
16
02
2024
medline:
18
3
2024
pubmed:
15
3
2024
entrez:
15
3
2024
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The surface wettability of soft contact lenses (SCLs) affects the wearing comfort. Verofilcon A is a daily disposable silicone hydrogel contact lens with SMARTSURFACE® technology, ensuring high surface wettability. To evaluate tear stability on the surface of verofilcon A and narafilcon A SCLs and correlate these findings with clinical parameters and patients' discomfort. Sixty-two SCL wearers (124 eyes) with SCL discomfort were randomly assigned to use narafilcon A (control SCL) and verofilcon A for 2 weeks each by crossover. The noninvasive tear break-up time (NIBUT) of the naked eye at baseline and pre-lens NIBUT (PL-NIBUT) of the SCL surface after 2 weeks of using each SCL were measured using the DR-1α® dry eye observation device. Corneal superficial punctate keratopathy (SPK) (0-3) and conjunctival hyperemia (0-3), and comfort level of SCL wear (1-10) were also evaluated. NIBUT and PL-NIBUT values were 4.6 ± 2.3 s for the naked eye, 6.6 ± 6.6 s for narafilcon A, and 11.3 ± 3.5 s for verofilcon A. verofilcon A had significantly higher PL-NIBUT than the naked eye and narafilcon A (p < 0.05). SPK (0.16 ± 0.48 vs. 0.00 ± 0.00, p < 0.01) and conjunctival hyperemia (1.15 ± 0.82 vs. 0.49 ± 0.50, p < 0.01) scores were lower when wearing verofilcon A than narafilcon A. The ocular comfort score of wearing SCLs was higher with verofilcon A than with narafilcon A (8.7 ± 1.8 vs. 9.8 ± 0.5, p < 0.01). The ocular comfort score for wearing verofilcon A was higher, regardless of the baseline NIBUT. The results of this study showed a consistent surface-wetting advantage of verofilcon A in patients with ocular discomfort. verofilcon A was used comfortably in patients with low NIBUT scores at baseline. The findings suggest that verofilcon A is recommended for SCL wearers experiencing SCL-related dry eye symptoms and discomfort.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
The surface wettability of soft contact lenses (SCLs) affects the wearing comfort. Verofilcon A is a daily disposable silicone hydrogel contact lens with SMARTSURFACE® technology, ensuring high surface wettability.
PURPOSE
OBJECTIVE
To evaluate tear stability on the surface of verofilcon A and narafilcon A SCLs and correlate these findings with clinical parameters and patients' discomfort.
METHODS
METHODS
Sixty-two SCL wearers (124 eyes) with SCL discomfort were randomly assigned to use narafilcon A (control SCL) and verofilcon A for 2 weeks each by crossover. The noninvasive tear break-up time (NIBUT) of the naked eye at baseline and pre-lens NIBUT (PL-NIBUT) of the SCL surface after 2 weeks of using each SCL were measured using the DR-1α® dry eye observation device. Corneal superficial punctate keratopathy (SPK) (0-3) and conjunctival hyperemia (0-3), and comfort level of SCL wear (1-10) were also evaluated.
RESULTS
RESULTS
NIBUT and PL-NIBUT values were 4.6 ± 2.3 s for the naked eye, 6.6 ± 6.6 s for narafilcon A, and 11.3 ± 3.5 s for verofilcon A. verofilcon A had significantly higher PL-NIBUT than the naked eye and narafilcon A (p < 0.05). SPK (0.16 ± 0.48 vs. 0.00 ± 0.00, p < 0.01) and conjunctival hyperemia (1.15 ± 0.82 vs. 0.49 ± 0.50, p < 0.01) scores were lower when wearing verofilcon A than narafilcon A. The ocular comfort score of wearing SCLs was higher with verofilcon A than with narafilcon A (8.7 ± 1.8 vs. 9.8 ± 0.5, p < 0.01). The ocular comfort score for wearing verofilcon A was higher, regardless of the baseline NIBUT.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
The results of this study showed a consistent surface-wetting advantage of verofilcon A in patients with ocular discomfort. verofilcon A was used comfortably in patients with low NIBUT scores at baseline. The findings suggest that verofilcon A is recommended for SCL wearers experiencing SCL-related dry eye symptoms and discomfort.
Identifiants
pubmed: 38485796
doi: 10.1007/s10792-024-03075-z
pii: 10.1007/s10792-024-03075-z
doi:
Substances chimiques
Hydrogels
0
Silicones
0
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
136Subventions
Organisme : a Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research from the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science, and Technology of Japan
ID : 20H04347
Organisme : an unrestricted investigator-initiated grant from Alcon Japan Ltd.
ID : IIT#63215725
Informations de copyright
© 2024. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature B.V.
Références
Vidal-Rohr M, Wolffsohn JS, Davies LN, Cerviño A (2018) Effect of contact lens surface properties on comfort, tear stability and ocular physiology. Cont Lens Anterior Eye 41(1):117–121. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clae.2017.09.009 . (Epub 2017 Sep 18)
doi: 10.1016/j.clae.2017.09.009
pubmed: 28927731
Su SB, Lu CW, Sheen JW, Kuo SC, Guo HR (2006) Tear secretion dysfunction among women workers engaged in light-on tests in the TFT-LCD industry. BMC Public Health 16(6):303. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-6-3035
doi: 10.1186/1471-2458-6-3035
Wolkoff P, Kärcher T, Mayer H (2012) Problems of the “outer eyes” in the office environment: an ergophthalmologic approach. J Occup Environ Med 54(5):621–631. https://doi.org/10.1097/JOM.0b013e31824d2e04
doi: 10.1097/JOM.0b013e31824d2e04
pubmed: 22576461
Dumbleton K, Caffery B, Dogru M, Hickson-Curran S, Kern J, Kojima T, Morgan PB, Purslow C, Robertson DM, Nelson JD, members of the TFOS International Workshop on Contact Lens Discomfort 2013 The TFOS International Workshop on Contact Lens Discomfort: report of the subcommittee on epidemiology. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 54(11):TFOS20-36. https://doi.org/10.1167/iovs.13-13125
McMonnies CW (2014) How contact lens comfort may be influenced by psychiatric and psychological conditions and mechanisms. Clin Exp Optom 97(4):308–310. https://doi.org/10.1111/cxo.12122 . (Epub 2014 Feb 18)
doi: 10.1111/cxo.12122
pubmed: 24548166
Alipour F, Khaheshi S, Soleimanzadeh M, Heidarzadeh S, Heydarzadeh S (2017) Contact lens-related complications: a review. J Ophthalmic Vis Res 12(2):193–204. https://doi.org/10.4103/jovr.jovr_159_16
doi: 10.4103/jovr.jovr_159_16
pubmed: 28540012
pmcid: 5423374
Doughty MJ, Fonn D, Richter D, Simpson T, Caffery B, Gordon K (1997) A patient questionnaire approach to estimating the prevalence of dry eye symptoms in patients presenting to optometric practices across Canada. Optom Vis Sci 74(8):624–631. https://doi.org/10.1097/00006324-199708000-00023
doi: 10.1097/00006324-199708000-00023
pubmed: 9323733
Ponzini E, Recchioni A, Cheloni R, Zeri F, Tavazzi S (2023) Physical properties and interaction with the ocular surface of water-gradient contact lenses. Eye Contact Lens 49(4):152–159. https://doi.org/10.1097/ICL.0000000000000974
doi: 10.1097/ICL.0000000000000974
pubmed: 36811833
Grant T, Tang A (2020) A survey of contact lens wearers and eye care professionals on satisfaction with a new smart-surface silicone hydrogel daily disposable contact lens. Clin Optom (Auckl) 14(12):9–15. https://doi.org/10.2147/OPTO.S233328
doi: 10.2147/OPTO.S233328
Miller J, Giedd B, Subbaraman LN (2021) Clinical comparison of a silicone hydrogel and a conventional hydrogel daily disposable contact lens. Clin Ophthalmol 29(15):4339–4345. https://doi.org/10.2147/OPTH.S332651
doi: 10.2147/OPTH.S332651
Fogt JS, Menner A, Patton K (2022) Evaluation of wear experience with water surface daily disposable lenses in satisfied reusable soft contact lens wearers. J Contact Lens Res Sci 6(1):18–24
doi: 10.22374/jclrs.v6i1.53
Gustafson B, Whaley S, Giedd B, Montaquila S, Edwards B, Subbaraman LN (2022) Short-term fit assessment of a novel daily disposable, Toric, Silicone Hydrogel Contact Lens. Clin Ophthalmol 14(16):3721–3730. https://doi.org/10.2147/OPTH.S370151
doi: 10.2147/OPTH.S370151
Mimura T, Fujishima H, Uchio E, Fukagawa K, Inoue Y, Kawashima M, Kitsu K, Mizota A (2022) Adhesion of Asian dust particles to verofilcon a soft contact lenses. Clin Optom (Auckl) 28(14):215–221. https://doi.org/10.2147/OPTO.S381763
doi: 10.2147/OPTO.S381763
Penbe A, Kanar HS, Donmez GR (2022) Comparison of the pre-lens tear film stability and visual performance of a novel and two other daily disposable contact lenses in healthcare professionals wearing facial masks for prolonged time. Clin Optom (Auckl) 10(14):183–192. https://doi.org/10.2147/OPTO.S384246
doi: 10.2147/OPTO.S384246
World Medical Association (2013) World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki: ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. JAMA 310(20):2191–2194. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2013.281053
Itoi M, Higuchi H, Fushimi N, Ninomiya S, Higashihara H, Ono J, Uchida K (2018) Clinical evaluation of two types of daily disposable silicone hydrogel contact lenses. Atarashii Ganka 35(7):992–998
Tan SH, Nguyen NT, Chua YC, Kang TG (2010) Oxygen plasma treatment for reducing hydrophobicity of a sealed polydimethylsiloxane microchannel. Biomicrofluidics 4(3):32204. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.3466882
doi: 10.1063/1.3466882
pubmed: 21045926
Deane OJ, Lovett JR, Musa OM, Fernyhough A, Armes SP (2018) Synthesis of well-defined pyrrolidone-based homopolymers and stimulus-responsive diblock copolymers via RAFT aqueous solution polymerization of 2-(N-acryloyloxy)ethylpyrrolidone. Macromolecules 51(19):7756–7766. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.macromol.8b01627 . (Epub 2018 Sep 25)
doi: 10.1021/acs.macromol.8b01627
pubmed: 30333669
pmcid: 6180295
Tyler’s quarterly soft contact lens parameter guide. Tyler’s Q soft contact lens Param Guid. September 2019
SIBF (2019) Surface characterization methods developed to optimize the “SMARTSURFACE®” chemistry for Precision1™ (One Day Contact Lenses).Presented at the BioInterface workshop and symposium of the Surfaces in Biomaterials Foundation. September 4–6. Park City, Utah
Precision 1 (2019) Lens with Smart Surface Technical File, Alcon Data on File 2019
Miyazaki D, Fukushima A, Uchio E, Shoji J, Namba K, Ebihara N, Takamura E, Fukuda K, Matsuda A, Okamoto S, Fukagawa K, Fujishima H, Ohno S, Ohashi Y (2022) Japanese Society of Ocular Allergology, The Japanese Society of Allergology. Executive summary: Japanese guidelines for allergic conjunctival diseases 2021. Allergol Int 71(4):459–471. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.alit.2022.07.005
doi: 10.1016/j.alit.2022.07.005
pubmed: 36096976
Mimura T, Usui T, Yamagami S, Miyai T, Amano S (2012) Relation between total tear IgE and severity of acute seasonal allergic conjunctivitis. Curr Eye Res 37(10):864–870. https://doi.org/10.3109/02713683.2012.689069
doi: 10.3109/02713683.2012.689069
pubmed: 22595024
Marx S, Lauenborg B, Kern JR (2018) Performance evaluation of delefilcon a water gradient daily disposable contact lenses in first-time contact lens wearers. Cont Lens Anterior Eye 41(4):335–341. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clae.2017.12.019
doi: 10.1016/j.clae.2017.12.019
pubmed: 29426803
Tucker B (2019) Presented at the BioInterface workshop and symposium of the Surfaces in Biomaterials Foundation, Sept 4–6, 2019; Park City
Tucker BLE, Bauman E, Subbaraman L (2019) Characterization of the surface properties of a novel daily disposable silicone hydrogel contact lens. Poster presented at the American Academy of Optometry (AAO) Annual Meeting. October 23–26, 2019; Orlando, Florida; Poster #62*
Stapleton F, Stretton S, Papas E, Skotnitsky C, Sweeney DF (2006) Silicone hydrogel contact lenses and the ocular surface. Ocul Surf 4(1):24–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1542-0124(12)70262-8
doi: 10.1016/s1542-0124(12)70262-8
pubmed: 16669523
Mimura T, Fujishima H, Uchio E, Fukagawa K, Kawashima M, Kitsu K, Horikawa H, Mizota A (2021) Adhesion of pollen particles to daily disposable soft contact lenses. Clin Optom (Auckl) 25(13):93–101. https://doi.org/10.2147/OPTO.S297531
doi: 10.2147/OPTO.S297531
Sarac O, Gurdal C, Bostancı-Ceran B, Can I (2012) Comparison of tear osmolarity and ocular comfort between daily disposable contact lenses: hilafilcon B hydrogel versus narafilcon A silicone hydrogel. Int Ophthalmol 32(3):229–233. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10792-012-9556-y
doi: 10.1007/s10792-012-9556-y
pubmed: 22484700
Morgan PB, Chamberlain P, Moody K, Maldonado-Codina C (2013) Ocular physiology and comfort in neophyte subjects fitted with daily disposable silicone hydrogel contact lenses. Cont Lens Anterior Eye 36(3):118–125. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clae.2012.12.001
doi: 10.1016/j.clae.2012.12.001
pubmed: 23279732
Sulley A, Dumbleton K (2020) Silicone hydrogel daily disposable benefits: the evidence. Cont Lens Anterior Eye 43(3):298–307. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clae.2020.02.001
doi: 10.1016/j.clae.2020.02.001
pubmed: 32098715
Cummings S, Giedd B, Pearson C (2020) Clinical performance of a novel daily disposable soft contact lens. JCLRS. 4:e23–e30. https://doi.org/10.22374/jclrs.v4i1.39
doi: 10.22374/jclrs.v4i1.39