Kathy Dumbleton

Adverse events with silicone hydrogel continuous wear

High Dk silicone hydrogel lenses have overcome many of the hypoxic problems associated with traditional extended wear and the popularity of continuous wear (up to 30 nights) with these lens types is increasing. Results from clinical trials indicate that the typical physiological changes associated with edema from conventional extended wear of low Dk/t lenses do not occur with continuous wear of silicone hydrogel lenses. These changes include neovascularization, striae, microcysts and an increase in bulbar and limbal hyperemia. It is perhaps not surprising though that a number of adverse events do still occur with silicone hydrogel lenses when they are worn on a continuous wear basis. These include inflammatory conditions such as contact lens-induced peripheral ulcers (CLPU), contact lens-induced acute red eye (CLARE), infiltrative keratitis (IK) and contact lens papillary conjunctivitis (CLPC). Other events such as superior epithelial arcuate lesions (SEAL) and localised CLPC may be due to mechanical influences. While these conditions are not sight threatening, they may be painful and are certainly inconvenient to both the patient and the practitioner. It is therefore very important that the signs and symptoms associated with these events be recognised in order that they may be accurately identified and appropriately managed. The purpose of this review article is to describe the pathophysiology, etiology, and clinical presentation of these adverse events when observed with continuous wear contact lenses and to discuss their associated risk factors and incidence. Clear management and treatment strategies are also presented and a number of approaches to minimize adverse events with continuous wear of silicone hydrogel contact lenses are suggested.

TFOS DEWS II Diagnostic Methodology report

The role of the Tear Film and Ocular Surface Society (TFOS) Dry Eye Workshop (DEWS) II Diagnostic Methodology Subcommittee was 1) to identify tests used to diagnose and monitor dry eye disease (DED), 2) to identify those most appropriate to fulfil the definition of DED and its sub-classifications, 3) to propose the most appropriate order and technique to conduct these tests in a clinical setting, and 4) to provide a differential diagnosis for DED and distinguish conditions where DED is a comorbidity. Prior to diagnosis, it is important to exclude conditions that can mimic DED with the aid of triaging questions. Symptom screening with the DEQ-5 or OSDI confirms that a patient might have DED and triggers the conduct of diagnostic tests of (ideally non-invasive) breakup time, osmolarity and ocular surface staining with fluorescein and lissamine green (observing the cornea, conjunctiva and eyelid margin). Meibomian gland dysfunction, lipid thickness/dynamics and tear volume assessment and their severity allow sub-classification of DED (as predominantly evaporative or aqueous deficient) which informs the management of DED. Videos of these diagnostic and sub-classification techniques are available on the TFOS website. It is envisaged that the identification of the key tests to diagnose and monitor DED and its sub-classifications will inform future epidemiological studies and management clinical trials, improving comparability, and enabling identification of the sub-classification of DED in which different management strategies are most efficacious.

Noninflammatory silicone hydrogel contact lens complications.

High Dk silicone hydrogel lenses have overcome many of the hypoxic problems associated with traditional extended wear, and the popularity of continuous wear with these lens types is increasing. Despite the elimination of hypoxia, several noninflammatory clinical complications have been reported to occur as a result of mechanical disturbances or trauma when wearing silicone hydrogel lenses. This article reviews the origin and presentation of mucin balls, superior epithelial arcuate lesions, contact lens papillary conjunctivitis, and corneal erosions in silicone hydrogel lens wearers. A number of management strategies and approaches to minimize the occurrence of these clinical complications are also discussed.

The TFOS International Workshop on Contact Lens Discomfort: Report of the Subcommittee on Epidemiology

This report characterizes the neurobiology of the ocular surface and highlights relevant mechanisms that may underpin contact lens-related discomfort. While there is limited evidence for the mechanisms involved in contact lens-related discomfort, neurobiological mechanisms in dry eye disease, the inflammatory pathway, the effect of hyperosmolarity on ocular surface nociceptors, and subsequent sensory processing of ocular pain and discomfort have been at least partly elucidated and are presented herein to provide insight in this new arena. The stimulus to the ocular surface from a contact lens is likely to be complex and multifactorial, including components of osmolarity, solution effects, desiccation, thermal effects, inflammation, friction, and mechanical stimulation. Sensory input will arise from stimulation of the lid margin, palpebral and bulbar conjunctiva, and the cornea.

Patient and Practitioner Compliance With Silicone Hydrogel and Daily Disposable Lens Replacement in the United States

Objective: The objectives of this study were to assess current recommendations for replacement frequency (RF) of silicone hydrogel (SH) and daily disposable (DD) lenses, to determine compliance with these recommendations, and to investigate the reasons given for noncompliance. Methods: A package containing 20 patient surveys was sent to 309 eye care practitioners (ECPs) in the United States who had agreed to participate in the study. One thousand eight hundred fifty-nine completed surveys were received from 158 ECPs and 1,654 surveys were eligible for analysis. Questions related to patient demographics, lens type, lens wearing patterns, the ECP instructions for RF, and the actual patient reported RF. ECPs were asked to provide lens information and their recommendation for RF after the surveys had been completed and sealed in envelopes. All responses were anonymous. Results: Sixty-six percent of patients were women and their mean age was 34 ± 12 years. Eighty-eight percent of lenses were worn for daily wear, 12.8 ± 3.2 hours a day, 6.2 ± 1.5 days a week. Lens type distribution was 16% DD, 45% 2 week (2W) SH, and 39% 1 month (1M) SH. ECP recommendations for RF varied according to the lens type; 1% of 1M (95% CI 0.2–1.7), 4% of DD (95% CI 2.1–7.2), and 18% of 2W (95% CI 15.1–20.7) patients were given instructions that did not conform to the manufacturers’ recommended RF (MRRF). When considering only those patients who were given the correct instructions for RF, 38% were not compliant with the MRRF; noncompliance rates varied according to the lens type and were 12% for DD (95% CI 8.6–17.2), 28% for 1M (95% CI 24.9–32.1), and 52% for 2W (95% CI 47.8–55.8). The most frequent reasons for over wearing lenses were “forgetting which day to replace lenses” (51%) and “to save money” (26%). Fifty-three percent believed that a reminder system would aid compliance; the most popular methods being a cell phone reminder or text message (29%) and a nominated day each week or month (26%). Discussions between the ECPs and the patients were more extensive for patients who were compliant with the MRRF. Conclusions: ECPs recommended RFs more frequently with DD and 1M SH lenses than with 2W SH lenses, consistent with manufacturers’ recommendations. Patients were less compliant with RF than ECPs for all lens types investigated. Patients were most compliant with RF when wearing DD lenses and least compliant when wearing 2W SH lenses. Better communication facilitated greater compliance with RF. More than half of those not replacing lenses, when recommended, reported that this was because they forgot which day to replace their lenses.

Ultraviolet-induced lenticular fluorescence: Intraocular straylight affecting visual function

Ultraviolet radiation (UVR) excitation of fluorophores within the crystalline lens results in intraocular straylight. These fluorescent emissions are known to increase with age. The visual effect of this increase in fluorescent straylight has not previously been published. In this study, the visual deficit associated with UV-induced lenticular fluorescence was measured for 61 normal subjects between the ages of 21 and 80 yr of age using the Regan visual acuity charts at varying levels of contrast. UVR was shown to decrease low contrast acuity and this loss increased linearly with age.

An investigation of the efficacy of a novel ocular lubricant

Objective To investigate the efficacy of a novel ocular lubricant compared with a commercially marketed ocular lubricant in a group of noncontact lens wearers currently using over-the-counter products for the management of symptoms of moderate to severe dry eye. Methods This was a prospective, double-masked study that randomized 110 subjects in a ratio of 1:1 to receive a novel ocular lubricant (test group) or a marketed ocular lubricant (control group). Subjects were instructed to instill the lubricant eye drops at least three times daily. After enrollment, subjects were evaluated at baseline and at 7 and 30 days. They were also required to complete a series of home-based subjective questionnaires after 15 days. Main outcomes were subjective symptoms and objective clinical assessment at 7 and 30 days. Results The test group had higher overall comfort ratings than the control group (P = 0.012). Seventy-one percent of the test group and 57% of the control group said the drops used “somewhat” or “definitely” improved ocular comfort; 62% of the test group had greater end-of-day comfort compared with 45% of the control group (P = 0.015). There were no between-group differences in visual acuity, tear quality or quantity, corneal staining, conjunctival staining, or bulbar and limbal conjunctival hyperemia. Conclusions The novel ocular lubricant offers equivalent or superior comfort compared with a marketed lubricant eye drop. Objective clinical outcomes were not statistically significantly different between the two groups.

Clinical performance of three silicone hydrogel daily disposable lenses.

Purpose To determine the clinical performance of DAILIES TOTAL1 (DT1), Clariti 1Day (C1D), and 1-DAY ACUVUE TruEye (AVTE) silicone hydrogel daily disposable contact lenses (SiHy DDCLs). Methods Eligible participants, subdivided into asymptomatic and symptomatic groups, wore each SiHy DDCLs for three consecutive days. Each participant attended three visits (on day 1 at 0 hours; on days 1 and 3 after 8 hours of wear) per lens type. The order of lens wear was randomized, with at least 1 day washout between lenses. Lens-related performance was evaluated by assessing lens surface deposits, wettability, pre-lens noninvasive tear breakup time, lens movement, and centration; ocular response assessments included conjunctival redness, corneal staining, and conjunctival staining and indentation. Results Fifty-one asymptomatic and 53 symptomatic participants completed the study. For all visits, the mean noninvasive tear breakup time was about 1 second longer with DT1 than with C1D and AVTE (p < 0.01). Overall, the wettability of all three lenses was good; however, DT1 was graded marginally better than the other lenses (both p < 0.01). On day 3, eyes wearing AVTE had significantly more dehydration-induced corneal staining compared with DT1 (AVTE, 24%; DT1, 11%; p < 0.01). After 8 hours, conjunctival staining was different between lenses (greatest with C1D and least with DT1; all p < 0.01). Conjunctival indentation was more prevalent with the C1D lenses (n = 70) compared with DT1 (n = 1; p < 0.01) and AVTE (n = 11; p < 0.01). There were no differences between asymptomatic and symptomatic lens wearers for any of the clinical parameters (all p > 0.05). Conclusions Each of the three SiHy DDCLs performed well. Noninvasive tear breakup time was longest and wettability was greater with DT1. C1D had the most conjunctival staining conjunctival indentation. There was no difference between asymptomatic and symptomatic wearers with regard to ocular response and contact lens–related parameters. These results suggest that SiHy DDCLs may be an excellent contact lens modality for the symptomatic patient.

Compliance with lens replacement and the interval between eye examinations.

Purpose Eye care practitioners (ECPs) acknowledge that their patients do not always follow recommendations for lens replacement, but many may not realize the possible implications for their offices. The study was conducted to investigate whether there is a relationship between contact lens compliance and the interval between full eye examinations (IEE). Methods The study was conducted in ECP offices in the United States. Eye care practitioners and patients independently completed linked questionnaires, evaluating their contact lens wear and care. Patients were required to be current wearers of daily disposable (DD) lenses or reusable silicone hydrogel lenses with a manufacturer-recommended replacement frequency (MRRF) of 2 weeks (2WR) or 1 month (1MR). Results A total of 2147 questionnaires from 141 offices were eligible. Fifty-four percent of patients were wearing 2WR, 37% 1MR, and 9% DD lenses. Wearers of 2WR lenses were significantly less compliant with replacement than wearers of both DD and 1MR lenses (34% vs. 74% and 67%, both p < 0.001); patients purchasing an annual supply were more compliant (55% vs. 45%, p < 0.001). The mean IEE was 16 months and was longer for wearers who were noncompliant with the MRRF (17.4 months vs. 14.5 months, p < 0.001). Other factors affecting IEE were household income (p = 0.030), insurance (p < 0.001), purchase source (p < 0.001), and sex (p = 0.007). Conclusions Patients who were not compliant with the MRRF had longer IEEs and were less likely to purchase an annual supply of lenses. Patients who purchased lenses from their ECP, had a higher household income, had eye examination insurance, and were female had shorter IEEs. Patients failing to replace their lenses when scheduled were also found to be less compliant with lens care procedures. Eye care practitioners should reinforce the importance of all aspects of lens wear and care with their patients, with the overall aim of reducing possible complications and retaining successful contact lens wearers in their offices.

Impact of lens care solutions on protein deposition on soft contact lenses

Purpose To evaluate the effect of four contemporary lens care solutions on total protein, total lysozyme, and active lysozyme extracted from three contact lens materials. Methods Adapted contact lens wearers were recruited at three sites, and all subjects were randomly assigned to daily wear of either etafilcon A, galyfilcon A, or senofilcon A for 2 weeks. Four lens care solutions (Biotrue, OPTI-FREE PureMoist, RevitaLens OcuTec, and ClearCare) were used by each subject in random order with a new pair of lenses after a washout period between solutions of at least 4 days. After 2 weeks of daily wear, contact lenses were collected for analysis. Proteins were extracted from a subset of contact lenses (n = 568) and total protein, total lysozyme, and lysozyme activity were quantified using a modified Bradford assay, an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay, and a micrococcal assay, respectively. Results Higher levels of total protein were extracted from etafilcon A when used with Biotrue compared to other solutions (p = 0.0001). There were higher levels of total lysozyme extracted from galyfilcon A lenses when used with PureMoist than with Biotrue or ClearCare (p < 0.006). Higher total lysozyme was extracted from senofilcon A when used with RevitaLens OcuTec compared to Biotrue (p = 0.002). Lower lysozyme activity was recovered from senofilcon A lenses with RevitaLens OcuTec when compared to all other care solutions (all p < 0.004). When Biotrue, PureMoist, or RevitaLens OcuTec were used, higher total lysozyme was extracted from galyfilcon A compared to senofilcon A (p < 0.01). When RevitaLens OcuTec was used, higher levels of active lysozyme were extracted from galyfilcon A compared to senofilcon A (p = 0.02). Conclusions The ability of lens care solutions to remove protein from lenses varies depending upon the care solution composition and also the polymeric make-up of the contact lens material.