In vitro and in vivo delivery of the secretagogue diadenosine tetraphosphate from conventional and silicone hydrogel soft contact lenses

Purpose To evaluate the possible use of soft contact lenses (CL) to improve the secretagogue role of diadenosine tetraphosphate (Ap4A) promoting tear secretion. Methods Two conventional hydrogel CL (Omafilcon A and Ocufilcon D) and two silicone hydrogel (SiH) CL (Comfilcon A and Balafilcon A) were used. Ap4A was loaded into the lenses by soaking in a 1 mM Ap4A solution during 12 h. In vitro experiments were performed by placing the lenses in multi-wells during 2 h containing 1 ml of ultrapure water. 100 μl aliquots were taken at time zero and every minute for the first 10 min, and then every 15 min. In vivo experiments were performed in New Zealand rabbits and both the dinucleotide release from SiH and tear secretion were measured by means of Schirmer strips and high-pressure liquid chromatography (HPLC) analysis. Results Ap4A in vitro release experiments in hydrogel CL presented a release time 50 (RT50) of 3.9 ± 0.2 min and 3.1 ± 0.1 min for the non-ionic and the ionic CL, respectively. SiH CL released also Ap4A with RT50 values of 5.1 ± 0.1 min for the non-ionic and 2.7 ± 0.1 min for the ionic CL. In vivo experiments with SiH CL showed RT50 values of 9.3 ± 0.2 min and 8.5 ± 0.2 min for the non-ionic and the ionic respectively. The non-ionic lens Ap4A release was able to induce tear secretion above baseline tear levels for almost 360 min. Conclusion The delivery of Ap4A is slower and the effect lasts longer with non-ionic lenses than ionic lenses.

Contrast sensitivity evaluation with filter contact lenses in patients with retinitis pigmentosa: a pilot study

Purpose: the aim of this pilot study was to test whether retinitis pigmentosa patients would benefit from filter contact lenses as an effective optical aid against glare and photophobia. Methods: fifteen subjects with retinitis pigmentosa were enrolled in this study. All of them were evaluated with filter soft contact lenses (MaxSight), filter glasses (CPF 527) and without filters (control). All patients were assessed for the three aid conditions by means of best corrected visual acuity (BCVA), contrast sensitivity (without glare and with central and peripheral glare)(CSV-1000) and a specific subjective questionnaire about quality of vision. Results: BCVA was slightly better with filters than without filter but the differences were not statistically significant. Contrast sensitivity without glare improved significantly with the contact lenses (p<0.05). The central glare had significant differences for the frequencies of 3 cpd and 18 cpd between the contact lens filter and the control group (p=0.021 and p=0.044, respectively). For the peripheral glare contrast sensitivity improved with contact lens versus control group for highest frequencies, 12 and 18 cpd (p<0.001 and p=0.045, respectively). According to the questionnaire the contact lens filter gave them more visual comfort than the glasses filter under the scenarios of indoors glare, outdoors activities and indoors comfort. Conclusion: the filter contact lenses seem to be a good option to improve the quality of vision of patients with retinitis pigmentosa.