Trends in Australian contact lens prescribing during the first decade of the 21st Century (2000–2009)

Purpose: The aim was to document contact lens prescribing trends in Australia between 2000 and 2009. ---------- Methods: A survey of contact lens prescribing trends was conducted each year between 2000 and 2009. Australian optometrists were asked to provide information relating to 10 consecutive contact lens fittings between January and March each year. ---------- Results: Over the 10-year survey period, 1,462 practitioners returned survey forms representing a total of 13,721 contact lens fittings. The mean age (± SD) of lens wearers was 33.2 ± 13.6 years and 65 per cent were female. Between 2006 and 2009, rigid lens new fittings decreased from 18 to one per cent. Low water content lenses reduced from 11.5 to 3.2 per cent of soft lens fittings between 2000 and 2008. Between 2005 and 2009, toric lenses and multifocal lenses represented 26 and eight per cent, respectively, of all soft lenses fitted. Daily disposable, one- to two-week replacement and monthly replacement lenses accounted for 11.6, 30.0 and 46.5 per cent of all soft lens fittings over the survey period, respectively. The proportion of new soft fittings and refittings prescribed as extended wear has generally declined throughout the past decade. Multi-purpose lens care solutions dominate the market. Rigid lenses and monthly replacement soft lenses are predominantly worn on a full-time basis, whereas daily disposable soft lenses are mainly worn part-time.---------- Conclusions: This survey indicates that technological advances, such as the development of new lens materials, manufacturing methods and lens designs, and the availability of various lens replacement options, have had a significant impact on the contact lens market during the first decade of the 21st Century.

A ‘cost-per-wear’ model based on contact lens replacement frequency

Purpose: The aim was to construct and advise on the use of a cost-per-wear model based on contact lens replacement frequency, to form an equitable basis for cost comparison. ---------- Methods: The annual cost of professional fees, contact lenses and solutions when wearing daily, two-weekly and monthly replacement contact lenses is determined in the context of the Australian market for spherical, toric and multifocal prescription types. This annual cost is divided by the number of times lenses are worn per year, resulting in a ‘cost-per-wear’. The model is presented graphically as the cost-per-wear versus the number of times lenses are worn each week for daily replacement and reusable (two-weekly and monthly replacement) lenses.---------- Results: The cost-per-wear for two-weekly and monthly replacement spherical lenses is almost identical but decreases with increasing frequency of wear. The cost-per-wear of daily replacement spherical lenses is lower than for reusable spherical lenses, when worn from one to four days per week but higher when worn six or seven days per week. The point at which the cost-per-wear is virtually the same for all three spherical lens replacement frequencies (approximately AUD$3.00) is five days of lens wear per week. A similar but upwardly displaced (higher cost) pattern is observed for toric lenses, with the cross-over point occurring between three and four days of wear per week (AUD$4.80). Multifocal lenses have the highest price, with cross-over points for daily versus two-weekly replacement lenses at between four and five days of wear per week (AUD$5.00) and for daily versus monthly replacement lenses at three days per week (AUD$5.50).---------- Conclusions: This cost-per-wear model can be used to assist practitioners and patients in making an informed decision in relation to the cost of contact lens wear as one of many considerations that must be taken into account when deciding on the most suitable lens replacement modality.

Exploring retinal and functional markers of diabetic neuropathy

Diabetic peripheral neuropathy (DPN) is one of the most debilitating complications of diabetes. DPN is a major cause of foot ulceration and lower limb amputation. Early diagnosis and management is a key factor in reducing morbidity and mortality. Current techniques for clinical assessment of DPN are relatively insensitive for detecting early disease or involve invasive procedures such as skin biopsies. There is a need for less painful, non-invasive and safe evaluation methods. Eye care professionals already play an important role in the management of diabetic retinopathy; however recent studies have indicated that the eye may also be an important site for the diagnosis and monitoring of neuropathy. Corneal nerve morphology has been shown to be a promising marker of diabetic neuropathy occurring elsewhere in the body, and emerging evidence tentatively suggests that retinal anatomical markers and a range of functional visual indicators could similarly provide useful information regarding neural damage in diabetes – although this line of research is, as yet, less well established. This review outlines the growing body of evidence supporting a potential diagnostic role for retinal structure and visual functional markers in the diagnosis and monitoring of peripheral neuropathy in diabetes.

Intrinsically photosensitive melanopsin retinal ganglion cell contributions to the pupillary light reflex and circadian rhythm

Recently discovered intrinsically photosensitive melanopsin retinal ganglion cells contribute to the maintenance of pupil diameter, recovery and post-illumination components of the pupillary light reflex and provide the primary environmental light input to the suprachiasmatic nucleus for photoentrainment of the circadian rhythm. This review summarises recent progress in understanding intrinsically photosensitive ganglion cell histology and physiological properties in the context of their contribution to the pupillary and circadian functions and introduces a clinical framework for using the pupillary light reflex to evaluate inner retinal (intrinsically photosensitive melanopsin ganglion cell) and outer retinal (rod and cone photoreceptor) function in the detection of retinal eye disease.

Professor Emeritus Leo G Carney Optometry's quiet achiever

Perhaps more than any other sub-discipline in optometry and vision science, the academic field of cornea and contact lenses is populated by an assortment of extroverted and flamboyant characters who constantly travel the world, entertaining clinicians with dazzling audiovisual presentations, informing them about the latest advances in the field and generally promoting their own scientific agendas. The antithesis of this is Leo Carney (Figure 1), a highly accomplished researcher, teacher, mentor and administrator, who has quietly and with great dignity carved out an impressive career in academic optometry. Indeed, Leo Carney is optometry's quintessential ‘quiet achiever’

How optometrists record corneal staining

Purpose: The aim of this study was to determine current approaches adopted by optometrists to the recording of corneal staining following fluorescein instillation. Methods: An anonymous ‘record-keeping task’ was sent to all 756 practitioners who are members of the Queensland Division of Optometrists Association Australia. This task comprised a form on which appeared a colour photograph depicting contact lens solution-induced corneal staining. Next to the photograph was an empty box, in which practitioners were asked to record their observations. Practitioners were also asked to indicate the level of severity of the condition at which treatment would be instigated. Results: Completed task forms were returned by 228 optometrists, representing a 30 per cent response rate. Ninety-two per cent of respondents offered a diagnosis. The most commonly used descriptive terms were ‘superficial punctate keratitis’ (36 per cent of respondents) and ‘punctate staining’ (29 per cent). The level of severity and location of corneal staining were noted by 69 and 68 per cent of respondents, respectively. A numerical grade was assigned by 44 per cent of respondents. Only three per cent nominated the grading scale used. The standard deviation of assigned grades was � 0.6. The condition was sketched by 35 per cent of respondents and two per cent stated that they would take a photograph of the eye. Ten per cent noted the eye in which the condition was being observed. Opinions of the level of severity at which treatment for corneal staining should be instigated varied considerably between practitioners, ranging from ‘any sign of corneal staining’ to ‘grade 4 staining’. Conclusion: Although most practitioners made a sensible note of the condition and properly recorded the location of corneal staining, serious deficiencies were evident regarding other aspects of record-keeping. Ongoing programs of professional optometric education should reinforce good practice in relation to clinical record-keeping.

An international survey of contact lens prescribing for presbyopia

Purpose: The aim was to determine world-wide patterns of fitting contact lenses for the correction of presbyopia. Methods: Up to 1,000 survey forms were sent to contact lens fitters in each of 38 countries between January and March every year over five consecutive years (2005 to 2009). Practitioners were asked to record data relating to the first 10 contact lens fittings or refittings performed after receiving the survey form. Results: Data were received relating to 16,680 presbyopic (age 45 years or older) and 84,202 pre-presbyopic (15 to 44 years) contact lens wearers. Females are over-represented in presbyopic versus pre-presbyopic groups, possibly reflecting a stronger desire for the cosmetic benefits of contact lenses among older women. The extent to which multifocal and monovision lenses are prescribed for presbyopes varies considerably among nations, ranging from 79 per cent of all soft lenses in Portugal to zero in Singapore. There appears to be significant under-prescribing of contact lenses for the correction of presbyopia, although for those who do receive such corrections, three times more multifocal lenses are fitted compared with monovision fittings. Presbyopic corrections are most frequently prescribed for full-time wear and monthly replacement. Conclusions: Despite apparent improvements in multifocal design and an increase in available multifocal options in recent years, practitioners are still under-prescribing with respect to the provision of appropriate contact lenses for the correction of presbyopia. Training of contact lens practitioners in presbyopic contact lens fitting should be accelerated and clinical and laboratory research in this field should be intensified to enhance the prospects of meeting the needs of presbyopic contact lens wearers more fully.

A survey of the use of grading scales for contact lens complications in optometric practice

Purpose:  The aim of this study was to investigate the extent and pattern of use of grading scales for contact lens complications (‘grading scales’) in optometric practice. Methods:  An anonymous postal survey was sent to all 756 members of the Queensland Division of Optometrists Association Australia. Information was elicited relating to level of experience, practice type and location, and mode of usage of grading scales. Results:  Survey forms were returned by 237 optometrists, representing a 31 per cent response rate. The majority of respondents (61 per cent) reported using grading scales frequently in practice, while 65 per cent of these preferred to use the Efron Grading Scales for Contact Lens Complications. Seventy-six per cent of optometrists use a method of incremental grading rather than simply grading with whole numbers. Grading scales are more likely to be used by optometrists who have recently graduated (p < 0.001), have a postgraduate certificate in ocular therapeutics (p = 0.018), see more contact lens patients (p = 0.027) and use other forms of grading scales (p < 0.001). The most frequently graded ocular conditions were corneal staining, papillary conjunctivitis and conjunctival redness. The main reasons for not using grading scales included a preference for sketches, photographs or descriptions (87 per cent) and unavailability of scales (29 per cent). Conclusion:  Grading scales for contact lens complications are used extensively in optometric practice for a variety of purposes. This tool can now be considered as an expected norm in contact lens practice. We advocate the incorporation of such grading scales into professional guidelines and standards for good optometric clinical practice.