Clinical performance of an innovative back surface multifocal contact lens in correcting presbyopia

Purpose: This prospective study was designed to subjectively and objectively evaluate the performance of an aspheric multifocal back surface rigid gas permeable (RGP) contact lens. The multifocal element of this lens design consisted of an aspheric optical zone that varied according to the patient's ametropia, corneal topography, and required reading addition.

Methods: We fit 28 presbyopic subjects with an aspheric multifocal back surface RGP contact lens (age range: 45 to 68 years). Reading additions ranged from +0.75 D to +2.50 D. Subjects were assessed initially and at 2, 6, and 12 weeks for ocular changes, visual performance, and subjective responses.

Results: We required 116 RGP lenses to achieve an acceptable fit and visual acuity in 28 subjects (55 eyes). At the final visit, the distance logMAR acuity with the multifocal contact lens (+0.12 +/-0.10) was not statistically different (t=-0.623, P= 0.5388) from spectacle acuity at the initial visit (+0.10 +/-0.12). The near logMAR acuity with the multifocal contact lens at the final visit (0.36 +/- 0.12) was not statistically different from that for near acuity with spectacles at the initial visit (0.33 +/- 0.13). No slit lamp signs worsened during the study. A reduction in myopia of 0.67 D was noted by the final visit. Spectacle blur was noted if the acuity at the initial refraction was compared to the acuity with the same refraction at the final visit (t= -3.287, P= 0.0028) but not when the refractive changes were incorporated (t= 1.058, P= 0.3127). All subjects rated the performance of the lenses very highly: comfort, 86%; distance acuity, 83%; near acuity, 73%; and stability of vision, 74%. Twenty-four subjects (86%) chose the multifocal contact lens as their preference.

Conclusion: We demonstrated that a multifocal design is able to provide acceptable distance and near correction for presbyopic patients. The aspheric geometry required can be optimized for a given patient by considering his/her degree of ametropia, as well as the corneal topography.

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.

Correction of presbyopia with GP contact lenses

Presbyopia can be safely and effectively corrected with gas permeable (GP) multifocal (bifocal) contact lenses, but statistics indicate that they remain the most underutilized contact lenses on the market. We believe that practitioners have been “turned off of” GP multifocals due to their experiences with older generations of these lenses, which tended to be difficult to fit, with poor visual results.

Fortunately, GP multifocals have come a long way, and practitioners who avoid fitting them are missing out on an important niche market. With this booklet, we hope to show you just how far GP multifocals have come and demonstrate the ease with which they can now be fit and managed.

Verification of the vertex powers of varifocal rigid contact lenses

 

Early symptomatic presbyopes - what correction modality works best?

Purpose: To compare the performance of a low-addition silicone hydrogel multifocal soft lens with other soft lens correction options in a group of habitual soft lens wearers of distance correction who are symptomatic of early presbyopia.

Method: This clinical study was designed as a prospective, double-masked, randomized, crossover, dispensing trial consisting of four 1-week phases, one for each of the correction modalities: a low-addition silicone hydrogel multifocal soft lens, monovision, habitual correction, and optimized distance visual correction. The prescriptions of all modalities were finalized at a single fitting visit, and the lenses were worn according to a randomized schedule. All lenses were made from lotrafilcon B material. A series of objective vision tests were conducted: high- and low-contrast LogMAR under high- and low-room lighting conditions, stereopsis, and critical print size. A number of other data collection methods used were novel: some data were collected under controlled laboratory-based conditions and others under real-world conditions, some of which were completed on a BlackBerry hand-held communication device.

Results: All participants were able to be fit with all four correction modalities. Objective vision tests showed no statistical difference between the lens modalities except in the case of low-contrast near LogMAR acuity under low-lighting levels where monovision (+0.29 ± 0.10) performed better than the multifocal (+0.33 ± 0.11, P=0.027) and the habitual (+0.37 ± 0.12, P<0.001) modalities. Subjective ratings indicated a statistically better performance provided by the multifocal correction compared with monovision, particularly for the vision associated with driving tasks such as driving during the daytime (93.3 ± 8.8 vs. 84.2 ± 23.7, P=0.05), at nighttime (88.8 ± 11.7 vs. 74.9 ± 23.6, P=0.001), any associated haloes or glare (92.0 ± 10.6 vs. 78.0 ± 22.8, P=0.003), and observing road signs (90.1 ± 11.8 vs. 79.4 ± 20.2, P=0.027). Preference for the multifocal compared with monovision was also reported when watching television (95.0 ± 6.4 vs. 82.6 ± 20.1, P=0.001) and when changing focus from distance to near (87.0 ± 13.4 vs. 66.1 ± 32.2, P<0.001).

Conclusions: For this group of early presbyopes, the AIR OPTIX AQUA MULTIFOCAL-Low Add provided a successful option for visual correction, which was supported by the results of subjective ratings, many of which were made during or immediately after performing such activities as reading, using a computer, watching television, and driving. These results suggest that making a prediction of success or not based on consulting room acuity tests alone is probably unwise.

Utility of short-term evaluation of presbyopic contact lens performance

Objectives: To establish if evaluations of multifocal contact lens performance conducted at dispensing are representative of behavior after a moderate adaptation period.

Methods: Eighty-eight presbyopic subjects, across four clinical sites, wore each of four multifocal soft contact lenses (ACUVUE BIFOCAL, Focus Progressives, Proclear Multifocal, and SofLens Multifocal) for 4 days of daily wear. Comprehensive performance assessments were conducted at dispensing and after 4 days wear and included the following objective metrics: LogMAR acuity (contrast, 90% and 10%; illumination, 250 and 10 cd/m2; distance, 6 m, 100 cm, and 40 cm), stereopsis (RANDOT), reading critical print size and maximum speed and range of clear vision at near. Subjective assessments were made, with 100-point numerical rating scales, of comfort, ghosting (distance, near), visual quality (distance, intermediate, and near), and the appearance of haloes. At two sites, subjects (n = 39) also rated visual fluctuation (distance, intermediate, and near), facial recognition, and overall satisfaction.

Results: Among the objective variables, significant differences (paired t test, P<0.05) between dispensing and 4 days were found only for range of clear vision at near (2.9 ± 2.0 cm; mean difference ± standard deviation) and high contrast near acuity in low illumination (-0.013 ± 0.011 LogMAR). With the exception of insertion comfort, all subjective variables showed significant decrements over the same period. Overall satisfaction declined by an average of 10.9 ± 5.1 points.

Conclusions: Early assessment is relatively unrepresentative of performance later on during multifocal contact lens wear. Acuity based measures of vision remain substantially unchanged over the medium term, apparently because these metrics are insensitive indicators of performance compared with subjective alternatives.