Editorial

The year so far has been a slow start for many businesses, but at least we have not seen the collapse of as many businesses that we were seeing around two years ago. We are, however, still well and truly in the midst of a global recession. Interest rates are still at an all time low, UK house prices seem to be showing little signs of increase (except in London where everyone still seems to want to live!) and for the ardent shopper there are bargains to be had everywhere. It seems strange that prices on the high street do not seem to have increased in over ten years. Mobile phones, DVD players even furniture seems to be cheaper than they used to be. Whist much of this is down to cheaper manufacturing and the rest could probably be explained by competition within the market place. Does this mean that quality suffered too? Now that we live in a world when if a television is not working it is thrown away and replaced. There was a time when you would take it to some odd looking man that your father would know who could fix it for you. (I remember our local television fix-it man, with his thick rimmed bifocal spectacles and a poor comb-over; he had cardboard boxes full of resistors and electrical wires on the floor of his front room that smelt of soldering irons!) Is this consumerism at an extreme or has this move to disposability made us a better society? Before you think these are just ramblings there is a point to this. According to latest global figures of contact lens sales the vast majority of contact lenses fitted around the world are daily, fortnightly or monthly disposable hydrogel lenses. Certainly in the UK over 90% of lenses are disposable (with daily disposables being the most popular, having a market share of over 50%). This begs the question – is this a good thing? Maybe more importantly, do our patients benefit? I think it is worth reminding ourselves why we went down the disposability route with contact lenses in the first place, and unlike electrical goods it was not just so we did not have to take them for repair! There are the obvious advantages of overcoming problems of breakage and tearing of lenses and the lens deterioration with age. The lenses are less likely to be contaminated and the disinfection is either easier or not required at all (in the case of daily disposable lenses). Probably the landmark paper in the field was the work more commonly known as the ‘Gothenburg Study’. The paper, entitled ‘Strategies for minimizing the Ocular Effects of Extended Contact Lens Wear’ published in the American Journal of Optometry in 1987 (volume 64, pages 781-789) by Holden, B.A., Swarbrick, H.A., Sweeney, D.F., Ho, A., Efron, N., Vannas, A., Nilsson, K.T. They suggested that contact lens induced ocular effects were minimised by: •More frequently removed contact lenses •More regularly replaced contact lenses •A lens that was more mobile on the eye (to allow better removal of debris) •Better flow of oxygen through the lens All of these issues seem to be solved with disposability, except the oxygen issue which has been solved with the advent of silicone hydrogel materials. Newer issues have arisen and most can be solved in practice by the eye care practitioner. The emphasis now seems to be on making lenses more comfortable. The problems of contact lens related dry eyes symptoms seem to be ever present and maybe this would explain why in the UK we have a pretty constant contact lens wearing population of just over three million but every year we have over a million dropouts! That means we must be attracting a million new wearers every year (well done to the marketing departments!) but we are also losing a million wearers every year. We certainly are not losing them all to the refractive surgery clinics. We know that almost anyone can now wear a contact lens and we know that some lenses will solve problems of sharper vision, some will aid comfort, and some will be useful for patients with dry eyes. So if we still have so many dropouts then we must be doing something wrong! I think the take home message has to be ‘must try harder’! I must end with an apology for two errors in my editorial of issue 1 earlier this year. Firstly there was a typo in the first sentence; I meant to state that it was 40 years not 30 years since the first commercial soft lens was available in the UK. The second error was one that I was unaware of until colleagues Geoff Wilson (Birmingham, UK) and Tim Bowden (London, UK) wrote to me to explain that soft lenses were actually available in the UK before 1971 (please see their ‘Letters to the Editor’ in this issue). I am grateful to both of them for correcting the mistake.

The development of biomaterials for contact lens applications:effects of wear modality on materials design

The successful design of polymers for contact lens applications depends on the ability to provide a balance of properties appropriate to the ocular environment. Principal relevant aspects of the anterior eye are the tear film, eyelid and cornea, which govern the requirements for surface properties, modulus and oxygen permeability, respectively. Permeability requirements and the developing view of the needs of the cornea, in terms of oxygen consumption and the particular roles of fluorine and silicon in the design of silicone hydrogels, which have proved to be the most successful family of materials for this demanding application, are discussed. The contact lens field is complicated by the fact that contact lenses are used in a range of wear modalities, the extremes of which can conveniently be classified as lenses that are disposed of at the end of a single period of daily wear and those used for 30. days of successive day-and-night periods, frequently referred to as extended or continuous wear. As silicone hydrogels developed, in the decade following their launch there has been a progressive trend in properties taking both modulus and water content closer to those of conventional hydrogels. This is particularly evident in the family of daily disposable contact lenses that have appeared since 2008.

International flavours

It is an Olympic year and we have just witnessed the fantastic games hosted by Rio de Janeiro. Well done to team USA for winning the most medals overall but also well done to so many other nations and individuals who performed so well or were ambassadors in other ways. Teenage swimmer Yusra Mardini who swam for the refugee team and South Africa's Wayde van Niekerk who broke the longstanding 400 m record of Michael Johnson that has stood since 1999. Of course, we must mention sprinter Usain Bolt and swimmer Michael Phelps, who have now transcended superstar status and entered a new level of icon. My personal highlight was the sportsmanship witnessed in the 5000 m when American Abbey D’Agostino was accidentally felled by New Zealand runner Nikki Hamblin. D’Agostino helped Hamblin back to her feet but slumped to the track after realising her own injury. Hamblin helped her up and stayed with her so that both completed the race. The International Olympic Committee has awarded both with the prestigious Pierre de Coubertin award, also known as the International Fair Play Trophy. Fair play is of paramount importance in publishing in peer-reviewed papers. At CLAE we try and maintain, as do other journals, this by ensuring double blind peer review and allowing authors to select the most appropriate handling editor for their submission. Our handling editors are placed across the world (2 in Europe, 1 in the Americas, 1 in Australia and 1 in Asia) and part of their role is to encourage submissions from their region. Over the last decade we certainly have seen more and more papers from places that haven’t previously published in CLAE. In this issue of CLAE we have a true international blend of papers. We have papers from authors from the UK, USA, Iran, Jordan, France, Poland, Turkey, Nigeria, France, Spain and Brazil. I think it's a testament to the continued success of the journal that we are attracting new writers from so many parts of the world and retain papers from more established authors and research centres. We do continue to attract many weaker papers that are rejected early in the review process. Often these will be unexceptional case reports or papers describing a surgical technique. Case reports are published but only those that offer something original and especially those with interesting photographs. In this issue you will see Professor James Wolffsohn (UK) has an interesting paper around a lot of the focus of his recent research activity into clinical evaluation of methods of correcting presbyopia. In this paper he highlights predictors to aid success of presbyopic contact lenses. If you have been involved in any clinical work or research in the field of dry eye disease then you will know well the CLDEQ (Contact Lens Dry Eye Questionnaire) devised by Robin Chalmers and her colleagues (USA). This issue of CLAE details the latest research using the CLDEQ-8 (the 8 item version of the CLDEQ). The Shahroud Eye Cohort Study has produced many papers already and in this issue we see Fotouhi Akbar (Iran) looking at changes in central and peripheral corneal thickness over a five year period. These days we use a lot of new instrumentation, such as optical low-coherence reflectometry. In this issue Emre Güler (Turkey) compares that to a new optical biometry unit. Dry eye is more common and in this issue we see a study by Oluyemi Fasina (Nigeria) to investigate the disease in adults in South-West Nigeria. The TearLab™ is now commonly used to investigate osmolarity and Dorota Szczesna-Iskander (Poland) looks at measurement variability of this device. Following the theme of dry eyes and tear testing Renaud Laballe (France) looks at the use of scleral lenses as a reservoir-based ocular therapeutic system. In this issue we have a couple of papers looking at different aspects of keratoconus. Magdalena Popiela (UK) looks at demographics of older keratoconic patients in Wales, Faik Orucoglu (Turkey) reports a novel scoring system for distinguishing keratoconus from normal eyes, Gonzalo Carracedo (Spain) reports the effect of rigid gas permeable lens wear on dry eye in keratoconus and Hatice Nur Colak (Turkey) compares topographic and aberrations in keratoconus. Other interesting papers you will find are Mera Haddad (Jordan) investigates contact lens prescribing in Jordan, Camilla Fraga Amaral (Brazil) offers a report on the use of ocular prosthetics, Naveed Ahmed Khan (Malaysia) reports of the use of dimethyl sulfoxide in contact lens disinfectant and Michael Killpartrick (UK) offers a short piece with some useful advice on contamination risk factors that may occur from the posterior surface of disposable lenses. So for this issue I would say that the Gold Medal for biggest contribution in terms of papers has to go to Turkey. I could have awarded it to the UK too, but Turkey has three full papers and the UK has two plus one short communication. Turkey is also one of the countries that has shown the largest increase in submissions over the last decade. Finally, welcome aboard to our newest Editorial Board Member Nicole Carnt from Australia. Nicole has been an active researcher for many years and acted as a reviewer for CLAE many times in the past. We look forward to working with you.