Ocular motor triad with single vision contact lenses compared to spectacle lenses

Aim: Theoretically myopes are required to exert more accommodation and vergence when wearing single vision contact lenses compared to glasses and hypermetropes less. This study aims to quantify the effects clinically. Method: Thirty subjects (21 female, nine male, average age 21.0 ± 2.2 years) with a range of refractive errors (-7.87 D to +3.50 D) viewed in a random order, static targets at 0.1, 0.5, 1.0, 2.0, 3.0, 4.0 and 5.0 D accommodative demand that were matched for angular subtense. The subjects were fully corrected with spectacles and daily disposable contact lenses to their full prescription. Accommodation was monitored objectively with the PowerRefractor and Shin-Nippon SRW5000 and vergence and pupil size with the PowerRefractor. Results: Myopes exerted greater accommodative effort for viewing near targets with contact lenses than glasses and hypermetropes less (r2 = 0.35, p = 0.001 PowerRefractor). Myopes also exerted greater vergence effort for viewing near targets with contact lenses than glasses and hypermetropes less (r2 = 0.22, p < 0.01). Conclusion: Theoretical calculation of the accommodative and vergence requirements with glasses compared to contact lenses reflect clinical findings, although there is reasonable variability between individuals. © 2006 British Contact Lens Association.

Refractive and biometric changes with silicone hydrogel contact lenses

Purpose. This study reports data from an 18-month longitudinal study of neophyte contact lens wearers and compares changes in ocular refraction and biometry induced by daily wear and continuous wear of two different silicone hydrogel (SiH) materials. Methods. Forty-five subjects were enrolled in the study and randomly assigned to wear one of the two silicone hydrogel materials: Lotrafilcon A or Balafilcon A lenses on either a daily or continuous wear basis. Measurements of objective refraction, axial length, anterior chamber depth, corneal curvature, and the rate of peripheral corneal flattening were performed before and 1, 3, 6, 12, and 18 months after initial fitting. Results. Mean spherical equivalent refractive error increased in the myopic direction in all contact lens groups across time (p < 0.001). Axial length was the main biometric contributor to the development of myopia. After 18 months of lens wear, subjects in the Lotrafilcon A group showed the greater mean increase in myopia (i.e., -0.50 D). Conclusions. The results of this study show that increases in myopia, similar if not higher than those found to occur normally in young adult noncontact lens wearers, still occur with silicone hydrogel contact lens wear. The main biometric contributor to the progression of myopia was an increase in axial length. Differences between our results and those of previous studies with silicone hydrogel contact lenses could be attributed to the differing populations used in which both age and occupation may have played a role. Copyright © 2005 American Academy of Optometry.

Conjunctival UV autofluorescence - prevalence and risk factors

Purpose: Autofluorescence of ultraviolet (UV) light has been shown to occur in localised areas of the bulbar conjunctiva, which map to active cellular changes due to UV and environmental exposure. This study examined the presence of conjunctival UV autofluorescence in eye care practitioners (ECPs) across Europe and the Middle East and its associated risk factors. Method: Images were captured of 307 ECPs right eyes in the Czech Republic, Germany, Greece, Kuwait, Netherlands, Sweden, Switzerland, United Arab Emirates and the United Kingdom using a Nikon D100 camera and dual flash units through UV filters. UV autofluorescence was outlined using ImageJ software and the nasal and temporal area quantified. Subjects were required to complete a questionnaire on their demographics and lifestyle including general exposure to UV and refractive correction. Results: Average age of the subjects was 38.5±12.2 years (range 19-68) and 39.7% were male. Sixty-two percent of eyes had some conjunctival damage as indicated by UV autofluorescence. The average area of damage was higher (p=0.005) nasally (2.95±4.52mm2) than temporally (2.19±4.17mm2). The area of UV damage was not related to age (r=0.03, p=0.674), gender (p=0.194), self-reported sun exposure lifestyle (p>0.05), geographical location (p=0174), sunglasses use (p>0.05) or UV-blocking contact lens use (p>0.05), although it was higher in those wearing contact lenses with minimal UV-blocking and no spectacles (p=0.015). The area of UV damage was also less nasally in those who wore contact lenses and spectacles compared to those with no refractive correction use (p=0.011 nasal; p=0.958 temporal). Conclusion: UV conjunctival damage is common even in Europe, Kuwait and UAE, and among ECPs. The area of damage appears to be linked with the use of refractive correction, with greater damage nasally than temporally which may be explained by the peripheral light focusing effect.

Drug-induced bilateral transient myopia with the sulphonamide sulphasalazine

Whereas there are numerous reported ocular side effects from systemic sulpha medication, most are rare and reversible, with myopia being the most common reaction observed. A case report is presented of sudden bilateral onset of -1.0 DS of myopia (from -3.0 to -4.0 DS) in a young adult female following the addition of a sulphonamide (sulphasalazine) to oral non-steroidal anti-inflammatory treatment (meloxicam) for rheumatoid arthritis. The myopia regressed to -3.50 DS after 2 weeks when all medication was withdrawn and stabilised at this level when subsequent treatment was resumed after 8 weeks with the non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug celecoxib. The case indicates that account needs to be taken of the possibility that relatively modest myopic shifts encountered in young adult contact lens wearers may be associated with concomitant systemic medication. © 2003 The College of Optometrists.

The application of counter immunoelectrophoresis (CIE) in ocular protein studies. Part I:time dependent deposition patterns of immunoregulatory proteins on anionic hydrogel contact lenses

This paper focuses on the effects of wear regime on the deposition pattern of important immunoregulatory proteins on FDA Group IV etafilcon-A lenses. Specifically, the aim was to assess the extent to which the daily disposable wear modality produces a different deposition of proteins from the conventional daily wear regime which is coupled with cleaning and disinfection. Counter immunoelectrophoresis (CIE) was employed to detect individual proteins in lens extracts from individual patients and focused on the analysis of five proteins, IgA, IgG, lactoferrin, albumin and kininogen. Deposition was monitored as a function of time; significantly lower deposition was detected on the daily disposable lenses. cr 2002 British Contact Lens Association. Published by Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

The application of counter immunoelectrophoresis (CIE) in ocular protein studies. Part II:kinin activity in the lens wearing eye

The kinin family are a group of bioactive peptides that are closely involved in the modulation of vascular inflammation and local injury. We have demonstrated here, for the first time, a link between kinin activity and contact lens wear. Protein extracts from daily and extended wear etafilcon A, Group IV, Acuvue lenses (Vistakon), were analysed by counter immunoelectrophoresis. In this way, kinin activity associated with contact lens wear was detected. High molecular weight kininogen was used as the marker protein. In contrast, no kinin activity was detected in the non-lens wearing normal eye. © 2002 British Contact Lens Association. Published by Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

Editorial

This time of year we look back at the year that has passed and make plans for the next year. I like to reflect on things that I have learnt and people that I have met, especially those who facilitated that learning. In 2009 I went to various conferences, The BCLA conference in Manchester, The Romanian Optical Society meeting in Brasov, Transylvania (where the university is actually on Vlad Tepes Street), The European Council for Optometry and Optics (ECOO) in Brno, Czech Republic, The American Academy of Optometry (AAO) in Orlando USA, The International Association of Contact Lens Educators (IACLE) meeting in Tianjin China and finally The Vereinigung Deutscher Contactlinsen-Spezialisten (VDCO) meeting in Jena. All were interesting places and thoroughly all were enjoyable conferences with their own highlights but I wanted to focus on Jena and one person I met there and his inspirational search for knowledge and the contributions he made in the field of contact lenses. Jena itself is a fascinating place and should be on the ‘must visit’ list of anyone involved in eye care. It is the birth place of Carl Zeiss of course and where he started his company. It is also the birth place of Ernst Abbe (physicist and optometrist and expert lens maker), and Otto Schott (chemist and technologist who made high quality glass. There are many road signs bearing witness to these famous pioneers. The optical museum is worth spending a few hours looking around too. I was invited to speak at the VDCO at the kind invitation from colleagues at the Jena School of Optometry, Professor Wolfgang Sickenberger and Professor Sebastian Marx. At this meeting I met 87-year-old Willi KAUE who was being awarded the Adolf Wilhelm Müller-Welt prize by the VDCO for contribution to contact lenses over his 60-year career. At the age of 15 Willi Kaue took up an apprenticeship to become an Optician in Germany in 1937. At this time he first heard about the scleral glass lenses made by the Carl Zeiss Company in Jena. This started his lifelong fascination which was to become his passion but not yet his career. During the war he was enlisted into military service but immediately after was back to his former career. In 1950 Willi corrected his own 3.5 dioptres of myopia with a plastic scleral lens. His fascination strengthened as for the first time he himself could experience a wider field of view than his spectacles gave him, less aberrations and less retinal minification. He also appreciated the fact that contact lenses did not cause pressure on the nose or ears and did not slide down his nose plus remained optically centred with his eye movements. He decided that form now on he would make fitting contact lenses his career. He travelled to London to learn more about contact lenses and how to fit them but initially did not find many willing teachers and to start with became largely self-taught. He wanted to know how to make scleral lenses. So far he only knew that pulverized polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA) was pressed and moulded. In 1951 he met Berlin optician Otto Marzock. He made his only scleral lenses from using military PMMA windshields. His process involved lathe cutting the lenses and resulted in lenses that were thinner than moulded ones. Willi developed a manufacturing method, using a rotary diamond drill, starting form the outer edge and towards the centre at a constant cut speed. This enabled him to make more reproducible lenses and in less time. His enthusiasm in the field was clear from the travels he made in the pursuit of advancement - travelling around Europe, South America, North America and Asia. In 1963 he visited George Nissel in Hemel Hempstead, England. Constantly thriving towards innovations Willi came across the new Naturalens from the USA made from HEMA at a congress in Marseille in 1969. Amongst his contributions to the field, was his own technique of fitting ocular prosthetics, using an alginate impression of the orbit. I was fortunate enough to have dinner with Willi Kaue and learnt more about his fascinating career through the patient interpreting skills of Hilmar Bussacker (the 2008 winner of the same award and the 2007 winner of the European Federation of the Contact Lens and IOL Industries Award). I look forward to 2010 with eager anticipation as to what I may learn and who I might meet!!! Copyright © 2009 British Contact Lens Association. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Comparison of fitting stability of the different soft toric contact lenses

Purpose: To compare lens orientation and rotational recovery of five currently available soft toric lenses. Methods: Twenty subjects were recruited and trialed with each of the study lenses in a random order. Study lenses were PureVision® Toric (B&L), Air Optix® for Astigmatism (Alcon), Biofinity® Toric (CooperVision), Acuvue® Advance for Astigmatism (Vistakon), and Proclear® Toric (CooperVision). Lens orientation in primary position to determine the lens rotation form the vertical position and rotational recovery to primary gaze orientation following a 45° manual misorientation for the different lenses was compared. Results: The Biofinity Toric showed the lowest rotation from the vertical position and the Proclear Toric the highest. Also, the highest and the lowest reorientation speed were related to the Biofinity Toric and the Acuvue Advance for Astigmatism, respectively. The Repeated Measures ANOVA showed a significant difference in the lens rotation (P=. 0.004) and rotational recovery (P<. 0.001) among different contact lenses and the performed multiple comparisons indicated differences in rotation and also in reorientation speed were only seen between the Biofinity Toric when compared to four other lenses (P<. 0.05). Conclusion: Although there was appropriate fitting, based upon lens orientation and reorientation speed, with each of the study lenses it would appear that the optimized ballast technique used in the design of the Biofinity Toric helps reduce lens rotation and improve rotational recovery compared to others.

Anterior eye health recording

Aims: To survey eye care practitioners from around the world regarding their current practice for anterior eye health recording to inform guidelines on best practice. Methods: The on-line survey examined the reported use of: word descriptions, sketching, grading scales or photographs; paper or computerised record cards and whether these were guided by proforma headings; grading scale choice, signs graded, level of precision, regional grading; and how much time eye care practitioners spent on average on anterior eye health recording. Results: Eight hundred and nine eye care practitioners from across the world completed the survey. Word description (p <. 0.001), sketches (p = 0.002) and grading scales (p <. 0.001) were used more for recording the anterior eye health of contact lens patients than other patients, but photography was used similarly (p = 0.132). Of the respondents, 84.5% used a grading scale, 13.5% using two, with the original Efron (51.6%) and CCLRU/Brien-Holden-Vision-Institute (48.5%) being the most popular. The median features graded was 11 (range 1-23), frequency from 91.6% (bulbar hyperaemia) to 19.6% (endothelial blebs), with most practitioners grading to the nearest unit (47.4%) and just 14.7% to one decimal place. The average time taken to report anterior eye health was reported to be 6.8. ±. 5.7. min, with the maximum time available 14.0. ±. 11. min. Conclusions: Developed practice and research evidence allows best practice guidelines for anterior eye health recording to be recommended. It is recommended to: record which grading scale is used; always grade to one decimal place, record what you see live rather than based on how you intend to manage a condition; grade bulbar and limbal hyperaemia, limbal neovascularisation, conjunctival papillary redness and roughness (in white light to assess colouration with fluorescein instilled to aid visualisation of papillae/follicles), blepharitis, meibomian gland dysfunction and sketch staining (both corneal and conjunctival) at every visit. Record other anterior eye features only if they are remarkable, but indicate that the key tissue which have been examined.

Refracting the pseudophakic patient

Pseudophakic patients are frequently encountered in optometric practice, often the result of cataract extraction but also presbyopia correction. Given advances in technology and surgery, the demand for intraocular lenses for correcting a variety of refractive requirements has increased owing to an ageing population. Based on the patient’s needs, either fixed focus, toric, accommodating or multifocal intraocular lenses (IOLs) may be implanted. During optometric examination, attention should be drawn to a history of IOLs and the potential complications they may cause in order to manage them effectively, particularly where sight is threatened. Although objective and subjective refraction does not differ greatly between phakic and pseudophakic patients, care should be taken to set the patient up correctly and the reflex during retinoscopy observed for posterior sub-capsular opacification. Additional tests such as reading speed, and glare and contrast sensitivity are necessary to determine the outcome of IOL surgery and detect potential problems associated with multifocal and accommodating IOLs. Based upon the results of these tests, refraction, and type of IOL, contact lens or spectacle correction may be required to meet the visual demands of the patient.

Optical quality and visual performance with customised soft contact lenses for keratoconus

Purpose: This study investigated how aberration-controlling, customised soft contact lenses corrected higher-order ocular aberrations and visual performance in keratoconic patients compared to other forms of refractive correction (spectacles and rigid gas-permeable lenses). Methods: Twenty-two patients (16 rigid gas-permeable contact lens wearers and six spectacle wearers) were fitted with standard toric soft lenses and customised lenses (designed to correct 3rd-order coma aberrations). In the rigid gas-permeable lens-wearing patients, ocular aberrations were measured without lenses, with the patient's habitual lenses and with the study lenses (Hartmann-Shack aberrometry). In the spectacle-wearing patients, ocular aberrations were measured both with and without the study lenses. LogMAR visual acuity (high-contrast and low-contrast) was evaluated with the patient wearing their habitual correction (of either spectacles or rigid gas-permeable contact lenses) and with the study lenses. Results: In the contact lens wearers, the habitual rigid gas-permeable lenses and customised lenses provided significant reductions in 3rd-order coma root-mean-square (RMS) error, 3rd-order RMS and higher-order RMS error (p ≤ 0.004). In the spectacle wearers, the standard toric lenses and customised lenses significantly reduced 3rd-order RMS and higher-order RMS errors (p ≤ 0.005). The spectacle wearers showed no significant differences in visual performance measured between their habitual spectacles and the study lenses. However, in the contact lens wearers, the habitual rigid gas-permeable lenses and standard toric lenses provided significantly better high-contrast acuities compared to the customised lenses (p ≤ 0.006). Conclusions: The customised lenses provided substantial reductions in ocular aberrations in these keratoconic patients; however, the poor visual performances achieved with these lenses are most likely to be due to small, on-eye lens decentrations. © 2014 The College of Optometrists.

Do educators need educating?

Actual text: I was recently at the Spanish College of Optometry biennial conference and attended a meeting of contact lens lecturers from around Spain and Portugal. We discussed various ideas, mainly about how to share good practice and improve standards. What came to my mind was ‘is there a blueprint for training trainers?’ Well probably not but there are many things that we need to acknowledge such as the way students learn for example. Many educators themselves were taught by lecturers who would write on a blackboard or use acetate on an overhead projector, then came the 35 mm slide era followed by the Powerpoint era. More recently there is a move towards a much more integrated approach of various teaching methods. At my university our contact lens and anterior eye lectures generally follow a format where a narrated Powerpoint lecture is uploaded onto our internal virtual learning environment. This narrated version of the slides is designed to give the didactic element of the topic. The students listen to that before attending an interactive seminar on that topic. The seminar is also recorded so that students can listen to that afterwards. The seminar is designed to give additional information, such as case reports, or to clarify key points or for live demonstrations. It is a good way of doubling the contact time with the students without imposing further on an already packed formal timetable as the students can work in their own time. One problem that we noticed with this approach was that attendance can vary. If the students feel that they will gain something from the interactive seminar then they are more likely to attend – exam tips usually win them over! At the Spanish meeting the educators decided that they wanted to have regular meetings. The industry colleagues in attendance said that they were happy to help but could not necessarily give money, but they could offer meeting rooms, pay for lunch and evening meals. They even said that that they were happy to host meetings and invite other companies too (except to manufacturing plants). In the UK the British Committee of Contact Lens Educators (BUCCLE) meets for one day on three occasions in the year. The American Optometric Contact Lens Educators (AOCLE) meets annually at a three day event. Both these organisations get some help from industry. BUCCLE usually has one of its meetings at a university, one at a company training centre/manufacturing plant/national headquarters and one meeting the day before the BCLA annual conference. BUCCLE usually has its pre-BCLA meeting in conjunction with the International Association of Contact Lens Educators (IACLE). So when educators meet what would they discuss; well probably the focus should be on education rather than actual contact lens knowledge. For example sharing ideas on how to teach toric lens fitting would be better than discussing the actual topic of toric lenses itself. Most universities will have an education department with an expert who could share ideas on how to use the internet in teaching or how to structure lectures or assessments etc. In the past I have helped with similar training programmes in other countries and sharing good practice in pedagogy is always a popular topic. Anyone who is involved in education in the field of contact lenses should look at the IACLE web page and look out for the IACLE World Congress in 2015 in the days preceding the BCLA. Finally, IACLE, AOCLE and BUCCLE all exist as a result of generous educational grants from contact lens companies and anyone interested in finding out more about should refer to their respective web pages.

International session at the BCLA conference

Full text: It seems a long time ago now since we were at the BCLA conference. The excellent FIFA World Cup in Brazil kept us occupied over the summer as well as Formula 1, Wimbledon, Tour de France, Commonwealth Games and of course exam paper marking! The BCLA conference this year was held in Birmingham at the International Convention Centre which again proved to be a great venue. The number of attendees overall was up on previous years, and at a record high of 1500 people. Amongst the highlights at this year's annual conference was the live surgery link where Professor Sunil Shah demonstrated the differences in technique between traditional phacoemulsification cataract surgery and femtosecond assisted phacoemulsification cataract surgery. Dr. Raquel Gil Cazorla, a research optometrist at Aston University, assisted in the procedure including calibrating the femtosecond laser. Another highlight for me was the session that I chaired, which was the international session organised by IACLE (International Association of CL Educators). There was a talk by Mirjam van Tilborg about dry eye prevalence in the Netherlands and how it was managed by medical general practitioners (GPs) or optometrists. It was interesting to know that there are only 2 schools of optometry there and currently under 1000 registered optometrists there. It also seems that GPs were more likely to blame CL as the cause for dry eye whereas optometrists who had a fuller range of tests were better at solving the issue. The next part of the session included the presentation of 5 selected posters from around the world. The posters were also displayed in the main poster area but were selected to be presented here as they had international relevance. The posters were: 1. Motivators and Barriers for Contact Lens Recommendation and Wear by Nilesh Thite (India) 2. Contact lens hygiene among Saudi wearers by Dr. Ali Masmaly (Saudi) 3. Trends of contact lens prescribing and patterns of contact lens practice in Jordan by Dr. Mera Haddad (Jordan) 4. Contact Lens Behaviour in Greece by Dr. Dimitra Makrynioti (Greece) 5. How practitioners inform ametropes about the benefits of contact lenses and overcome the potential barriers: an Italian survey, by Dr. Fabrizio Zeri (Italy) It was interesting to learn about CL practice in different parts, for example the CL wearing population ration in Saudi Arabia is around 1:2 Male:Female (similar to other parts of the world) and although the sale of CL is restricted to registered practitioners there are many unregistered outlets, like clothing stores, that flout the rules. In Jordan some older practitioners will still advise patients to use tap water or even saliva! But thankfully the newer generation of practitioners have been educated not to advise this. In Greece one of the concerns was that some practitioners may advise patients to use disposable lenses for longer than they should and again it seems to be the practitioners with inadequate education that would do this. In India it was found that cost was one barrier to using contact lenses but also some practitioners felt that they shouldn’t offer CLs due to cost too. In Italy sensitive eyes and CL care and maintenance were the barriers to CL wear but the motivators were vision and comfort and aesthetics. Finally the international session ended with the IACLE travel award and educator awards presented by IACLE president Shehzad Naroo and BCLA President Andrew Yorke. The travel award went to Wang Ling, Jinling Institute of Technology, Nanjing, China. There were 3 regional Contact Lens Educator of the Year Awards sponsored by Coopervision and presented by Dr. J.C. Aragorn of Coopervision. 1. Asia Pacific Region – Dr. Rajeswari Mahadevan of Sankara Nethralaya Medical Research Foundation, Chennai, India 2. Americas Region – Dr. Sergio Garcia of University of La Salle, Bogotá and the University Santo Tomás, Bucaramanga, Colombia 3. Europe/Africa – Middle East Region: Dr. Eef van der Worp, affiliated with the University of Maastricht, the Netherlands The posters above were just a small selection of those displayed at this year's BCLA conference. If you missed the BCLA conference then you can see the abstracts for all posters and talks in a virtual issue of CLAE very soon. The poster competition was kindly sponsored by Elsevier. The poster winner this year was: Joan Gispets – Corneal and Anterior Chamber Parameters in Keratoconus The 3 runners up were: Debby Yeung – Scleral Lens Central Corneal Clearance Assessment with Biomicroscopy Sarah L. Smith – Subjective Grading of Lid Margin Staining Heiko Pult – Impact of Soft Contact Lenses on Lid Parallel Conjunctival Folds My final two highlights are a little more personal. Firstly, I was awarded Honorary Life Fellowship of the BCLA for my work with the Journal, and I would like to thank the BCLA, Elsevier, the editorial board of CLAE, the reviewers and the authors for their support of my role. My final highlight from the BCLA conference this year was the final presentation of the conference – the BCLA Gold Medal award. The recipient this year was Professor Philip Morgan with his talk ‘Changing the world with contact lenses’. Phil was the person who advised me to go to my first BCLA conference in 1994 (funnily he didn’t attend himself as he was busy getting married!) and now 20 years later he was being honoured with the accolade of being the BCLA Gold Medallist. The date of his BCLA medal addressed was shared with his father's birthday so a double celebration for Phil. Well done to outgoing BCLA President Andy Yorke and his team at the BCLA (including Nick Rumney, Cheryl Donnelly, Sarah Greenwood and Amir Khan) on an excellent conference. And finally welcome to new President Susan Bowers. Copyright © 2014 British Contact Lens Association. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

CLAE to move to online format

Editorial: The 2015 BCLA annual conference was another fantastic affair. It was the first time the conference was held in the beautiful city of Liverpool. The venue was great and the programme was excellent. The venue overlooked the River Mersey and many of the hotels were local boutique hotels. I stayed in one which was formerly the offices of White Star Liners—where the RMS Titanic was originally registered. The hotel decor was consistent with its historic significance. The BCLA gala dinner was held in the hugely impressive Anglican Cathedral with entertainment from a Beatles tribute band. That will certainly be a hard act to follow at the next conference in 2017. Brian Tompkins took the reigns as the new BCLA president. Professor Fiona Stapleton was the recipient of the BCLA Gold Medal Award. The winner of the poster competition was Dorota Szczesna-Iskander with a poster entitled ‘Dry Contact lens poor wettability and visual performance’. Second place was Renee Reeder with her poster entitled ‘Abnormal Rosacea as a differential diagnosis in corneal scarring’. And third place was Maria Jesus Gonzalez-Garcia with her poster entitled ‘Dry Effect of the Environmental Conditions on Tear Inflammatory Mediators Concentration in Contact Lens Wearers’. The photographic competition winner was Professor Wolfgang Sickenberger from Jena in Germany. The Editorial Panel of CLAE met at the BCLA conference for their first biannual meeting. The journal metrics were discussed. In terms of number of submissions of new papers CLAE seems to have plateaued after seeing a rapid growth in the number of submissions over the last few years. The increase over the last few years could be attributed to the fact that CLAE was awarded an impact factor for the first time in 2012. This year it seems that impact factors across nearly all ophthalmic related journals has dropped. This could in part be due to the fact that last year was a ‘Research Exercise Framework (REF) year for UK universities, where they are judged on quality of their research output. The next REF is in 2020 so we may see changes nearing that time. Looking at article downloads, there seems to be a continued rise in figures. Currently CLAE attracts around 85,000 downloads per year (this is an increase of around 10,000 per year for the last few years) and the 2015 prediction is 120,000! With this in mind and with other contributing factors too, the BCLA has decided to move to online delivery of CLAE to its members starting from issue 5 of 2015. Some members do like to flick through the pages of a hard copy of the journal so members will still have the option of receiving a hard copy through the post but the default journal delivery method will now be online. The BCLA office will send various alerts and content details to members email addresses. To access CLAE online you will need to log in via the BCLA web page, currently you then click on ‘Resources’ and then under ‘Free and Discounted Publications’ you will see CLAE. This actually takes you to CLAE’s own webpage (www.contactlensjournal.com) but you need to log in via the BCLA web page. The BCLA plans to change these weblinks so that from the BCLA web page you can link to the journal website much more easily and you have the choice of going directly into the general website for CLAE or straight to the current issue. In 2016 you will see an even easier way of accessing CLAE online as the BCLA will launch a CLAE application for mobile devices where the journal can be downloaded as a ‘flick-book’. This is a great way of bringing CLAE into the modern era where people access their information in newer ways. For many the BCLA conference was part of a very busy conference week as it was preceded by the International Association of Contact Lens Educators’ (IACLE) Third World Congress, held in Manchester on the 4 days before the BCLA conference. The first and second IACE World Congresses were held in Waterloo, Canada in 1994 and 2000 respectively and hosted by Professor Des Fonn. Professor Fonn was the recipient of the first ever IACLE lifetime achievement award. The Third IACLE World Congress saw more than 100 contact lens educators and industry representatives from around 30 countries gather in the UK for the four-day event, hosted by The University of Manchester. Delegates gained hands-on experience of innovations in teaching, such as learning delivery systems, the use of iPads in the classroom and for creating ePub content, and augmented and virtual reality technologies. IACLE members around the world also took part via a live online broadcast. The Third IACLE World Congress was made possible by the generous support of Sponsors Alcon, CooperVision and Johnson & Johnson Vision Care., for more information look at the IACLE web page (www.iacle.org).

Randomized crossover trial of silicone hydrogel presbyopic contact lenses

PURPOSE: To assess the performance of four commercially available silicone hydrogel multifocal monthly contact lens designs against monovision. METHODS: A double-masked randomized crossover trial of Air Optix Aqua multifocal, PureVision 2 for Presbyopia, Acuvue OASYS for Presbyopia, Biofinity multifocal, and monovision with Biofinity contact lenses was conducted on 35 presbyopes (54.3 ± 6.2 years). After 4 weeks of wear, visual performance was quantified by high- and low-contrast visual acuity under photopic and mesopic conditions, reading speed, defocus curves, stereopsis, halometry, aberrometry, Near Activity Visual Questionnaire rating, and subjective quality of vision scoring. Bulbar, limbal, and palpebral hyperemia and corneal staining were graded to monitor the impact of each contact lens on ocular physiology. RESULTS: High-contrast photopic visual acuity (p = 0.102), reading speed (F = 1.082, p = 0.368), and aberrometry (F = 0.855, p = 0.493) were not significantly different between presbyopic lens options. Defocus curve profiles (p <0.001), stereopsis (p <0.001), halometry (F = 4.101, p = 0.004), Near Activity Visual Questionnaire (F = 3.730, p = 0.007), quality of vision (p = 0.002), bulbar hyperemia (p = 0.020), and palpebral hyperemia (p = 0.012) differed significantly between lens types, with the Biofinity multifocal lens design principal (center-distance lens was fitted to the dominant eye and a center-near lens to the nondominant eye) typically outperforming the other lenses. CONCLUSIONS: Although ocular aberration variation between individuals largely masks the differences in optics between current multifocal contact lens designs, certain design strategies can outperform monovision, even in early presbyopes.