The measurement of intraocular pressure over positive soft contact lenses by rebound tonometry

Purpose - To investigate if the accuracy of intraocular pressure (IOP) measurements using rebound tonometry over disposable hydrogel (etafilcon A) contact lenses (CL) is affected by the positive power of the CLs. Methods - The experimental group comprised 26 subjects, (8 male, 18 female). IOP measurements were undertaken on the subjects’ right eyes in random order using a Rebound Tonometer (ICare). The CLs had powers of +2.00 D and +6.00 D. Measurements were taken over each contact lens and also before and after the CLs had been worn. Results - The IOP measure obtained with both CLs was significantly lower compared to the value without CLs (t test; p < 0.001) but no significant difference was found between the two powers of CLs. Conclusions - Rebound tonometry over positive hydrogel CLs leads to a certain degree of IOP underestimation. This result did not change for the two positive lenses used in the experiment, despite their large difference in power and therefore in lens thickness. Optometrists should bear this in mind when measuring IOP with the rebound tonometer over plus power contact lenses.

Accommodation in young adults wearing multifocal soft contact lenses under long- and short- wavelength lighting

Purpose: Several studies have suggested accommodative lags may serve as a stimulus for myopic growth, and while a blurred foveal image is believed to the main stimulus for accommodation, spectral composition of the retinal image is also believed to influence accommodative accuracy. Of particular interest is how altering spectral lighting conditions influences accommodation in the presence of soft multifocal contact lenses, which are currently being used off-label for myopia control. Methods: Accommodative responses were assessed using a Grand Seiko WAM-5500 autorefractor for four target distances: 25, 33, 50, and 100cm for 30 young adult subjects (14 myopic, 16 emmetropic; mean refractive errors (±SD, D) -4.22±2.04 and -0.15±0.67 respectively). Measurements were obtained with four different soft contact lenses, Single vision distance (SVD), Single vision near (SVN), Centre-Near (CN) and Centre-Distance (CD) (+1.50 add), and three different lighting conditions: red (peak λ 632nm), blue (peak λ 460nm), and white (peak λ 560nm). Corrections for chromatic differences in refraction were made prior to calculating accommodative errors. Results: The size of accommodative errors was significantly affected by lens design (p<0.001), lighting (p=0.027), and target distance (p=0.009). Mean accommodative errors were significantly larger with the SV lenses compared to the CD and CN designs (p<0.001). Errors were also significantly larger under blue light compared to white (p=0.004) and a significant interaction noted between lens design and lighting (p<0.001). Blue light generally decreased accommodative lags and increased accommodative leads relative to white and red light, the opposite was true of red light (p≤0.001). Lens design also significantly influenced direction of accommodative error (i.e. lag or lead) (p<0.001). Interactions with or between refractive groups were not found to be statistically significant for either the magnitude or direction of accommodative error (p>0.05 for all). Conclusions: Accuracy of accommodation is affected by both lens design and by wavelength of lighting. These accommodative lag data lend some support to recent speculation about the potential therapeutic value of lighting with a spectral bias towards blue during near work for myopia, although such treatment effects are likely to be more subtle under broad compared to the narrow spectrum lighting conditions used here.

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.

Health beliefs affect the correct replacement of daily disposable contact lenses:predicting compliance with the Health Belief Model and the Theory of Planned Behaviour

Purpose: To assess the compliance of Daily Disposable Contact Lenses (DDCLs) wearers with replacing lenses at a manufacturer-recommended replacement frequency. To evaluate the ability of two different Health Behavioural Theories (HBT), The Health Belief Model (HBM) and The Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB), in predicting compliance. Method: A multi-centre survey was conducted using a questionnaire completed anonymously by contact lens wearers during the purchase of DDCLs. Results: Three hundred and fifty-four questionnaires were returned. The survey comprised 58.5% females and 41.5% males (mean age 34. ±. 12. years). Twenty-three percent of respondents were non-compliant with manufacturer-recommended replacement frequency (re-using DDCLs at least once). The main reason for re-using DDCLs was "to save money" (35%). Predictions of compliance behaviour (past behaviour or future intentions) on the basis of the two HBT was investigated through logistic regression analysis: both TPB factors (subjective norms and perceived behavioural control) were significant (p. <. 0.01); HBM was less predictive with only the severity (past behaviour and future intentions) and perceived benefit (only for past behaviour) as significant factors (p. <. 0.05). Conclusions: Non-compliance with DDCLs replacement is widespread, affecting 1 out of 4 Italian wearers. Results from the TPB model show that the involvement of persons socially close to the wearers (subjective norms) and the improvement of the procedure of behavioural control of daily replacement (behavioural control) are of paramount importance in improving compliance. With reference to the HBM, it is important to warn DDCLs wearers of the severity of a contact-lens-related eye infection, and to underline the possibility of its prevention.

Effect of presbyopic vision corrections on perceptions of driving difficulty

Objectives: As the population ages, more people will be wearing presbyopic vision corrections when driving. However, little is known about the impact of these vision corrections on driving performance. This study aimed to determine the subjective driving difficulties experienced when wearing a range of common presbyopic contact lens and spectacle corrections.----- Methods: A questionnaire was developed and piloted that included a series of items regarding difficulties experienced while driving under daytime and night-time conditions (rated on five-point and seven-point Likert scales). Participants included 255 presbyopic patients recruited through local optometry practices. Participants were categorized into five age-matched groups; including those wearing no vision correction for driving (n = 50), bifocal spectacles (n = 54), progressive spectacles (n = 50), monovision contact lenses (n = 53), and multifocal contact lenses (n = 48).----- Results: Overall, ratings of satisfaction during daytime driving were relatively high for all correction types. However, multifocal contact lens wearers were significantly less satisfied with aspects of their vision during night-time than daytime driving, particularly regarding disturbances from glare and haloes. Progressive spectacle lens wearers noticed more distortion of peripheral vision, whereas bifocal spectacle wearers reported more difficulties with tasks requiring changes of focus and those who wore no optical correction for driving reported problems with intermediate and near tasks. Overall, satisfaction was significantly higher for progressive spectacles than bifocal spectacles for driving.----- Conclusions: Subjective visual experiences of different presbyopic vision corrections when driving vary depending on the vision tasks and lighting level. Eye-care practitioners should be aware of the driving-related difficulties experienced with each vision correction type and the need to select corrective types that match the driving needs of their patients.

The effect of presbyiopic vision corrections on nighttime driving performance

Purpose. To investigate the effect of various presbyopic vision corrections on nighttime driving performance on a closed-road driving circuit. Methods. Participants were 11 presbyopes (mean age, 57.3 ± 5.8 years), with a mean best sphere distance refractive error of R+0.23±1.53 DS and L+0.20±1.50 DS, whose only experience of wearing presbyopic vision correction was reading spectacles. The study involved a repeated-measures design by which a participant's nighttime driving performance was assessed on a closed-road circuit while wearing each of four power-matched vision corrections. These included single-vision distance lenses (SV), progressive-addition spectacle lenses (PAL), monovision contact lenses (MV), and multifocal contact lenses (MTF CL) worn in a randomized order. Measures included low-contrast road hazard detection and avoidance, road sign and near target recognition, lane-keeping, driving time, and legibility distance for street signs. Eye movement data (fixation duration and number of fixations) were also recorded. Results. Street sign legibility distances were shorter when wearing MV and MTF CL than SV and PAL (P < 0.001), and participants drove more slowly with MTF CL than with PALs (P = 0.048). Wearing SV resulted in more errors (P < 0.001) and in more (P = 0.002) and longer (P < 0.001) fixations when responding to near targets. Fixation duration was also longer when viewing distant signs with MTF CL than with PAL (P = 0.031). Conclusions. Presbyopic vision corrections worn by naive, unadapted wearers affected nighttime driving. Overall, spectacle corrections (PAL and SV) performed well for distance driving tasks, but SV negatively affected viewing near dashboard targets. MTF CL resulted in the shortest legibility distance for street signs and longer fixation times.

Comparison of near visual acuity and reading metrics in presbyopia correction

PURPOSE: To provide a consistent standard for the evaluation of different types of presbyopic correction. SETTING: Eye Clinic, School of Life and Health Sciences, Aston University, Birmingham, United Kingdom. METHODS: Presbyopic corrections examined were accommodating intraocular lenses (IOLs), simultaneous multifocal and monovision contact lenses, and varifocal spectacles. Binocular near visual acuity measured with different optotypes (uppercase letters, lowercase letters, and words) and reading metrics assessed with the Minnesota Near Reading chart (reading acuity, critical print size [CPS], CPS reading speed) were intercorrelated (Pearson product moment correlations) and assessed for concordance (intraclass correlation coefficients [ICC]) and agreement (Bland-Altman analysis) for indication of clinical usefulness. RESULTS: Nineteen accommodating IOL cases, 40 simultaneous contact lens cases, and 38 varifocal spectacle cases were evaluated. Other than CPS reading speed, all near visual acuity and reading metrics correlated well with each other (r>0.70, P<.001). Near visual acuity measured with uppercase letters was highly concordant (ICC, 0.78) and in close agreement with lowercase letters (+/- 0.17 logMAR). Near word acuity agreed well with reading acuity (+/- 0.16 logMAR), which in turn agreed well with near visual acuity measured with uppercase letters 0.16 logMAR). Concordance (ICC, 0.18 to 0.46) and agreement (+/- 0.24 to 0.30 logMAR) of CPS with the other near metrics was moderate. CONCLUSION: Measurement of near visual ability in presbyopia should be standardized to include assessment of near visual acuity with logMAR uppercase-letter optotypes, smallest logMAR print size that maintains maximum reading speed (CPS), and reading speed. J Cataract Refract Surg 2009; 35:1401-1409 (C) 2009 ASCRS and ESCRS

Visual comparison of multifocal contact lens to monovision

Purpose. To compare visual function with the Bausch & Lomb PureVision multifocal contact lens to monovision with PureVision single vision contact lenses. Methods. Twenty presbyopic subjects were fitted with either the PureVision multifocal contact lens or monovision with PureVision singlevision lenses. Aftera 1-month trial, the following assessments of visual function were made: (a) distance, intermediate, and near visual acuity (VA); (b) reading ability; (c) distance and near contrast sensitivity function (CSF); (d) near range of clear vision; (e) stereoacuity; and (f) subjective evaluation of near vision ability with a standardized questionnaire. Subjects were then refitted with the alternative correction and the procedure was repeated. All measurements were compared between the two corrections, whereas the ``low addition'' multifocal lens was also compared with the ``high addition'' alternative. Results. Distance and near VA were significantly better with monovision than with the multifocal option (p < 0.05). Intermediate VA (p = 0.13) was similar with both corrections, whereas there was also no significant difference in distance and near CSF (p = 0.29 on both occasions). Reading speeds (p = 0.48) and the critical print size (p = 0.90) were not significantly different between the two contact lens corrections, but stereoacuity (p < 0.01) and the near range of clear vision (p < 0.05) were significantly better with the multifocal option than with monovision. Subjective assessment of near ability was similar for both types of contact lens (p = 0.52). The high addition multifocal lens produced significantly poorer distance and near CSF, near VA, and critical print size compared with the low addition alternative. Conclusions. Monovision performed better than a center-near aspheric simultaneous vision multifocal contact lens of the same material for distance and near VA only. The multifocal option provides better stereoacuity and near range of clear vision, with little differences in CSF, so a better balance of real-world visual function may be achieved due to minimal binocular disruption. (Optom Vis Sci 2009;86:98-105)

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.

Determining which factors influence the optimum multifocal contact lens correction for presbyopia

Presbyopia is a consequence of ageing and is therefore increasing inprevalence due to an increase in the ageing population. Of the many methods available to manage presbyopia, the use of contact lenses is indeed a tried and tested reversible option for those wishing to be spectacle free. Contact lens options to correct presbyopia include multifocal contact lenses and monovision.Several options have been available for many years with available guides to help choose multifocal contact lenses. However there is no comprehensive way to help the practitioner selecting the best option for an individual. An examination of the simplest way of predicting the most suitable multifocal lens for a patient will only enhance and add to the current evidence available. The purpose of the study was to determine the current use of presbyopic correction modalities in an optometric practice population in the UK and to evaluate and compare the optical performance of four silicone hydrogel soft multifocal contact lenses and to compare multifocal performance with contact lens monovision. The presbyopic practice cohort principal forms of refractive correction were distance spectacles (with near and intermediate vision providedby a variety of other forms of correction), varifocal spectacles and unaided distance with reading spectacles, with few patients wearing contact lenses as their primary correction modality. The results of the multifocal contact lens randomised controlled trial showed that there were only minor differences in corneal physiology between the lens options. Visual acuity differences were observed for distance targets, but only for low contrast letters and under mesopic lighting conditions. At closer distances between 20cm and 67cm, the defocus curves demonstrated that there were significant differences in acuity between lens designs (p < 0.001) and there was an interaction between the lens design and the level of defocus (p < 0.001). None of the lenses showed a clear near addition, perhaps due to their more aspheric rather than zoned design. As expected, stereoacuity was reduced with monovision compared with the multifocal contact lens designs, although there were some differences between the multifocal lens designs (p < 0.05). Reading speed did not differ between lens designs (F = 1.082, p = 0.368), whereas there was a significant difference in critical print size (F = 7.543, p < 0.001). Glare was quantified with a novel halometer and halo size was found to significantly differ between lenses(F = 4.101, p = 0.004). The rating of iPhone image clarity was significantly different between presbyopic corrections (p = 0.002) as was the Near Acuity Visual Questionnaire (NAVQ) rating of near performance (F = 3.730, p = 0.007).The pupil size did not alter with contact lens design (F = 1.614, p = 0.175), but was larger in the dominant eye (F = 5.489, p = 0.025). Pupil decentration relative to the optical axis did not alter with contact lens design (F = 0.777, p =0.542), but was also greater in the dominant eye (F = 9.917, p = 0.003). It was interesting to note that there was no difference in spherical aberrations induced between the contact lens designs (p > 0.05), with eye dominance (p > 0.05) oroptical component (ocular, corneal or internal: p > 0.05). In terms of subjective patient lens preference, 10 patients preferred monovision,12 Biofinity multifocal lens, 7 Purevision 2 for Presbyopia, 4 AirOptix multifocal and 2 Oasys multifocal contact lenses. However, there were no differences in demographic factors relating to lifestyle or personality, or physiological characteristics such as pupil size or ocular aberrations as measured at baseline,which would allow a practitioner to identify which lens modality the patient would prefer. In terms of the performance of patients with their preferred lens, it emerged that Biofinity multifocal lens preferring patients had a better high contrast acuity under photopic conditions, maintained their reading speed at smaller print sizes and subjectively rated iPhone clarity as better with this lens compared with the other lens designs trialled. Patients who preferred monovision had a lower acuity across a range of distances and a larger area of glare than those patients preferring other lens designs that was unexplained by the clinical metrics measured. However, it seemed that a complex interaction of aberrations may drive lens preference. New clinical tests or more diverse lens designs which may allow practitioners to prescribe patients the presbyopic contact lens option that will work best for them first time remains a hope for the future.

Influence of presbyopic corrections on driving-related eye and head movements

Purpose: To investigate whether wearing different presbyopic vision corrections alters the pattern of eye and head movements when viewing and responding to driving-related traffic scenes. Methods: Participants included 20 presbyopes (mean age: 56.1 ± 5.7 years) who had no experience of wearing presbyopic vision corrections, apart from single vision (SV) reading spectacles. Each participant wore five different vision corrections: distance SV lenses, progressive addition spectacle lenses (PAL), bifocal spectacle lenses (BIF), monovision (MV) and multifocal contact lenses (MTF CL). For each visual condition, participants were required to view videotape recordings of traffic scenes, track a reference vehicle, and identify a series of peripherally presented targets. Digital numerical display panels were also included as near visual stimuli (simulating the visual displays of a vehicle speedometer and radio). Eye and head movements were measured, and the accuracy of target recognition was also recorded. Results: The path length of eye movements while viewing and responding to driving-related traffic scenes was significantly longer when wearing BIF and PAL than MV and MTF CL (both p ≤ 0.013). The path length of head movements was greater with SV, BIF, and PAL than MV and MTF CL (all p < 0.001). Target recognition and brake response times were not significantly affected by vision correction, whereas target recognition was less accurate when the near stimulus was located at eccentricities inferiorly and to the left, rather than directly below the primary position of gaze (p = 0.008), regardless of vision correction. Conclusions: Different presbyopic vision corrections alter eye and head movement patterns. The longer path length of eye and head movements and greater number of saccades associated with the spectacle presbyopic corrections may affect some aspects of driving performance.

A population survey of the penetrance of contact lens wear in Australia : rationale, methodology and results

Purpose: A population based, cross-sectional telephone survey was conducted to estimate the total penetrance of contact lens wear in Australia. Methods: A total of 42,749 households around Australia were randomly selected from the national electronic telephone directory based on postcode distribution. Before contact was attempted, letters of introduction were sent. The number of individuals and contact lens wearers in each household was ascertained and lens wearers were interviewed to determine details of lens type and mode of wear using a structured questionnaire. Results: Of households contacted, 59.2% (19,171/32,405) agreed to participate. Response rates were only marginally higher amongst households that first received a letter of introduction. In these households, 35,914 individuals were identified, of which, 1,798 were contact lens wearers. The penetrance of contact lens wear during the study period was 5.01% (95% CI: 4.78-5.24). Soft hydrogel lenses had the largest penetrance in the community, (66.7% of all wearers), however, their market share decreased significantly over the study period with increased uptake of newly introduced lens types. Conclusions: The penetrance of contact lens wear concurs with market estimates and equates to approximately 680,000 contact lens wearers aged between 15 and 64 years in Australia. The low response rate obtained in this study highlights the difficulty in contemporary use of telephone survey methodology

Practitioner influence on contact lens prescribing in the UK

Contact lenses are mainly fitted by registered optometrists and contact lens opticians in the UK. Data we have gathered from annual contact lens fitting surveys over the past 12 years indicate that, on average, registered optometrists and contact lens opticians undertake 3.2 and 7.1 contact lens fits per week (p < 0.0001). More experienced practitioners tend to fit older patients. Practitioners fitting more lenses per year tend to fit a higher proportion of soft lenses. Contact lens opticians tend to fit a higher proportion of patients with planned replacement and daily disposable lenses compared with optometrists.