Contact lens correction of presbyopia

The ageing population highlights the need to provide effective optical solutions for presbyopic contact lens wearers. However, data gathered from annual contact lens fitting surveys demonstrate that fewer than 40% of contact lens wearers over 45 years of age (virtually all of whom can be presumed to suffer a partial or complete loss of accommodation) are prescribed a presbyopic correction. Furthermore, monovision is prescribed as frequently as multifocal lenses. These observations suggest that an optimal solution to the contact lens correction of presbyopia remains elusive.

International rigid contact lens prescribing

Rigid lenses have been fitted less since the introduction of soft lenses nearly 40 years ago. Data that we have gathered from annual contact lens fitting surveys conducted in Australia, Canada, Japan, the Netherlands, Norway, the UK and the USA between 2000 and 2008 facilitate an accurate characterization of the pattern of the decline of rigid lens fitting during the first decade of this century. There is a trend for rigid lenses to be utilized primarily for refitting those patients who are already successful rigid lens wearers—most typically older females being refit with higher Dk materials. Rigid lenses are generally fitted on a full-time basis (four or more days of wear per week) without a planned replacement schedule. Orthokeratology is especially popular in the Netherlands, but is seldom prescribed in the other countries surveyed.

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.

Confocal microscopy of the bulbar conjunctiva in contact lens wear

Purpose: The aim of this study was to investigate the capabilities of laser scanning confocal microscopy (LSCM) for undertaking qualitative and quantitative investigations of the response of the bulbar conjunctiva to contact lens wear. Methods: LSCM was used to observe and measure morphological characteristics of the bulbar conjunctiva of 11 asymptomatic soft contact lens wearers and 11 healthy volunteer subjects (controls). Results: The appearance of the bulbar conjunctiva is consistent with known histology of this tissue based on light and electron microscopy. The thickness of the bulbar conjunctival epithelium of lens wearers (30.9 ± 1.1 μm) was less than that of controls (32.9 ± 1.1 μm) (P < 0.0001). Superficial and basal bulbar conjunctival epithelial cell densities in contact lens wearers were 91% and 79% higher, respectively, than that in controls (P < 0.0001). No difference was observed in goblet and Langerhans cell density between lens wearers and controls. Conjunctival microcysts were observed in greater numbers, and were larger in size, in lens wearers compared with controls. Conclusions: The effects of contact lens wear on the human bulbar conjunctiva can be investigated effectively at a cellular level using LSCM. The observations in this study suggest that contact lens wear can induce changes in the bulbar conjunctiva such as epithelial thinning and accelerated formation and enlargement of microcysts, increased epithelial cell density, but has no impact on goblet or Langerhans cell density.

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.

Clinical investigation of asmofilcon A silicone hydrogel lenses

Purpose. To investigate the clinical and subjective performance of asmofilcon A, a new third generation silicone hydrogel contact lens during 6-night extended wear (EW) over 6 months. Methods. A prospective, randomized, single-masked study was conducted. Sixty experienced daily wear soft contact lens wearers were randomly assigned to wear either asmofilcon A or senofilcon A contact lenses bilaterally for 6 months on an EW basis. Evaluations were conducted at contact lens delivery and after 1 week, 4 weeks, 3 and 6 months of EW. Results. Fifty subjects (83%) successfully completed the study. Two subjects experienced adverse events; one unilateral red eye with asmofilcon A and one asymptomatic infiltrate with senofilcon A. There were no significant differences in high or low contrast distance visual acuity between asmofilcon A and senofilcon A; however, low contrast distance visual acuity decreased significantly over time with both contact lens types (p < 0.05). The two lens types did not vary significantly with respect to any of the objective and subjective measures assessed (p > 0.05). Superior palpebral conjunctival injection showed a statistically significant increase over time with both lens types (p < 0.05). Both lens types were rated highly with respect to overall comfort, with subjects reporting 14 or 15 h of comfortable lens wearing time per day at each of the study visits (p > 0.05). Overall satisfaction ratings were also very high at all visits, with median scores of 95 (86 to 99) for asmofilcon A and 90 (85 to 96) for senofilcon A at 6 months (p > 0.05). Conclusions. Over 6 months of EW, the asmofilcon A contact lens performed in a similar manner to senofilcon A with respect to visual acuity, ocular health, and contact lens performance measures. Longer-term EW studies are required to investigate the changes over time observed with both lens types.

Clinical performance of a new silicone hydrogel contact lens over 6 months of extended wear

Purpose: Silicone hydrogel contact lenses (CLs) are becoming increasingly popular for daily wear (DW), extended wear (EW) and continuous wear (CW), due to their higher oxygen transmissibility compared to hydrogel CLs. The aim of this study was to investigate the clinical and subjective performance of asmofilcon A (Menicon Co., Ltd), a new surface treated silicone hydrogel CL, during 6-night EW over 6 months (M). Methods: A prospective, randomised, single-masked, monadic study was conducted. N=60 experienced DW soft CL wearers were randomly assigned to wear either asmofilcon A (test: Dk=129, water content (WC)=40%, Nanogloss surface treatment) or senofilcon A (control: Dk=103, WC=38%, PVP internal wetting agent, Vistakon, Johnson & Johnson Vision Care) CLs bilaterally for 6 M on an EW basis. A PHMB-preserved solution (Menicon Co., Ltd) was dispensed for CL care. Evaluations were conducted at CL delivery and after 1 week (W), 4 W, 3 M and 6 M of EW. At each visit, a range of objective and subjective clinical performance measures were assessed. Results: N=50 subjects (83%) successfully completed the study, with the majority of discontinuations due to loss to follow-up (n=3) or moving away/travel (n=5). N=2 subjects experienced adverse events; n=1 unilateral red eye with asmofilcon A and n=1 asymptomatic infiltrate with senofilcon A. There were no significant differences in high or low contrast distance visual acuity (HCDVA or LCDVA) between asmofilcon A and senofilcon A; however, LCDVA decreased significantly over time with both CL types (p<0.05). The two CL types did not vary significantly with respect to any of the objective and subjective measures assessed (p>0.05); CL fitting characteristics and CL surface measurements were very similar and mean bulbar and limbal redness measures were always less than grade 1.0. Superior palpebral conjunctival injection showed a statistically, but not clinically, significant increase over time with both CL types (p<0.05). Corneal staining did not vary significantly between asmofilcon A and senofilcon A (p>0.05), with low median gradings of less than 0.5 observed for all areas assessed. There were no solution-related staining reactions observed with either CL type. The asmofilcon A and senofilcon A CLs were both rated highly with respect to overall comfort, with medians of 14 or 15 hours of comfortable lens wearing time per day reported at each of the study visits (p>0.05). Conclusions: Over 6 months of EW, the asmofilcon A and senofilcon A CLs performed in a similar manner with respect to visual acuity, ocular health and CL performance measures. Some changes over time were observed with both CL types, including reduced LCDVA and increased superior palpebral injection, which warrant further investigation in longer-term EW studies. Asmofilcon A appeared to be equivalent in performance to senofilcon A.

Corneal changes following short-term rigid contact lens wear

Purpose: The aim of this cross-over study was to investigate the changes in corneal thickness, anterior and posterior corneal topography, corneal refractive power and ocular wavefront aberrations, following the short term use of rigid contact lenses. Method: Fourteen participants wore 4 different types of contact lenses (RGP lenses of 9.5 mm and 10.5 mm diameter, and for comparison a PMMA lens of 9.5 mm diameter and a soft silicone hydrogel lens) on 4 different days for a period of 8 h on each day. Measures were collected before and after contact lens wear and additionally on a baseline day. Results: Anterior corneal curvature generally showed a flattening with both of the RGP lenses and a steepening with the PMMA lens. A significant negative correlation was found between the change in corneal swelling and central and peripheral posterior corneal curvature (all p ≤ 0.001). RGP contact lenses caused a significant decrease in corneal refractive power (hyperopic shift) of approximately 0.5 D. The PMMA contact lenses caused the greatest corneal swelling in both the central (27.92 ± 15.49 μm, p < 0.001) and peripheral (17.78 ± 12.11 μm, p = 0.001) corneal regions, a significant flattening of the posterior cornea and an increase in ocular aberrations (all p ≤ 0.05). Conclusion: The corneal swelling associated with RGP lenses was relatively minor, but there was slight central corneal flattening and a clinically significant hyperopic change in corneal refractive power after the first day of lens wear. The PMMA contact lenses resulted in significant corneal swelling and reduced optical performance of the cornea.

An international survey of daily disposable contact lens prescribing

Purpose The aim was to determine the extent of daily disposable contact lens prescribing worldwide and to characterise the associated demographics and fitting patterns. Methods Up to 1,000 survey forms were sent to contact lens fitters in up to 40 countries between January and March every year for five consecutive years (2007 to 2011). Practitioners were asked to record data relating to the first 10 contact lens fits or refits performed after receiving the survey form. Survey data collected since 1996 were also analysed for seven nations to assess daily disposable lens fitting trends since that time. Results Data were collected in relation to 97,289 soft lens fits, of which 23,445 (24.1 per cent) were with daily disposable lenses and 73,170 (75.9 per cent) were with reusable lenses. Daily disposable lens prescribing ranged from 0.6 per cent of all soft lenses in Nepal to 66.2 per cent in Qatar. Compared with reusable lens fittings, daily disposable lens fittings can be characterised as follows: older age (30.0 ± 12.5 versus 29.3 ± 12.3 years for reusable lenses); males are over-represented; a greater proportion of new fits versus refits; 85.9 per cent hydrogel; lower proportion of toric and presbyopia designs and a higher proportion of part-time wear. There has been a continuous increase in daily disposable lens prescribing between 1996 and 2011. The proportion of daily disposable lens fits (as a function of all soft lens fits) is positively related to the gross domestic product at purchasing power parity per capita (r2 = 0.55, F = 46.8, p < 0.0001). Conclusions The greater convenience and other benefits of daily disposable lenses have resulted in this modality capturing significant market share. The contact lens field appears to be heading toward a true single-use-only, disposable lens market.

International survey of rigid contact lens fitting

Purpose To determine the extent of rigid contact lens fitting worldwide and to characterize the associated demographics and fitting patterns. Methods Survey forms were sent to contact lens fitters in up to 40 countries between January and March every year for five consecutive years (2007 to 2011). Practitioners were asked to record data relating to the first 10 contact lens fits or refits performed after receiving the survey form. Survey data collected between 1996 and 2011 were also analyzed to assess rigid lens fitting trends in seven nations during this period. Results Data were obtained for 12,230 rigid and 100,670 soft lens fits between 2007 and 2011. Overall, rigid lenses represented 10.8% of all contact lens fits, ranging from 0.2% in Lithuania to 37% in Malaysia. Compared with soft lens fits, rigid lens fits can be characterized as follows: older age (rigid, 37.3 ± 15.0 years; soft, 29.8 ± 12.4 years); fewer spherical and toric fits; more bifocal/multifocal fits; less frequent replacement (rigid, 7%; soft, 85%); and less part-time wear (rigid, 4%; soft, 10%). High-Dk (contact lens oxygen permeability) (36%) and mid-Dk (42%) materials are predominantly used for rigid lens fitting. Orthokeratology represents 11.5% of rigid contact lens fits. There has been a steady decline in rigid lens fitting between 1996 and 2011. Conclusions Rigid contact lens prescribing is in decline but still represents approximately 10% of all contact lenses fitted worldwide. It is likely that rigid lenses will remain as a viable, albeit increasingly specialized, form of vision correction.

An international survey of toric contact lens prescribing

Objectives To characterize toric contact lens prescribing worldwide. Methods Up to 1,000 survey forms were sent to contact lens fitters in up to 39 countries between January and March every year for 5 consecutive years (2007–2011). Practitioners were asked to record data relating to the first 10 contact lens fits or refits performed after receiving the survey form. Only data for toric and spherical soft lens fits were analyzed. Survey data collected since 1996 were also analyzed for 7 nations to assess toric lens fitting trends since that time. Results Data were collected in relation to 21,150 toric fits (25%) and 62,150 spherical fits (75%). Toric prescribing ranged from 6% of lenses in Russia to 48% in Portugal. Compared with spherical fittings, toric fittings can be characterized as follows: older age (29.8 ± 11.4 years vs. 27.6 ± 10.8 years for spherical lenses); men are overrepresented (38% vs. 34%); greater proportion of new fits (39% vs. 32%); use of silicone hydrogel lenses (49% vs. 39%); and lower proportion of daily disposable lenses (14% vs. 28%). There has been a continuous increase in toric lens prescribing between 1996 and 2011. The proportion of toric lens fits was positively related to the gross domestic product at purchasing power parity per capita for year 2011 (r2 = 0.21; P=0.004). Conclusions At the present time, in the majority of countries surveyed, toric soft contact lens prescribing falls short of that required to correct clinically significant astigmatism (≥0.75 diopters) in all lens wearers.

Determinants of the frequency of contact lens wear

Objectives To characterize and discover the determinants of the frequency of wear (FOW) of contact lenses. Methods Survey forms were sent to contact lens fitters in up to 40 countries between January and March every year for 5 consecutive years (2007–2011). Practitioners were asked to record data relating to the first 10 contact lens fits or refits performed after receiving the survey form. Only data for daily wear lens fits were analyzed. Results Data were collected in relation to 74,510 and 9,014 soft and rigid lens fits, respectively. Overall, FOW was 5.9±1.7 days per week (DPW). When considering the proportion of lenses worn between one to seven DPW, the distribution for rigid lenses is skewed toward full-time wear (7 DPW), whereas the distribution for soft daily disposable lenses is perhaps bimodal, with large and small peaks at seven and two DPW, respectively. There is a significant variation in FOW among nations (P<0.0001), ranging from 6.8±1.0 DPW in Greece to 5.1±2.5 DPW in Kuwait. For soft lenses, FOW increases with decreasing age. Females (6.0±1.6 DPW) wear lenses more frequently than males (5.8±1.7 DPW) (P=0.0002). FOW is greater among those wearing presbyopic corrections (6.1±1.4 DPW) compared with spherical (5.9±1.7 DPW) and toric (5.9±1.6 DPW) designs (P<0.0001). FOW with hydrogel peroxide systems (6.4±1.1 DPW) was greater than that with multipurpose systems (6.2±1.3 DPW) (P<0.0001). Conclusions Numerous demographic and contact lens–related factors impact FOW. There may be a future trend toward a lower FOW associated with the increasing popularity of daily disposable lenses.

Influence of practice setting on contact lens prescribing in the United Kingdom

We sought to determine the impact of optometric practice setting on contact lens prescribing by analysing annual survey data of lens fits collected between 2009 and 2013 from independent and national group practices throughout the United Kingdom. Compared to national group practices, independent practices fit contact lenses to older patients and more females. Independent practices also undertake a lower proportion of soft lens fits overall (and thus a higher proportion of rigid lens fits), soft toric lens fits and daily disposable lens fits. There is a higher proportion of soft extended wear and multifocal lens fits in independent practices. We conclude that contact lens fitting behaviour is influenced by optometric practice setting.

Contact lens use after contact lens-associated infectious ulcers

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the outcome of patients with healed moderate to severe contact lens-associated corneal infectious ulcers who were re-fit with contact lenses. Methods: We retrospectively studied patients who were fit with contact lenses on our service and who had had moderate to severe corneal infectious ulcers associated with previous contact lens use. Six patients were included in the study. Results: Gas permeable contact lenses were fit in five patients, and a soft contact lens was fit in one patient. Successful fit was achieved in all cases and visual acuities were equal to or better than 20/30 in all patients. No significant complications were observed after a mean follow-up of 23 months (range, 6-45 months). Conclusion: In this small series of patients with a history of moderate to severe contact-lens related infectious keratitis, no complications were observed after contact lenses were refit. Contact lens wear in patients with a history of infectious keratitis may be safe and useful in order to achieve visual rehabilitation.

Specialist contact lens fitting

What is meant by the term ‘specialist contact lens fitting’? Or put another way, what would be considered non-specialist contact lens fitting? Is there such a thing as routine contact lens fitting? Soft or silicone hydrogel fitting for daily wear would probably be considered as routine contact lens fitting, but would extended or flexible wear remain in the same category or would they be considered a specialist fit? Different eras will classify different products as being ‘specialist’. Certainly twenty years ago soft toric contact lenses were considered as being speciality lenses but today would be thought of as routine lenses. Conversely, gas permeable lenses were thought of as mainstream twenty years ago but now are considered as speciality lenses. Although this would not be the same globally, as in some countries (such as Netherlands, France and Japan) gas permeable lens fitting remains popular and is not on the decline as in other countries (Canada, Australia and Sweden) [1]. Bandage soft lenses applied after surface laser refractive procedures would be considered as therapeutic lenses but in reality they are just plano thin hydrogel lenses worn constantly for 3–4 days to allow the underlying epithelium to convalesce and are then removed [2]. Some patients find that wearing hydrogel lenses during periods when they suffer from seasonal allergies actually improves their ocular comfort as the contact lens acts as a barrier to the allergen [3] and [4]. Scleral lenses have long been considered speciality lenses, apart from a time when they were the only lenses available but at that time all contact lens work would have been considered speciality practice! Nowadays we see the advent of mini-scleral designs and we see large diameter gas permeable lenses too. It is possible that these lenses increase the popularity of gas permeable lenses again and they become more main stream. So it would seem that the lines between routine and speciality contact lens fitting are not clear. Whether a lens is classed a specialist fit or not would depend on the lens type, why it was fitted, where in the world the fitting was being done and even the era in which it was fitted. This begs the question as to what would be considered entry level knowledge in contact lens fitting. This may not be an issue for most BCLA members or CLAE readers but certainly would be for bodies such as the College of Optometrists (UK) or the Association of British Dispensing Opticians when they are planning the final registration examinations for budding practitioners or when planning the level of higher level qualifications such as College Certificates or Diplomas. Similarly for training institutions when they are planning their course content. This becomes even trickier when trying to devise a qualification that spans across many countries, like the European Diploma in Optometry and Optics. How do we know if the training and examination level is correct? One way would be to analyse things when they go wrong and if patterns of malpractice are seen then maybe that could be used as an indicator to more training being needed. There were 162 Fitness to Practice Hearing at the General Optical Council between 2001 and 2010. Forty-seven of these were clinically related case, 39 fraud related, and 76 others. Of the clinical ones only 3 were contact lens related. So it would appear that as whole, in the profession, contact lens clinical skills are not being questioned too often (although it seems a few of us can’t keep our hands out the cookie jar!).