Global trends in prescribing contact lenses for extended wear

Extended wear has long been the ‘holy grail’ of contact lenses by virtue of the increased convenience and freedom of lifestyle which they accord; however, this modality enjoyed only limited market success during the last quarter of the 20th century. The introduction of silicone hydrogel materials into the market at the beginning of this century heralded the promise of successful extended wear due to the superior oxygen performance of this lens type. To assess patterns of contact lens fitting, including extended wear, over the past decade, up to 1000 survey forms were sent to contact lens fitters in Australia, Canada, Japan, the Netherlands, Norway, the UK and the USA each year between 2000 and 2009. Practitioners were asked to record data relating to the first 10 contact lens fits or refits performed after receiving the survey form. Analysis of returned forms revealed that, averaged over this period, 9% of all soft lenses prescribed were for extended wear, with national figures ranging from 2% in Japan to 17% in Norway. The trend over the past decade has been for an increase from about 5% of all soft lens fits in 2000 to a peak of between 9 and 12% between 2002 and 2007, followed by a decline to around 7% in 2009. A person receiving extended wear lenses is likely to be an older female who is being refitted with silicone hydrogel lenses for full-time wear. Although extended wear has yet again failed to fulfil the promise of being the dominant contact lens wearing modality, it is still a viable option for many people.

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.