Twenty first century trends in silicone hydrogel contact lens fitting : an international perspective

Silicone hydrogel contact lenses were introduced into the market in 1999. To assess prescribing trends of this lens type since then, 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 2008. 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 a rapid increase in the prescribing of silicone hydrogel lenses over the survey period. In 2008, silicone hydrogel lenses represented 36% of all soft lenses prescribed. The categorization of the majority of lenses prescribed as ‘refits’ is primarily attributed to the mass conversion of lens wearers from hydrogel to silicone hydrogel lenses. Silicone hydrogels may soon represent the majority of soft contact lenses prescribed.

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.

The effect of hydrogel and silicone hydrogel contact lenses on the measurement of intraocular pressure with rebound tonometry

Purpose: To assess the accuracy of intraocular pressure(IOP) measurements using rebound tonometry over disposable hydrogel (etafilcon A) and silicone hydrogel (senofilcon A) contact lenses (CLs) of different powers. Methods: The experimental group comprised 36 subjects (19 male, 17 female). IOP measurements were undertaken on the subject’s right eyes in random order using a rebound tonometer (ICare). The CLs had powers of +2.00D, −2.00D and−6.00D. Six measurements were taken over each contact lens and also before and after the CLs had been worn. Results: A good correlation was found between IOP measurements with and without CLs (all r≥0.80; p < 0.05). Bland Altman plots did not show any significant trend in the difference in IOP readings with and without CLs as a function of IOP value. A two-way ANOVA revealed a significant effect of material and power (p < 0.01) but no interaction. All the comparisons between the measurements without CLs and with hydrogel CLs were significant (p < 0.01). The comparisons with silicone hydrogel CLs were not significant. Conclusions: Rebound tonometry can be reliably performed over silicone hydrogel CLs. With hydrogel CLs, the measurements were lower than those without CLs. However, despite the fact that these differences were statistically significant, their clinical significance was minimal.

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.

The epidemiology of microbial keratitis with silicone hydrogel contact lenses

It was widely anticipated that after the introduction of silicone hydrogel lenses, the risk of microbial keratitis would be lower than with hydrogel lenses because of the reduction in hypoxic effects on the corneal epithelium. Large-scale epidemiological studies have confirmed that the absolute and relative risk of microbial keratitis is unchanged with overnight use of silicone hydrogel materials. The key findings include the following: (1) The risk of infection with 30 nights of silicone hydrogel use is equivalent to 6 nights of hydrogel extended wear; (2) Occasional overnight lens use is associated with a greater risk than daily lens use; (3) The rate of vision loss due to corneal infection with silicone hydrogel contact lenses is similar to that seen in hydrogel lenses; (4) The spectrum of causative organisms is similar to that seen in hydrogel lenses, and the material type does not impact the corneal location of presumed microbial keratitis; and (5) Modifiable risk factors for infection include overnight lens use, the degree of exposure, failing to wash hands before lens handling, and storage case hygiene practice. The lack of change in the absolute risk of disease would suggest that exposure to large number of pathogenic organisms can overcome any advantages obtained from eliminating the hypoxic effects of contact lenses. Epidemiological studies remain important in the assessment of new materials and modalities. Consideration of an early adopter effect with studies involving new materials and modalities and further investigation of the impact of second-generation silicone hydrogel materials is warranted.

An early assessment of silicone hydrogel safety : pearls and pitfalls, and current status

The contact lens industry has evolved and now provides many choices, including continuous wear, overnight orthokeratology, frequent-replacement lenses, daily-disposable lenses, and many alternatives in systems of care and maintenance. Epidemiologic studies to date have shown that how a lens is worn, particularly if worn overnight, can increase the risk of microbial keratitis. However, the risk of silicone hydrogel contact lenses worn on a continuous-wear basis has been evaluated only recently. This article summarizes the recent research data on extended-wear silicone hydrogel lenses and discusses the challenges of early evaluations of silicone hydrogel lens safety. Finally, the relevance of this information is discussed to practitioners and contact lens wearers making choices about the risks and benefits of different products and how they are used.

In response: Changes in ultraviolet transmittance of hydrogel and silicone hydrogel contact lenses induced by wear

We thank Dr Shedden and Dr Pall for their insightful comments and the opportunity to clarify a number of points from our work.1 The “protection factor” (PF) expressed as the inverse of the transmittance of contact lens (CL) material (1/Tλ), where T is the percentage transmittance of ultraviolet radiation (UVR) in a given waveband (UVC, UVB or UVA) of the UV spectrum for contact lenses is the standard method for reporting PF values and as such there should not be any controversy. We have calculated the PF for each wavelength across the entire UV spectrum (UVC, UVB, UVA) as presented in figure 3 of our previous publication.1 In that article, we were simply stating the observation when transmission in the UVC spectra band is considered especially because appreciable amounts of potentially carcinogenic short UV wavelengths was shown to be present in sunlight in our region three decades ago2 and these short wavelength photons are reported to be more biologically damaging to ocular tissues.3 In addition, the depletion of the Ozone layer is still continuing. Nevertheless, we understand the concern of the authors that the results of the PF might be confusing to those who are not familiar with the science of UVR and as such we have made some revisions to the findings of the calculated PF...

Use of silicone hydrogel contact lenses by Australian optometrists

Background: Prior to the launch of silcone hydrogel (Si-H) materials in Australia in 1999, only 1.6 per cent of lenses were prescribed on a continuous wear basis.

Methods: One thousand surveys were distributed randomly to practitioners in Australia during January 2000, 2001 and 2002 (total surveys 3,000). Each anonymous survey requested data about the next 10 patients fitted with contact lenses, including date, age, gender, new fitting or refitting, lens material type, lens design, frequency of replacement, modality of wear, uses per week and care regimen.

Results: Twenty per cent (599) were returned, reporting data on 5,976 fittings. A total of 710 fittings used Si-H contact lenses (11.9 per cent), which represented 18.6 per cent of all soft lens fittings. During the three years, the proportion of practitioners prescribing Si-H lenses increased from 42.2 to 52.5 per cent. In 2000, 43.8 per cent were daily wear, which decreased to 32.2 per cent by 2002. The solution system of choice for daily wear lenses was multipurpose solutions (98.4 per cent); the only alternative was hydrogen peroxide systems. Continuous wear represented 11.7 per cent of all fittings, ofwhich 85.7 per cent were Si-H, 3.0 per cent RGP lenses and 11.3 per cent conventional hydrogels. For continuous wear, 79.0 per cent of fittings were to existing wearers, whereas for daily wear, 59.4 per cent were existing wearers. More males were prescribed Si-H continuous wear contact lenses, while females were more likely to be prescribed Si-H on a daily wear basis.

Discussion: Si-H contact lenses were introduced to the Australian market as a continuous wear contact lens, yet many practitioners use this product for daily wear with multipurpose solutions. By 2002, more practitioners were prescribing Si-H contact lenses for continuous wear than in 2000, suggesting a growing confidence in that product for that mode of wear. A comparison with an earlier survey shows there is an increase in continuous wear from 1.6 per cent to 11.7 per cent over a five-year period.

Patient and practitioner compliance with silicone hydrogel and daily disposable lens replacement in the United States

Objective: The objectives of this study were to assess current recommendations for replacement frequency (RF) of silicone hydrogel (SH) and daily disposable (DD) lenses, to determine compliance with these recommendations, and to investigate the reasons given for noncompliance.

Methods: A package containing 20 patient surveys was sent to 309 eye care practitioners (ECPs) in the United States who had agreed to participate in the study. One thousand eight hundred fifty-nine completed surveys were received from 158 ECPs and 1,654 surveys were eligible for analysis. Questions related to patient demographics, lens type, lens wearing patterns, the ECP instructions for RF, and the actual patient reported RF. ECPs were asked to provide lens information and their recommendation for RF after the surveys had been completed and sealed in envelopes. All responses were anonymous.

Results: Sixty-six percent of patients were women and their mean age was 34 ± 12 years. Eighty-eight percent of lenses were worn for daily wear, 12.8 ± 3.2 hours a day, 6.2 ± 1.5 days a week. Lens type distribution was 16% DD, 45% 2 week (2W) SH, and 39% 1 month (1M) SH. ECP recommendations for RF varied according to the lens type; 1% of 1M (95% CI 0.2-1.7), 4% of DD (95% CI 2.1-7.2), and 18% of 2W (95% CI 15.1-20.7) patients were given instructions that did not conform to the manufacturers' recommended RF (MRRF). When considering only those patients who were given the correct instructions for RF, 38% were not compliant with the MRRF; noncompliance rates varied according to the lens type and were 12% for DD (95% CI 8.6-17.2), 28% for 1M (95% CI 24.9-32.1), and 52% for 2W (95% CI 47.8-55.8). The most frequent reasons for over wearing lenses were forgetting which day to replace lenses (51%) and to save money (26%). Fifty-three percent believed that a reminder system would aid compliance; the most popular methods being a cell phone reminder or text message (29%) and a nominated day each week or month (26%). Discussions between the ECPs and the patients were more extensive for patients who were compliant with the MRRF.

Conclusions: ECPs recommended RFs more frequently with DD and 1M SH lenses than with 2W SH lenses, consistent with manufacturers' recommendations. Patients were less compliant with RF than ECPs for all lens types investigated. Patients were most compliant with RF when wearing DD lenses and least compliant when wearing 2W SH lenses. Better communication facilitated greater compliance with RF. More than half of those not replacing lenses, when recommended, reported that this was because they forgot which day to replace their lenses.

Multipurpose disinfecting solutions and their interactions with a silicone hydrogel lens

Purpose: To assess the compatibility of a new silicone hydrogel lens, asmofilcon A (with four multipurpose disinfecting solutions: OPTIFREE RepleniSH, ReNu MultiPlus, Solo-Care Aqua and MeniCare Soft). Ocular responses and subjective responses were monitored with each lens-care system combination.

Methods: The study was conducted as a prospective, bilateral, clinical trial with a single-masked investigator, and randomized cross-over design with four phases, (one for each care system). Each study phase comprised of two consecutive days of lens wear where the lenses were inserted on day 1 directly from the blister-packs and worn for over 8 hr, then inserted on day 2 after overnight disinfection with one of the study lens care systems. Twenty-five adapted soft contact lens wearers who were able to wear their habitual lenses comfortably for more than 12 hr were recruited.

Results: There were statistically significant differences in corneal staining found for all the lens-care systems when comparing the results of day 1 (from the blister pack) with day 2 (following care system use) (P < 0.05). ReNu MultiPlus solution had the highest grade for corneal staining at the 2-hr time point on day 2 which then decreased by 6 hr (P < 0.05). There was no difference between the lens care systems and the rating of subjective comfort over either of the two days. The rating of dryness and burning sensations were only slightly increased at 6 hr for all lens care systems except ReNu MultiPlus where burning was highest on insertion (P < 0.05).

Conclusion: Corneal staining observed in this study does not seem to have been related to the presence of polyhexamethylene biguanide (0.0001% wv) that was present in three of the four care systems. Only one care system (ReNu MultiPlus) demonstrated an associated level of corneal staining that was statistically significant; however, this was not considered to be of clinical relevance. These results suggest that using this novel surface-treated silicone hydrogel lens may result in less lens and lens care-related interactions.

Comfort and adaptation to silicone hydrogel lenses for daily wear

Objectives. To investigate initial comfort and adaptation of currently successful low oxygen transmissibility soft lens wearers refitted with silicone hydrogel (SH) lenses for daily wear.

Methods. Fifty-five subjects were enrolled in a subject-masked 5-month clinical trial in which they wore 5 SH lenses in a randomized, crossover design. Comfort, burning, and dryness were rated on scales of 0 to 100 immediately on insertion and the time for lens settling was recorded. Symptoms were then rated at various times, using BlackBerry wireless communication devices (Research in Motion, Waterloo, Canada), during the day for 2 cycles of 2 weeks wear for each lens type.

Results. Comfort immediately on insertion varied between lens types (P=0.002). All lens types were reported by the subjects to have settled within 30 to 45 sec of insertion (P=0.14) and settled comfort was greater than comfort immediately on insertion (P<0.001). Comfort within the first hour of wear also varied between lens types (P=0.02). Comfort during the day decreased significantly for all lenses (P=0.001), but there was no difference between lenses (P=0.19) and no effect of lens age (P=0.15). The wearing times were greater with the SH lenses than the habitual lenses worn before study commencement (P=0.001). Overall performance of the lenses after 4 weeks was high, with no difference between lenses (P=0.45).

Conclusions. Initial comfort and adaptation to all SH lenses were good and no differences in the overall ratings were found between the 5 SH lenses investigated. Decreased comfort was noted later in the day with all lens types, but longer wearing times were reported with the SH lenses than previous hydroxyethyl methacrylate-based lenses.