The association of comfort and vision in soft toric contact lens wear

The association between participant-reported ratings of comfort, dryness and vision quality in soft contact lens wearers

INTRODUCTION

Previous literature has indicated an association between participant-reported perceptions (e.g., ratings) of comfort, dryness and vision quality during soft contact lens wear. However, these reports do not account for participant- and lens-specific factors which may impact the interpretation of these results. The purpose of this project was to quantify the association between these participant-reported ratings while accounting for both participant- and lens-specific factors.

METHODS

Participant-reported ratings (scale 0-100) of comfort, dryness and quality of vision for 675 soft contact lens wearers (1207 eyes) were aggregated across 31 studies completed at Indiana University. Linear mixed-effects regression modelling was performed on each outcome rating individually. Covariate-adjusted models incorporated both participant- (e.g., age, sex) and lens-related (e.g., lens material, edge and optics) factors. The models were statistically adjusted for the duration of lens wear in hours and cumulative days of exposure.

RESULTS

Consistent with estimates from covariate-adjusted regression models, pairwise Spearman correlations [95% CI] between dryness and comfort (rs = 0.71, [0.69, 0.74]), vision quality and comfort (rs = 0.53, [0.49, 0.57]) and vision quality and dryness (rs = 0.49, [0.42, 0.54]) were all positive and had p < 0.001. Average participant-reported ratings of comfort, dryness and vision quality decreased by (bs [95% CI]) = -0.81 [-1.15, -0.46] -0.34 [-0.67, 0.0005] and -0.90 [-1.19, -0.60] rating units, respectively, for each hour of lens wear.

CONCLUSIONS

Significant positive associations were found between participant-reported measures of comfort, dryness and vision quality during soft contact lens wear. The associations between these ratings and the participant- and lens-related factors that drive them should be considered by clinicians and manufacturers when fitting and designing soft contact lenses.

Gaze and behavioural metrics in the refractive correction of presbyopia

PURPOSE

To investigate gaze and behavioural metrics at different viewing distances with multifocal contact lenses (MFCLs), single vision contact lenses (SVCLs) and progressive addition lenses (PALs).

METHODS

Fifteen presbyopic contact lens wearers participated over five separate study visits. At each visit, participants were randomly assigned to wear one of five refractive corrections: habitual PAL spectacles, delefilcon A (Alcon Inc.) MFCLs and three separate pairs of delefilcon A single vision lenses worn as distance, intermediate and near corrections. Participants wore a Pupil Core headset to record eye and head movements while performing three visual tasks: reading, visual search and scene observation. Data were investigated using linear regression and post-hoc testing. Parameters of interest included gaze (fixation duration, head movement) and behavioural (reading speed, reading accuracy, visual search time) metrics.

RESULTS

Reading speed in SVCLs was significantly faster than in MFCLs and PAL spectacles (F = 16.3, p < 0.0001). Refractive correction worn did not influence visual search times (F = 0.16, p = 0.85). Fixation duration was significantly affected by the type of visual task (F = 60.2, p < 0.001), and an interaction effect was observed between viewing distance and refractive correction (F = 4.3, p = 0.002). There was significantly more horizontal and vertical head movement (F = 3.2, p = 0.01 and F = 3.3, p = 0.01, respectively) during visual search tasks when wearing PAL spectacles compared to SVCLs or MFCLs.

CONCLUSION

This work showed that the type of refractive correction affects behavioural metrics such as reading speed and gaze behaviour by affecting horizontal and vertical head movements. The findings of this study suggest that under certain conditions, wearers of MFCLs make fewer head movements compared to PAL spectacles. Gaze behaviour metrics offer a new approach to compare and understand contact lens and spectacle performance, with potential applications including peripheral optical designs for myopia management.

BCLA CLEAR Presbyopia: Management with contact lenses and spectacles

This paper seeks to outline the history, market situation, clinical management and product performance related to the correction of presbyopia with both contact lenses and spectacles. The history of the development of various optical forms of presbyopic correction are reviewed, and an overview is presented of the current market status of contact lenses and spectacles. Clinical considerations in the fitting and aftercare of presbyopic contact lens and spectacle lens wearers are presented, with general recommendations for best practice. Current options for contact lens correction of presbyopia include soft simultaneous, rigid translating and rigid simultaneous designs, in addition to monovision. Spectacle options include single vision lenses, bifocal lenses and a range of progressive addition lenses. The comparative performance of both contact lens and spectacle lens options is presented. With a significant proportion of the global population now being presbyopic, this overview is particularly timely and is designed to act as a guide for researchers, industry and eyecare practitioners alike.

Visual Quality Assessment and Comparison of Monofocal and Multifocal Scleral Lens Designs: A Pilot Study

PURPOSE

To compare visual quality, contrast sensitivity, stereopsis, subjective vision, and comfort between monofocal and multifocal scleral lens (SL) designs.

METHODS

An experimental, cross over and short-term pilot study has been performed. Nineteen presbyopic patients (51.9±3.8 years) with regular corneas participated voluntarily in the study and Onefit MED monofocal and multifocal SL designs were fitted bilaterally. Subjective vision and comfort, contrast sensitivity function, stereopsis, high- and low-contrast visual acuity (VA) at 4 m and 40 cm under photopic and mesopic conditions, and defocus curves were measured. Data analysis was performed with nonparametric tests. P<0.05 was considered as statistically significant.

RESULTS

Mean addition power of the prescribed lenses was 1.72±0.38 diopters. Multifocal design showed a statistically significant improvement for intermediate and near vision in the defocus curve under photopic and mesopic conditions (P<0.05), however, worsening in stereopsis (P<0.05) and contrast sensitivity for high spatial frequencies (P<0.05). Distance visual acuity (VA) showed significantly lower values under mesopic conditions for high- and low-contrast tests (P<0.05), and on low-contrast test under photopic conditions (P<0.001) with the multifocal design.

CONCLUSION

Multifocal SLs showed better visual performance at intermediate and near distances without compromising distance vision under photopic conditions for a high-contrast test when compared with monofocal design.

Clinical Investigation of Flat Pack Toric Contact Lenses and Wearer Attitudes to Environmental Impact

OBJECTIVES

To investigate the performance of a novel flat pack toric daily disposable contact lens compared with traditionally packaged toric lenses in a randomized, crossover study. Environmental attitudes to contact lens wear were also explored.

METHODS

Habitual contact lens wearers were recruited to wear a hioxifilcon A (Miru 1 day Flat Pack Toric, Menicon, Nagoya, Japan) test lens and a control lens: either nelfilcon A (Dailies AquaComfort Plus, Alcon, Geneva, Switzerland) or etafilcon A (1-Day Acuvue Moist, Johnson & Johnson, New Brunswick, NJ). Objective lens performance was assessed at fitting, and participants wore lenses in a randomized order for three consecutive days. Subjective measures of lens performance (comfort, vision, and handling) were then assessed by a questionnaire, with further questions on overall lens preference and environmental perceptions.

RESULTS

Objective measures of lens fit were similar for the test and control lenses, except for distance VA which was better with the control lenses ( P <0.05; difference of two logMAR letters). End of day comfort was greater with the test lens, but this did not reach significance. Both lenses demonstrated similar scores for overall satisfaction. 87.5% of participants indicated the environmental impact of contact lenses to be important/extremely important to them, with 100% of participants identifying the flat pack packaging as having a smaller environmental impact.

CONCLUSION

Overall, the lenses used in the study performed to similar levels. Environmental credentials are important to contact lens wearers, which may contribute to overall lens preference.

Optical Quality and Visual Performance With Different Toric Contact Lens Designs

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the optical quality of different toric contact lens (CL) designs and compare their on-eye visual correction performance.

METHODS

Twenty soft CL wearers aged 20 to 39 years were enrolled. Two daily disposable silicone-hydrogel toric CLs were tested: the "Eyelid Stabilized Design" (ESD-CL) and prism-ballast design (PB-CL); a spherical daily disposable silicone hydrogel CL (spherical CL) was used as a control. On-eye performance was compared for corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA), astigmatism, and ocular higher-order aberrations (HOAs); astigmatism and ocular HOAs were measured with a wavefront sensor. The subjective quality of vision, rated for "blurred vision" and "double vision," lens rotation, and fitting were also compared.

RESULTS

The ESD-CLs, PB-CL, and no-CL provided better CDVA than spherical CL ( P <0.05). Compared with spherical CL and no CL, PB-CL and ESD-CLs caused significantly lesser astigmatism ( P <0.05). Coma was significantly lesser with ESD-CLs than that with PB-CL ( P <0.05); total HOAs did not differ among the four conditions. The subjective ratings for blurred and double vision were significantly lower with ESD-CLs than those with spherical CL ( P <0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Toric CLs provide a better CDVA than spherical CLs. However, differences in coma and subjective symptoms may occur because of the design of toric CLs.

Comfort After Refitting Symptomatic Habitual Reusable Toric Lens Wearers with a New Daily Disposable Contact Lens for Astigmatism

Purpose

To subjectively evaluate comfort with a daily disposable (delefilcon A for astigmatism) contact lens compared to other common weekly/monthly soft toric contact lenses in symptomatic wearers.

Methods

This open-label, single arm study enrolled current reusable soft toric lens wearers with minimum score of 12 on the contact lens dry eye (CLDEQ-8) questionnaire. Subjects were also administered the CLDEQ-8 after 1 replacement schedule of their optimized habitual toric lenses (2 to 4 weeks), and after 2 weeks of wear with delefilcon A toric daily disposable lenses (Dailies Total1 for Astigmatism; Alcon Vision LLC, Fort Worth, Texas).

Results

A total of 85 subjects completed the study. Mean total CLDEQ-8 score was 16.8 ± 8.1 for subjects refit with their optimized habitual toric lenses and 12.4 ± 7.5 for subjects refit with delefilcon A toric lenses, a difference of 4.3 ± 10.4 (p < 0.001). With delefilcon A toric lenses, 78.9% of subjects reported little to no intensity of eye discomfort, compared to 51.7% for the habitual toric lenses (p = 0.005). In addition, 77.7% of subjects reported little to no intensity of dryness for delefilcon A toric lenses, compared to 50.6% for the habitual toric lenses (p = 0.001).

Conclusion

The subjective comfort in symptomatic habitual reusable toric contact lens wearers was improved by refitting with delefilcon A toric lenses.

Clinical performance and Willingness To Pay for soft toric contact lenses in low and moderate astigmats

PURPOSE

To determine clinical performance and the 'Willingness To Pay' for toric vs. spherical soft contact lenses in an astigmatic population.

METHODS

In the clinical study, subjects with binocular low to moderate astigmatism (-0.75DC to -1.50DC) wore pairs of soft toric (Biofinity toric) and spherical (Biofinity) contact lenses in random sequence. Visual acuity (high and low contrast, monocular and binocular), subjective comfort and subjective vision were recorded. In the economics study, first subjects who had participated in the clinical study were presented with a series of randomised economic scenarios in order to determine their Willingness To Pay a premium (i.e. an increase) for toric lenses. Then, a similar set of scenarios were presented to a much larger group of online respondents and again, Willingness To Pay was established.

RESULTS

For the four measures of visual acuity, the Biofinity toric lens out-performed the Biofinity spherical lens by 0.6 to 1.1 lines.. Subjective vision performance was statistically significantly better with the toric lens for the distance task only. Comfort scores were not significantly different. Similar findings for Willingness To Pay were established for the clinical subjects and for the online respondents. The Willingness To Pay premium (additional fee) for a monthly supply of toric lenses (over spherical lenses) was between £13 and £16, if a toric lens provides better vision and similar comfort, as shown in the clinical study.

CONCLUSION

Consumers are willing to pay a monthly premium of around 50% to benefit from the typical experience of better vision and similar comfort for toric vs. spherical lenses. The level of additional cost for toric lenses compared to their spherical equivalents is less than this in the market, so eye care professionals should consider that toric lenses are delivering a greater clinical return than anticipated by wearers for the relatively small increase in price.

Silicone hydrogel versus hydrogel soft contact lenses for differences in patient-reported eye comfort and safety

BACKGROUND

Ocular discomfort is the leading cause of permanent discontinuation of soft contact lens (SCL) wear. Silicone hydrogel and hydrogel materials are the two major categories of SCLs, with silicone hydrogel materials being newer and more breathable than hydrogel materials. Whether comfort is associated with SCL material is controversial despite numerous studies. Similarly, the difference between these materials in terms of safety outcomes (e.g. frequency of microbial keratitis) is unclear.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the comparative effectiveness and safety of silicone hydrogel compared with hydrogel SCLs on self-reported comfort, dry eye test results, and adverse events in SCL-wearing adults 18 years of age or older.

SEARCH METHODS

The Cochrane Eyes and Vision Information Specialist searched the electronic databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs). There were no restrictions on language or date of publication. We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, including the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register; 2022, Issue 6), MEDLINE Ovid, Embase.com, PubMed, LILACS (Latin American and Caribbean Health Science Information database), ClinicalTrials.gov, and World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP). We also searched the reference lists of identified studies, review articles, and guidelines for information about relevant studies that may not have been identified by our search strategy. Furthermore, we contacted investigators regarding ongoing trials. The most recent database search was conducted on 24 June 2022.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Our search selection criteria included RCTs, quasi-RCTs, and cross-over RCTs.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We applied standard Cochrane methodology.

MAIN RESULTS

We included seven parallel-group RCTs conducted in the USA, the UK, Australia, Germany, India, and Turkey. A total of 1371 participants were randomized. The duration of SCL wear ranged from one to 52 weeks. Study characteristics and risk of bias The median number of participants per trial was 120 (interquartile range: 51 to 314), and the average age ranged from 20.7 to 33.0 years. Women represented the majority of participants (range 55% to 74.9%; 5 RCTs). Collectively, the included trials compared eight different silicone hydrogel SCLs with three different hydrogel SCLs. Five trials compared daily disposable SCLs, and two compared extended wear SCLs (worn for seven days and six nights). New SCL wearers were enrolled in three trials. Two trials included both new and established SCL wearers, and two trials did not report participants' history of SCL use. Five trials were sponsored by industry. We judged the overall risk of bias to be 'high' or 'some concerns' for the safety and efficacy outcomes. Findings One trial reported Ocular Surface Disease Index (OSDI) results, with the evidence being very uncertain about the effects of SCL material on OSDI scores (mean difference -1.20, 95% confidence interval [CI] -10.49 to 8.09; 1 RCT, 47 participants; very low certainty evidence). Three trials reported visual analog scale comfort score results, with no clear difference in comfort between materials, but the evidence was of very low certainty; trial results could not be combined because the three trials reported results at different time points. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of SCL material on discontinuation of contact lens wear (risk ratio [RR] 0.64, 95% CI 0.11 to 3.74; 1 RCT, 248 participants). None of the included trials reported Contact Lens Dry Eye Questionnaire (CLDEQ-8) or Standard Patient Evaluation of Eye Dryness (SPEED) scores. There was no evidence of a clinically meaningful difference (> 0.5 unit) between daily disposable silicone hydrogel and hydrogel SCLs in corneal staining, conjunctival staining, or conjunctival redness (very low certainty evidence). Adverse events Very low certainty evidence from two trials comparing daily disposable SCLs suggested no evidence of a difference between lens materials in the risk of vision-threatening adverse events at one to four weeks (RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.08 to 5.51; 2 RCTs, 368 participants). Two trials comparing extended wear SCLs indicated that hydrogel SCLs may have a 2.03 times lower risk of adverse events at 52 weeks compared with silicone hydrogel SCLs (RR 2.03, 95% CI 1.38 to 2.99; 815 participants), but the certainty of evidence was very low.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The overall evidence for a difference between all included silicone hydrogel and hydrogel SCLs was of very low certainty, with most trials at high overall risk of bias. The majority of studies did not assess comfort using a validated instrument. There was insufficient evidence to support recommending one SCL material over the other. For extended wear, hydrogel SCL may have a lower risk of adverse events at 52 weeks compared to silicon hydrogel. Future well-designed trials are needed to generate high certainty evidence to further clarify differences in SCL material comfort and safety.

Six years of wearer experience in children participating in a myopia control study of MiSight® 1 day

PURPOSE

To evaluate the experience of children wearing soft contact lenses (CLs) during a trial of MiSight® 1 day (omafilcon A, CooperVision, Inc.), a dual-focus myopia-control daily disposable CL.

METHODS

A 3-year, double-masked, randomised trial (Part 1) comparing experiences with MiSight 1 day and a single-vision control (Proclear® 1 day, omafilcon A, CooperVision, Inc.) of neophyte, myopic children (ages 8-12). Treatment (n = 65) and control (n = 70) participants received lenses at sites in Canada, Portugal, Singapore, and the UK. Successful participants completing Part 1 were invited to continue for a further 3 years wearing the dual-focus CL (Part 2), and 85 participants completed the 6-year study. Children and parent questionnaires were conducted at baseline, 1 week, 1 month, and every 6 months until the 60-month visit, with children only also completing questionnaires at 66 and 72 months.

RESULTS

Throughout the study, children reported high satisfaction with handling (≥89% top 2 box [T2B]), comfort (≥94% T2B), vision (≥93% T2B for various activities), and overall satisfaction (≥97% T2B). Ratings for comfort and vision were not significantly different between lens groups, visits, or study parts and did not change when children switched to dual-focus CLs. Ratings for 'really easy' or 'kind of easy' application improved from the outset for the neophytes (57% at 1-week follow-up and 85% at 1-month follow-up) and remained high throughout the study (visit: P = 0.007; part: P = 0.0004). Overall satisfaction improved in Part 2 (P = 0.04). Wearing times increased in Part 2 (14 vs. 13 hrs/weekday; 13 vs. 12 hrs/day on weekends; P < 0.001); there were no differences between groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Children adapted rapidly to full-time wear, rated lenses highly, and rarely reported issues. The dual-focus optics included in the MiSight® 1 day lenses successfully achieved myopia control without lowering subjective ratings when fitted to neophytes or children refitted from single-vision CLs.

Visual discomfort and contact lens wear: A review

The purpose of this manuscript is to describe how vision influences contact lens discomfort and review the evidence supporting the hypothesis that contact lens discomfort can be caused by vision and vision-related disorders. Contact lens discomfort is a misunderstood and difficult to manage clinical condition. Most treatments and strategies aimed at alleviating discomfort focus on optimizing the contact lens fit and its relationship with the ocular surface, but these strategies commonly fail at relieving discomfort symptoms. Many vision and vision-related disorders share symptoms with those reported by uncomfortable contact lens wearers. This paper will review evidence and literature that describes how these vision and vision-related disorders may influence comfort in contact lens wearers. Acknowledging how vision influences contact lens discomfort will improve future research intended to better understand the condition, allow for more effective clinical management, and reduce rates of discontinuation.

Real-Time Ocular Comfort Reporting in Monthly Replacement Contact Lens Wearers

Purpose

To map contact lens (CL) comfort over the full wear day and across 1 month's wear in established, asymptomatic to minimally symptomatic, reusable, soft CL wearers.

Methods

Adult, 18- to 45-year-old, participants were recruited and required to have 20/20 best-corrected visual acuity or better and must have been asymptomatic to minimally symptomatic CL wearers. Participants were required to be able to wear TOTAL30® sphere CLs and have minimal astigmatism. Participants were fit in the study CLs and asked to wear these CLs daily for the next month for 16 hours per day each day. Participants were asked to complete a visual analog scale (VAS) survey via text message at time of CL application and after 8, 10, 12, 14, and 16 hours of wear and at CL removal on days 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 and at 2 weeks and 1 month. The utilized VAS had a ±50 scale with positive scores being comfortable, negative scores being uncomfortable, and scores of 0 being neutral comfort.

Results

Forty-eight participants were recruited who had a mean ± SD age of 26.2 ± 5.2 years (71% female). Mean initial VAS CL comfort scores at initial CL dispense were 45.56 ± 9.20 units. Mean CL wear times for any of the days evaluated were at least 14.80 ± 2.41 hours per day and did not differ across the study (p = 0.77). Mean comfort VAS scores significantly decreased over the wear day (all days p ≤ 0.02), yet there were no significant differences in VAS comfort scores across the same time of day for the duration of the study (all times p ≥ 0.06).

Conclusion

This study determined that while CL wearers were slightly less comfortable at the end of the day compared to application, this comfort change was minimal given that the average participants had overwhelmingly good comfort at all time-points evaluated. Comfort scores were likewise consistent across 1 month of wear.

Challenges to the new soft contact lens wearer and strategies for clinical management

Soft contact lens discontinuations have a dramatic impact on the overall success of this form of vision correction, and evidence suggests that the reasons for contact lens cessation are different for new wearers than for established lens users. In descending order, these relate to vision, discomfort, handling, inconvenience/loss of interest, ocular health and cost. This paper considers the background and underlying evidence for these causes of soft lens discontinuation in new wearers, and presents clinical management strategies to minimise this phenomenon. Such measures can reasonably be expected to significantly reduce the number of contact lens discontinuations leading to happier patients, increased satisfaction for eye care professionals (ECPs), and greater success for both individual practices and the contact lens industry more broadly.

Evaluation of Wear Experience with Soft Daily Disposable Lenses for Astigmatism over 16 Hours of Wear

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to assess the wear experience of participants while wearing a toric daily disposable contact lens with water surface technology over long days of lens wear.

METHODS

Existing soft toric contact lens wearers were fit with the daily disposable study lenses. Participants assessed their initial comfort, vision, and satisfaction with the lenses by visual analog scale (VAS) survey. After a successful 1-week follow-up visit, participants were scheduled for 5 survey days, in which surveys were deployed to their smartphones for immediate assessments of comfort and quality of vision on a 1-10 scale at 10, 12, 14, and 16 hours of lens wear on 5 subsequent weeknights. The final study visit assessed visual acuity, and overall lens wear experience surveys were completed with VAS surveys. The overall median and interquartile (IQR) range of all surveys were calculated.

RESULTS

Thirty bilateral toric lens wearers completed the study. Median (IQR) initial impression VAS scores were 97(12) for quality of vision, 100(9) for comfort, and 96(10) for satisfaction. Median evening surveys resulted in comfort scores of 10(1) at 10 hours, 9(2) at 12 hours, 9(2) at 14 hours, and 8(2) at 16 hours of wear. Median evening surveys resulted in quality of vision scores of 10(1) at 10 hours, 10(2) at 12 hours, 9(2) at 14 hours, and 9(3) at 16 hours of wear. VAS scores for overall experience were 97(9) for comfort, 95(13) for vision, and 8(31) for dryness. End-of-day VAS scores were 93(21) for comfort, 90(15) for vision, and 21(38) for dryness. Mean (±standard deviation) OU LogMAR visual acuity with the study lenses was -0.19(0.06).

CONCLUSION

Surveys of wear experience resulted in high scores for comfort and vision over the course of a long day of wear with the daily disposable study lenses in this population of patients with astigmatism.

Exploring the factors which impact overall satisfaction with single vision contact lenses

PURPOSE

To explore the impact of subjective factors (lens handling, comfort and vision) on overall single vision contact lens satisfaction.

METHODS

Correlation analysis of a prospective, randomised, double-masked, bilateral crossover study involving 55 adapted lens wearers fitted with somofilcon A (SiHy) (clariti® 1 day, CooperVision) and etafilcon A (Hy) (1 DAY ACUVUE® MOIST, Johnson & Johnson Vision) was conducted. Subjective ratings of lens handling, comfort and vision collected after 1 week of lens wear for each lens type were correlated with overall satisfaction. Data were analysed by combining data for both lens types and also for each lens separately.

RESULTS

For the combined analysis, significant correlations (p < 0.01) were found between subjective ratings of overall satisfaction and ratings of handing for application (r = 0.64), handling for removal (r = 0.50), comfort upon application (r = 0.59), comfort at end of day (r = 0.61), overall satisfaction with comfort (r = 0.88) and overall satisfaction with vision (r = 0.64). Correlation analysis of the per lens data showed that lens specific correlations of overall satisfaction with handling for lens application varied greatly with lens material (SiHy: r = 0.26, p = 0.05 vs Hy: r = 0.72, p < 0.01). Correlation strength of comfort upon application/at end of day with overall satisfaction also varied with lens material (Application: SiHy: r = 0.40 vs Hy: r = 0.61; End of day: SiHy: r = 0.76 vs Hy: r = 0.58; all p ≤ 0.01).

CONCLUSION

Overall satisfaction was significantly correlated with the specific subjective evaluations of handling, vision and comfort. Correlations of overall satisfaction and ease of handling for each lens type suggest that, for habitual contact lens wearers, dissatisfaction with handling at the time of lens application can play a major role in overall dissatisfaction with a lens. Handling for application had a similar correlation (r) value as vision, suggesting that handling for application should not be underestimated when considering overall patient satisfaction.

Addressing common myths and misconceptions in soft contact lens practice

Advances in contact lens technology over the past 50 years since the commercialisation of the first soft lenses in 1971 have been incredible, with significant changes in contact lens materials, frequency of replacement, care systems and lens designs occurring. However, despite the widespread availability of contact lenses, penetration rates for those who need vision correction remain in the low single digits and many practitioners seem to hold on to concepts around the potential value of contact lenses that appear based in the dim and distant past and are certainly no longer valid today. This review addresses 10 common 'myths and misconceptions' around soft contact lenses using an evidence-based approach that can hopefully dispel some of these incorrect assumptions.

Using face masks with spectacles versus contact lenses

PURPOSE

To test the hypothesis that various subjective ocular and task-related parameters associated with wearing a face mask would be better in neophyte contact lens (CL) wear compared to habitual spectacle (Sp) wear.

METHODS

Thirty participants were randomised to continue in Sp (n = 15) or wear somofilcon A daily disposable CL (n = 15) ('group'). A surgical face mask (Type II R) was worn for at least one hour per day on four or more days per week. After two weeks, participants completed the Quality of Life Impact of Refractive Correction Questionnaire (QIRC), a two-part face mask usability questionnaire and graded ocular-related symptoms using 0-100 visual analogue scales.

RESULTS

There was no difference between groups for overall QIRC score but some individual question scores reflected better quality of life in the CL: 'outdoor activities', 'keep fit' and 'able to do things' (all p < 0.05). Differences in favour of the CL were seen for the following in the face mask usability questionnaire: 'breathing', 'heat', 'comfort on ears', 'overall comfort', 'walking', 'driving', 'reading', 'computer use', 'exercising' and 'socialising' (all p < 0.05). Significant differences were also seen for the 0-100 VAS symptoms probing vision quality in favour of the CL: glare, distance and near vision, fogging, restricted field of view and peripheral blur.

CONCLUSION

This work supports anecdotal reports that CL are a better vision correction option than Sp when used in conjunction with a face mask. Participants reported a range of benefits to the CL/face mask combination for vision-related symptoms, breathing and heat-related symptoms and a number of day-to-day activities including walking, driving and exercising. All of the benefits relating to the CL are likely to result in improved adherence to face mask use. Overall, the findings of this work suggest that where possible, CL should be the preferred vision correction option for people using face masks.