Fitting success for three multifocal designs: Multicentre randomised trial

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.

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.

TFOS Lifestyle: Impact of contact lenses on the ocular surface

Several lifestyle choices made by contact lens wearers can have adverse consequences on ocular health. These include being non-adherent to contact lens care, sleeping in lenses, ill-advised purchasing options, not seeing an eyecare professional for regular aftercare visits, wearing lenses when feeling unwell, wearing lenses too soon after various forms of ophthalmic surgery, and wearing lenses when engaged in risky behaviors (e.g., when using tobacco, alcohol or recreational drugs). Those with a pre-existing compromised ocular surface may find that contact lens wear exacerbates ocular disease morbidity. Conversely, contact lenses may have various therapeutic benefits. The coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) pandemic impinged upon the lifestyle of contact lens wearers, introducing challenges such as mask-associated dry eye, contact lens discomfort with increased use of digital devices, inadvertent exposure to hand sanitizers, and reduced use of lenses. Wearing contact lenses in challenging environments, such as in the presence of dust and noxious chemicals, or where there is the possibility of ocular trauma (e.g., sport or working with tools) can be problematic, although in some instances lenses can be protective. Contact lenses can be worn for sport, theatre, at high altitude, driving at night, in the military and in space, and special considerations are required when prescribing in such situations to ensure successful outcomes. A systematic review and meta-analysis, incorporated within the review, identified that the influence of lifestyle factors on soft contact lens dropout remains poorly understood, and is an area in need of further research. Overall, this report investigated lifestyle-related choices made by clinicians and contact lens wearers and discovered that when appropriate lifestyle choices are made, contact lens wear can enhance the quality of life of wearers.

Multifocal versus modified monovision corrections: A non-dispensing comparison of visual assessment in presbyopic neophytes

Purpose

To compare the visual performance of two simultaneous-vision soft multifocal contact lenses and to compare multifocal contact lens and its modified monovision counterpart in presbyopic neophytes.

Methods

A double-masked, prospective, comparative study was conducted on 19 participants fitted with soft PureVision2 multifocal (PVMF) and clariti multifocal (CMF) lenses in random order. High- and low-contrast distance visual acuity, near visual acuity, stereopsis, contrast sensitivity, and glare acuity were measured. The measurements were conducted using multifocal and modified monovision design with one brand and then repeated with another brand of lens.

Results

High-contrast distance visual acuity showed a significant difference between CMF (0.00 [-0.10-0.04]) and PureVision2 modified monovision (PVMMV; -0.10 [-0.14-0.00]) correction (P = 0.003) and also between CMF and clariti modified monovision (CMMV; -0.10 [-0.20-0.00]) correction (P = 0.002). Both modified monovision lenses outperformed CMF. The current study did not show any statistically significant difference between contact lens corrections for low-contrast visual acuity, near visual acuity, and contrast sensitivity (P > 0.01). Stereopsis at near distance was significantly lower with both modified monovision (PVMMV: 70 [50-85]; P = 0.007, CMMV: 70 [70-100]; P = 0.006) and with CMF (50 [40-70]; P = 0.005) when compared to spectacles (50 [30-70]). Glare acuity was significantly lower with multifocal (PVMF: 0.46 [0.40-0.50]; P = 0.001, CMF: 0.40 [0.40-0.46]; P = 0.007) compared with spectacles (0.40 [0.30-0.40]), but no significant difference was noted between the multifocal contact lenses (P = 0.033).

Conclusion

Modified monovision provided superior high-contrast vision compared to multifocal correction. Multifocal corrections performed better for stereopsis when compared to modified monovision. In parameters like low-contrast visual acuity, near acuity, and contrast sensitivity, both the corrections performed similarly. Both multifocal designs showed comparable visual performances.

Distribution of preoperative angle alpha and angle kappa values in patients undergoing multifocal refractive lens surgery based on a positive contact lens test

Purpose

To assess the preoperative objective angle alpha and angle kappa measurements of patients deciding to undergo multifocal refractive lens surgery based on a subjective positive multifocal contact lens test (MCLT).

Methods

Retrospective, consecutive case series. Alpha and kappa angles were measured using the iTrace aberrometer. All patients also performed a 1-week MCLT. Only patients with a positive MCLT underwent surgery. Visual outcome (UCVA) was obtained in the 1-year follow-up. We assessed the preoperative distribution of angle values within MCLT positive and negative patient groups.

Results

Two hundred seventeen eyes (111 patients) were included. Mean age was 56.4 years (SD 5.6) and 46.9% were female. In 71 eyes (38 patients), MCLT was positive. Of them, 12 eyes (17%) had an angle alpha and angle kappa ≥ 0.5mm. Of 146 eyes (73 patients) who refrained from surgery due to a negative MCLT, 71 eyes (48.6%) had both angles small (<0.5mm). In the 1-year follow-up, UCVA improved by 0.68 logMAR (SD 0.51; p<0.001) from baseline. Eyes with both small angle alpha and kappa sizes improved by 0.78 logMAR (SD 0.56), as did eyes with high (≥0.5mm) angle sizes (0.82 logMAR (SD 0.53). UCVA of eyes (n=24) with high alpha but low kappa sizes improved less (−0.31 logMAR (SD 0.13; p=0.019)).

Conclusion

Four out of five patients with a positive MCLT also had correspondingly small angle values. One-half of patients with low preoperative angle values refrained from surgery due to a negative MCLT result. One-year visual acuity improvement was substantial and independent from angle sizes.

Comparison of visual performance between extended depth of focus contact lens and single-vision contact lens in eyes with monofocal intraocular lens

PURPOSE

To assess the visual performance of extended depth of focus (EDF) contact lenses (CL) in eyes that had undergone monofocal intraocular lens (IOL) implantation, and compare that between EDF and single-vision (SV) contact lenses.

STUDY DESIGN

Prospective, randomized, crossover study METHODS: Seventeen patients implanted with monofocal IOLs were enrolled. The study was conducted using 1dayPure EDOF as a test CL and 1dayPure moisture (both SEED Co., Ltd.) as a control CL. Binocular visual acuity from far to near distances, photopic and mesopic contrast sensitivity (with and without glare), and stereopsis were evaluated after wearing the two kinds of CLs in random order. The obtained results were compared between the EDF and SV CLs.

RESULTS

Binocular visual acuity at 0.3, 0.4, 0.7, 1, and 5 m was 0.24 ± 0.12, 0.07 ± 0.09, - 0.02 ± 0.08, - 0.02 ± 0.08, and - 0.06 ± 0.07 logMAR during the EDF CL wear, respectively, and 0.39 ± 0.17, 0.26 ± 0.15, 0.04 ± 0.12, - 0.02 ± 0.08, and - 0.09 ± 0.09 during the SV CL wear, respectively. The EDF CL showed better results than the SV CL at 0.3, 0.4, and 0.7 m (p < 0.05). There were no significant differences in contrast sensitivity between the EDF and SV CLs at 1.5 cycles per degree under all conditions; however, the sensitivity of the EDF CL was generally worse than that of the SV CL from the middle to high spatial frequencies. Stereopsis at 40 cm was significantly better in the EDF CL wear than in the SV CL wear (p < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

The EDF CL substantially improved visual acuity at near to intermediate distances in IOL-implanted eyes. However, far visual acuity decreased under low-contrast conditions, and contrast sensitivity slightly declined at the middle to high spatial frequencies.

Clinical performance of presbyopia correction with a multifocal corneoscleral lens

AIM

To assess the clinical performance of a multifocal corneoscleral lens for the presbyopia correction.

METHODS

A prospective clinical trial of the Onefit™ A multifocal corneoscleral lens was conducted with 40 participants with presbyopia. At 4wk of continuous wear of the corneoscleral lens, changes in the distance, intermediate, and near visual acuity (VA) were evaluated. The safety of the corneoscleral lens, central corneal thickness (CCT), corneal endothelial cell count, binocular stereopsis, tear film break-up time (BUT), corneal staining, corneal edema, corneal neovascularization (NV), and conjunctival hyperemia were examined. In addition, a subjective questionnaire addressing satisfaction (rated from 1 to 5 points) and discomfort (rated from 1 to 5 points) was administered.

RESULTS

Forty participants were enrolled in this study. Six participants were excluded because of poor compliance with lens fitting (n=2) and loss to follow-up (n=4). The mean age of the participants was 53.0±4.9y. At 4wk of continuous wear of the corneoscleral lens, the best corrected far, intermediate, and near VA was 0.08±0.11, 0.10±0.12, and 0.10±0.12 logMAR, respectively. These results were significant improvements over the baseline uncorrected VA (far: P=0.004; intermediate: P=0.004; near: P=0.002). CCT, corneal endothelial cell count, binocular stereopsis, BUT, corneal staining, corneal edema, corneal NV, and conjunctival hyperemia were not significantly different between baseline and after corneoscleral lens use. The average satisfaction scores for fit sensation; corrected far, intermediate, and near VA; and ease of handling were 4.1, 3.4, 3.6, 3.5, and 3.4, respectively. The average discomfort scores for dryness, irritation, foreign body sensation, redness, fogging, and halo were 1.7, 1.8, 1.5, 1.7, 1.7, and 1.3, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Far, intermediate, and near VA are improved in presbyopic patients with the multifocal corneoscleral lens compared to uncorrected baseline VA, without adverse ocular effects. This evidence supports the safety and effectiveness of presbyopia correction with multifocal corneoscleral lenses.

CLEAR - Evidence-based contact lens practice

Evidence-based contact lens -->practice involves finding, appraising and applying research findings as the basis for patient management decisions. These decisions should be informed by the strength of the research study designs that address the question, as well as by the experience of the practitioner and the preferences and environment of the patient. This reports reviews and summarises the published research evidence that is available to inform soft and rigid contact lens history and symptoms taking, anterior eye health examination (including the optimised use of ophthalmic dyes, grading scales, imaging techniques and lid eversion), considerations for contact lens selection (including the ocular surface measurements required to select the most appropriate lens parameter, lens modality and material selection), evaluation of lens fit, prescribing (teaching self-application and removal, adaptation, care regimen and cleaning instructions, as well as -->minimising risks of lens wear through encouraging compliance) and an aftercare routine.

Visual function, ocular surface integrity and symptomatology of a new extended depth-of-focus and a conventional multifocal contact lens

PURPOSE

To evaluate visual function, ocular surface integrity and dry eye symptoms with an extended depth-of-focus (EDOF) design and a conventional multifocal (MF) contact lens (CL) after 15 days of wear.

METHODS

A crossover single mask randomised clinical trial was conducted including 30 presbyopes who used an EDOF and a conventional MF CL (Biofinity MF) for 15 days each. Defocus curves, depth-of-focus range, contrast sensitivity (CS) under photopic and mesopic conditions (with and without glare) and subjective perception of halos and glare were evaluated. The ocular surface was evaluated through non-invasive Keratograph tear breakup time (NIKBUT), averaged tear breakup time (NIKBUT-avg), tear meniscus height (TMH), bulbar and limbal redness, and conjunctival and corneal staining. Dry eye symptoms were assessed with the OSDI questionnaire.

RESULTS

No statistically significant differences were found for defocus curves or depth-of-focus between the two CLs (both p > 0.05). Subjective perception of halos and glare was not significantly different between CLs. Statistically significant differences were observed for CS under mesopic conditions for low spatial frequencies (p = 0.008). None of the CL produced significant changes in NIKBUT, NIKBUT-avg, TMH or redness. No change in conjunctival staining was observed in 76.7 % and 73.3 % of participants for EDOF and Biofinity MF, respectively. No change in corneal staining was observed in 86.7 % and 83.3 % of participants for EDOF and Biofinity MF, respectively. No changes were observed in the symptomatology measured with OSDI questionnaire (p > 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Both CL for presbyopia offer good visual quality, preserve the ocular surface integrity and provide the patient with similar symptomatology levels after 15 days of lens wear.

A Review of Contact Lens Dropout

PURPOSE

Contact lens (CL) dropout is likely a major factor contributing to the near stagnant growth in the CL market. The purpose of this review is to summarize the current state of knowledge related to the frequency of CL dropout and the factors associated with it.

METHODS

PubMed.gov was searched on or before March 22, 2020, with the terms "contact lens" with "dropout" or "cessation" or "disruption" or "discomfort". Pertinent articles were collected. The references from these articles were likewise searched to identify additional relevant articles. Only manuscripts written in English were included. No study design or date exclusions were imposed on this review.

RESULTS

This literature review found that CL dropout was frequent across developed countries, with a CL dropout frequency that ranged between 12.0% and 27.4% (pooled mean = 21.7%). The top cited reason for CL dropout in established CL wearers was discomfort, while vision was the top reason in neophyte CL wearers. If given the chance, CL dropouts are often able to successfully resume CL wear up to 74% of the time. While the literature is mixed with regard to factors promoting CL dropout, meibomian gland dysfunction appears to promote CL dropout.

CONCLUSION

CL dropout is a frequently encountered condition that may be curtailed by early detection, patient education, alterative CL options, or early treatment of underlying ocular surface diseases such as meibomian gland dysfunction.

Presbyopia: Effectiveness of correction strategies

Presbyopia is a global problem affecting over a billion people worldwide. The prevalence of unmanaged presbyopia is as high as 50% of those over 50 years of age in developing world populations, due to a lack of awareness and accessibility to affordable treatment, and is even as high as 34% in developed countries. Definitions of presbyopia are inconsistent and varied, so we propose a redefinition that states "presbyopia occurs when the physiologically normal age-related reduction in the eye's focusing range reaches a point, when optimally corrected for distance vision, that the clarity of vision at near is insufficient to satisfy an individual's requirements". Strategies for correcting presbyopia include separate optical devices located in front of the visual system (reading glasses) or a change in the direction of gaze to view through optical zones of different optical powers (bifocal, trifocal or progressive addition spectacle lenses), monovision (with contact lenses, intraocular lenses, laser refractive surgery and corneal collagen shrinkage), simultaneous images (with contact lenses, intraocular lenses and corneal inlays), pinhole depth of focus expansion (with intraocular lenses, corneal inlays and pharmaceuticals), crystalline lens softening (with lasers or pharmaceuticals) or restored dynamics (with 'accommodating' intraocular lenses, scleral expansion techniques and ciliary muscle electrostimulation); these strategies may be applied differently to the two eyes to optimise the range of clear focus for an individual's task requirements and minimise adverse visual effects. However, none fully overcome presbyopia in all patients. While the restoration of natural accommodation or an equivalent remains elusive, guidance is given on presbyopic correction evaluation techniques.