Fast versus gradual adaptation of soft daily disposable contact lenses in neophyte wearers

2022 Glenn A. Fry Award lecture: Enhancing clinical assessment for improved ophthalmic management

ABSTRACT

Detailed clinical assessment is critical to allow sensitive evaluation of the eye and its management. As technology advances, these assessment techniques can be adapted and refined to improve the detection of pathological changes of ocular tissue and their impact on visual function. Enhancements in optical medical devices including spectacle, contact, and intraocular lenses have allowed for a better understanding of the mechanism and amelioration of presbyopia and myopia control. Advancements in imaging technology have enabled improved quantification of the tear film and ocular surface, informing diagnosis and treatment strategies. Miniaturized electronics, large processing power, and in-built sensors in smartphones and tablets capacitate more portable assessment tools for clinicians, facilitate self-monitoring and treatment compliance, and aid communication with patients. This article gives an overview of how technology has been used in many areas of eye care to improve assessments and treatment and provides a snapshot of some of my studies validating and using technology to inform better evidence-based patient management.

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.

Global contact lens prescribing 2000-2020

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Contact lens prescribing data serve as a benchmark for eye care clinicians in assessing their own prescribing patterns and provide useful contextual information for researchers and the contact lens industry.

PURPOSE

To document global trends in contact lens prescribing during the first two decades of this century.

METHODS

A longitudinal survey of contact lens prescribing was conducted by asking contact lens practitioners to provide 11 items of information from 10 consecutive contact lens fits between January and March each year from 1996 to 2020, inclusive.

RESULTS

Data relating to 406,859 contact lens fits were collected from 71 countries between 1996 and 2020, generating 4.5 million data points. Demographic analysis for 61 nations returning ≥100 fits demonstrated that a majority of lenses (65-70%) were fitted to females. The average age of lens wearers was 30.8 ± 13.9 years for males and 32.5 ± 14.3 years for females. Trend analysis of 20 countries returning prescribing data for ≥13 years between 2000 and 2020 revealed the following: increase in the age of lens wearers; dramatic rise in the extent of fitting silicone hydrogel and daily disposable lenses; increased fitting of soft toric and multifocal lenses; increasing proportion of rigid lens fits in specialist (non-spherical) designs; incomplete provision of near contact lens corrections for contact lens wearing presbyopes; ongoing low levels of extended wear fits; and almost exclusive use of multi-purpose care systems. Daily disposable lenses were used for both full-time and part-time wear, whereas rigid and soft reusable lenses were primarily worn full time.

CONCLUSIONS

The evolution of international contact lens fitting over the first two decades of this century is documented. The data presented here may assist all stakeholders in advancing contact lens clinical practice, informing contact lens research, and guiding contact lens manufacturers.

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.

Opportunities and threats to contact lens practice: A global survey perspective

AIM

To understand the views of contact lens (CL) practitioners across the globe regarding what they perceive as opportunities and threats in CL practice.

METHODS

A self-administered anonymised questionnaire, constructed in English and translated in six more languages, was distributed through reputed international professional bodies and academic institutions worldwide. The questionnaire included items on demographic characteristics, type of practice, and questions designed to explore practitioners' perspective on the future of their CL practice over the next five years.

RESULTS

A total of 2408 valid responses were analysed. Multifocal CLs for presbyopia, CLs for myopia control, use of daily disposable (DD) CLs for occasional wear, and biocompatible materials to improve comfort were identified as promising areas of opportunities by practitioners (all 8/10). Respondents from North America, and Europe valued DDCLs for occasional wear moderately more favourable (Median: 9/10 for all) as compared to colleagues in Asia (Median: 8/10, p < 0.001), South America (Median: 8/10, p < 0.01), and Africa (Median: 8/10p < 0.01). Multifocal CLs for presbyopia was perceived as a better opportunity by practitioners in North America and Europe (Median: 9/10 for both), as well as in Australasia (Median: 8/10), in comparison to Asia, Africa, and Middle East (for all Median: 6/10, p < 0.001). Practitioners expressed concerns about the availability of CLs and CL prescriptions online without direct professional involvement (both 9/10).

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, the most appealing opportunities for CL practice growth were identified in occasional use of DD CLs, biocompatible materials to reduce CL discomfort, multifocal CLs for presbyopia correction and management of myopia control with CLs. Lack of regulation in CL sales, especially online, seemed to be a constant threat. The insights from this study can be used to design targeted strategies to enhance CL practice across the globe and in specific geographical areas.

Fast versus gradual adaptation of soft monthly contact lenses in neophyte wearers

AIM

To determine if a gradual adaptation period is necessary for neophytes when fitted with modern hydrogel or silicone hydrogel reusable disposable contact lenses.

METHOD

Across four sites, 74 neophytes (18-28 years) were randomly assigned to a reusable lens cleaned nightly with Opti-Free® Puremoist® multi-purpose contact lens solution: Proclear® (hydrogel) or Biofinity® (silicone hydrogel) and an adaptation schedule: fast (10 h wear from the first day) or gradual (4 h on the first day, increasing their wear time by 2 h on each subsequent day until they had reached 10 h). Masked investigators graded ocular surface physiology and non-invasive tear breakup time (NIBUT) and a range of comfort, vision and lens handling subjective ratings (0-100 visual analogue scales) were recorded at the baseline visit and after 10 h of lens wear, 4-6 days and 12-14 days after lens fitting. Subjective scores were also repeated after 7 days.

RESULTS

There was no difference (p > 0.05) in ocular surface physiology or NIBUT between fast and gradual adaptation groups at any time point in either lens type with the exception of increased corneal staining (p = 0.019) in the silicone hydrogel fast adaptation group after 4-6 days, but was similar by 12-14 days. Subjective scores were also similar across the visits and lens types with the exception of 'lens awareness' (p = 0.019) which was less in the gradual versus the fast adaptation silicone hydrogel lens group at 12-14 days.

CONCLUSION

There seems to be no clinical benefit for recommending a gradual adaptation period in new wearers fitted with modern soft reusable disposable contact lenses. The findings of this work add to a growing body of evidence suggesting that such advice is unnecessary in regular soft contact lens wear, which has important ramifications for the initial clinical management of these patients.

Quarter of a century of contact lens prescribing trends in the United Kingdom (1996 - 2020)

PURPOSE

To document contact lens prescribing trends in the United Kingdom over the past quarter of a century.

METHODS

An annual survey of contact lens prescribing was conducted each year from 1996 to 2020, inclusive, by asking a random selection of optometrists and contact lens opticians to provide information relating to 10 consecutive contact lens fits between January and March.

RESULTS

Over the 25 year survey period, 2,671 practitioners returned survey forms, reporting a total of 25,575 contact lens fits. The mean (± standard deviation) age of lens wearers was 35 ± 15 years, of which 64 % were female. Over the survey period, rigid lens new fits decreased from 22 % to 2%. The prescribing of silicone hydrogel lenses has increased steadily since their introduction towards the end of the 1990s, and now represent 80 % of soft lens fits. Soft toric lens prescribing has gradually increased to 47 % - a value at which astigmatism ≥ 0.75DC is theoretically corrected in all contact lens wearers. Daily disposable prescribing increased steadily over the survey period and now represents 63 % of lenses prescribed. Extended wear fits remain at very low levels, except for some prescribing for overnight orthokeratology. Multi-purpose lens care solutions are ubiquitous; peroxide and other systems are now seldom prescribed. Rigid lenses and monthly replacement soft lenses are predominantly worn on a full time basis, whereas daily disposable soft lenses are mainly worn part time.

CONCLUSIONS

This report documents the evolution of contact lens fitting in the United Kingdom over the past 25 years. The most likely lens fit is a spherical design silicone hydrogel daily disposable contact lens prescribed for a 35 year old female and worn on a part-time basis.

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.

Contact Lens Adaption in Neophytes

SIGNIFICANCE

Clinicians commonly either recommend patients begin contact lens (CL) wear full time or suggest that patients should gradually increase their wear times during the first few days of wear. This study found no differences between these two wear schedules, suggesting that patient preference may be the best schedule.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to determine if there are any clinical differences in neophyte, 2-week, reusable soft CL wearers who were randomized to either a full-time or a gradually increasing wear time schedule.

METHODS

This was an investigator-masked, three-visit, randomized, clinical trial. Participants were randomized to wear their CLs full time starting on the first day or gradually starting with 2 hours of wear on the first day and increasing wear by 2 hours each day until 8 hours or more of wear per day was achieved. Symptoms (Ocular Surface Disease Index and visual analog scale) and ocular surface signs (tear breakup time, extent of corneal staining, and Schirmer test I) were evaluated at each visit.

RESULTS

A total of 25 participants were randomized, with 21 participants completing at least 1 week of follow-up. Completed participants had a mean ± standard deviation age of 23.5 ± 3.0 years, and 48% were female. No significant between-group differences were found when comparing the full-time and gradual wear time schedule groups at 2 weeks (all, P > .32): Ocular Surface Disease Index (10.8 ± 8.5 vs. 16.3 ± 18.8), visual analog scale (89.0 ± 9.7 vs. 81.8 ± 18.7), tear breakup time (11.7 ± 7.0 vs. 9.8 ± 2.7), extent of corneal staining (0.0 ± 0.1 vs. 0.3 ± 0.5), or Schirmer test I (15.9 ± 8.8 vs. 21.2 ± 12.5).

CONCLUSIONS

No between-group differences were found for any metric evaluated, which suggests that the best wear schedule may be the one that best suits the neophyte CL wearer's lifestyle.