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

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.

BCLA CLEAR Presbyopia: Epidemiology and impact

The global all-ages prevalence of epidemiologically-measured 'functional' presbyopia was estimated at 24.9% in 2015, affecting 1.8 billion people. This prevalence was projected to stabilise at 24.1% in 2030 due to increasing myopia, but to affect more people (2.1 billion) due to population dynamics. Factors affecting the prevalence of presbyopia include age, geographic location, urban versus rural location, sex, and, to a lesser extent, socioeconomic status, literacy and education, health literacy and inequality. Risk factors for early onset of presbyopia included environmental factors, nutrition, near demands, refractive error, accommodative dysfunction, medications, certain health conditions and sleep. Presbyopia was found to impact on quality-of-life, in particular quality of vision, labour force participation, work productivity and financial burden, mental health, social wellbeing and physical health. Current understanding makes it clear that presbyopia is a very common age-related condition that has significant impacts on both patient-reported outcome measures and economics. However, there are complexities in defining presbyopia for epidemiological and impact studies. Standardisation of definitions will assist future synthesis, pattern analysis and sense-making between studies.

Visual quality assessment and comparison of two multifocal scleral lens designs

PURPOSE

To analyze the visual quality of a new multifocal scleral lens with a customized decentred optic zone compared to a conventional design by measuring visual acuity, contrast sensitivity function, stereopsis, subjective vision and comfort after one month of wear.

METHODS

Nineteen presbyopic subjects were fitted with two multifocal scleral lens designs: a conventional multifocal and a customized decentred optical zone design. All subjects wore both scleral lens designs for one month with a two-week washout period. The main variables evaluated included high and low-contrast visual acuity under photopic and mesopic light conditions, binocular defocus curves, contrast sensitivity function and a visual analogue scale (VAS) for subjective vision and comfort.

RESULTS

Comparing the two scleral lens designs, statistically significant differences in visual acuity were found, highlighting the improvement in more than one chart line (6 letters) for low contrast near tests under photopic light conditions with the decentred optics lens design. VAS questionnaire scores also showed a significant improvement in distance and overall subjective vision with the decentred optics lenses. Contrast sensitivity function showed an improvement with decentred multifocal lenses at all spatial frequencies measured, being statistically significant for 12 cycles per degree. No differences in stereoacuity were found.

CONCLUSION

Multifocal scleral lenses with a customized decentred optical zone proved to be a promising refractive correction in presbyopic subjects after one month of wear, offering good comfort and visual quality under photopic and mesopic light conditions.

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.

Comparison of visual performance and image quality between a myopia-control contact lens and a single-vision contact lens

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to evaluate the visual performance and image quality of concentric dual-focus-designed contact lenses (CLs) compared with single-vision CLs in myopic Chinese people.

METHODS

Twenty myopic volunteers aged between 18 and 26 years were recruited at a university eye hospital to wear both defocus-incorporated soft contact (DISC) lenses and single-vision CLs for 1 week in random order. High- and low-contrast visual acuity (VA), contrast sensitivity (CS), ocular higher-order aberrations (HOA), Strehl ratio and the Quality of Vision (QoV) questionnaire were assessed with each type of CL at weekly follow-up.

RESULTS

Distance VA was not affected by DISC lenses compared to single-vision CLs in either high (p = 0.414) or low contrast (p = 0.431). However, there was a significant reduction in low-contrast near VA with DISC lenses compared with single-vision CLs (p = 0.011). The differences of CS between DISC lenses and single-vision CLs were significantly associated with lighting conditions and spatial frequencies (F = 128.81, P < 0.001). Compared with single-vision CLs, wavefront aberrations of DISC lenses were significantly increased in total HOA, trefoil, and spherical aberrations for either 3.0 mm or 6.0 mm pupil size. The Strehl ratio wearing DISC lenses reduced significantly compared to the single-vision CLs (p < 0.001) at a pupil diameter of 6.0 mm. QoV scores were higher overall (p = 0.026) and frequency (p = 0.019) with DISC lenses than with single-vision CLs, indicating poorer visual performance.

CONCLUSION

DISC lenses provide satisfactory distance VA. However, the higher scores of the QoV questionnaire with DISC lenses may be related to decreased CS at medium or high spatial frequencies and increased higher-order aberrations.

New insights in presbyopia: impact of correction strategies

Presbyopia occurs when the physiologically normal age-related reduction in the eyes 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. Hence, it is more about the impact it has on an individual’s visual ability to function in their environment to maintain their lifestyle than a measured loss of focusing ability. Presbyopia has a significant impact on an individual’s quality of life and emotional state. While a range of amelioration strategies exist, they are often difficult to access in the developing world and prescribing is generally not optimal even in developed countries. This review identified the need for a standardised definition of presbyopia to be adopted. An appropriate battery of tests should be applied in evaluating presbyopic management options and the results of clinical trials should be published (even if unsuccessful) to accelerate the provision of better outcomes for presbyopes.