Effects of ultraviolet and blue-light filtering on sleep: a meta-analysis of controlled trials and studies on cataract patients

Blue Light Filtration in Intraocular Lenses: Effects on Visual Function and Systemic Health

Blue light-filtering (BLF) intraocular lenses (IOLs) are designed to mimic the healthy natural adult crystalline lens. Studies that evaluated the relative merit of ultraviolet-only IOL design (ie, blocking wavelengths <400 nm) versus BLF IOL design (ie, filtering wavelengths ~400-475 nm in addition to blocking wavelengths <400 nm) on protection and function of the visual system suggest that neither design had a deleterious impact on visual acuity or contrast sensitivity. A BLF design may reduce some aspects of glare, such as veiling and photostress. BLF has been shown in many contexts to improve visual performance under conditions that are stressed by blue light, such as distance vision impaired by short-wave dominant haze. Furthermore, some data (mostly inferential) support the notion that BLF IOLs reduce actinic stress. Biomimetic BLF IOLs represent a conservative approach to IOL design that provides no harm for visual acuity, contrast sensitivity, or color vision while improving vision under certain circumstances (eg, glare).

Do blue light filter applications improve sleep outcomes? A study of smartphone users' sleep quality in an observational setting

Exposure to blue light at bedtime, suppresses melatonin secretion, postponing the sleep onset and interrupting the sleep process. Some smartphone manufacturers have introduced night-mode functions, which have been claimed to aid in improving sleep quality. In this study, we evaluate the impact of blue light filter application on decreasing blue light emissions and improving sleep quality. Participants in this study recorded the pattern of using their mobile phones through a questionnaire. In order to evaluate sleep quality, we used a PSQI questionnaire. Blue light filters were used by 9.7% of respondents, 9.7% occasionally, and 80% never. The mean score of PSQI was more than 5 in 54.10% of the participants and less than 5 in 45.90%. ANOVA test was performed to assess the relationship between using blue light filter applications and sleep quality (p-value = 0.925). The findings of this study indicate a connection between the use of blue light filter apps and habitual sleep efficiency in the 31-40 age group. However, our results align only to some extent with prior research, as we did not observe sustained positive effects on all parameters of sleep quality from the long-term use of blue light filtering apps. Several studies have found that blue light exposure can suppress melatonin secretion, exacerbating sleep problems. Some studies have reported that physical blue light filters, such as lenses, can affect melatonin secretion and improve sleep quality. However, the impact of blue light filtering applications remains unclear and debatable.

[Blue light and intraocular lenses (IOLs): Beliefs and realities]

The first intraocular lenses (IOLs) used for cataract surgery transmitted both ultraviolet (UV) radiation and visible light to the retina. Colorless UV-blocking IOLs were introduced and rapidly adopted in the 1980s. Yellow-tinted blue-blocking (also known as blue-filtering) IOLs were marketed in the early 1990s. Blue-blocking IOLs were intended to simulate age-related crystalline lens yellowing to reduce the cyanopsia that some patients experienced after cataract surgery. When blue-filtering IOLs were introduced in North America, however, blue-blocking chromophores were advocated as a way to protect patients from age-related macular degeneration (AMD) despite the lack of evidence that normal environmental light exposure causes AMD. The "blue light hazard" is a term that describes the experimental finding that acute, abnormally intense light exposures are potentially more phototoxic to the retina when short rather than long wavelengths are used. Thus, in brief exposures to intense light sources such as welding arcs, ultraviolet radiation is more hazardous than blue light, which is more hazardous than longer wavelength green or red light. International commissions have cautioned that the blue light hazard does not apply to normal indoor or outdoor light exposures. Nonetheless, the hazard is used for commercial purposes to suggest misleadingly that ambient environmental light can cause acute retinal phototoxicity and increase the risk of AMD. Very large epidemiological studies show that blue-blocking IOLs do not reduce the risk or progression of AMD. Additionally, blue-filtering IOLs or spectacles cannot decrease glare disability, because they decrease image and glare illuminance in the same proportion. Blue light is essential for older adults' scotopic photoreception needed to reduce the risk of nighttime falling and related injuries. It is also critical for circadian photoreception that is essential for good health, sleep and cognitive performance. Unfortunately, age-related pupillary miosis, retinal rod and ganglion cell photoreceptor degeneration and decreased outdoor activity all reduce the amount of healthful blue light available to older adults. Blue-restricting IOLs further reduce the available blue light at a time when older adults need it most. Patients and ophthalmologists are exposed to hypothesis-based advertisements for blue-filtering optical devices that suppress short wavelength light critical for vision in dim lighting and for good physical and mental health. Spectacle and intraocular lens selections should be based on scientific fact, not conjecture. Ideal IOLs should improve photoreception rather than limit it permanently. Practice efficiency, surgical convenience and physician-manufacturer relationships may eliminate a patient's opportunity to choose between colorless blue-transmitting IOLs and yellow-tinted, blue-restricting IOLs. Cataract surgeons ultimately determine whether their patients have the opportunity to make an informed choice about their future photoreception.

A review of the current state of research on artificial blue light safety as it applies to digital devices

Light is necessary for human health and well-being. As we spend more time indoors, we are being increasingly exposed to artificial light. The development of artificial lighting has allowed us to control the brightness, colour, and timing of our light exposure. Yet, the widespread use of artificial light has raised concerns about the impact of altering our light environment on our health. The widespread adoption of personal digital devices over the past decade has exposed us to yet another source of artificial light. We spend a significant amount of time using digital devices with light-emitting screens, including smartphones and tablets, at close range. The light emitted from these devices, while appearing white, has an emission spectrum with a peak in the blue range. Blue light is often characterised as hazardous as its photon energy is higher than that of other wavelengths of visible light. Under certain conditions, visible blue light can cause harm to the retina and other ocular structures. Blue light can also influence the circadian rhythm and processes mediated by melanopsin-expressing intrinsically photosensitive retinal ganglion cells. While the blue component of sunlight is necessary for various physiological processes, whether the low-illuminance artificial blue light emitted from digital devices presents a risk to our health remains an ongoing area of debate. As technological advancements continue, it is relevant to understand how new devices may influence our well-being. This review examines the existing research on artificial blue light safety and the eye, visual performance, and circadian functions.

The Blue Light Hazard Versus Blue Light Hype

PURPOSE

The blue light hazard is the experimental finding that blue light is highly toxic to the retina (photic retinopathy), in brief abnormally intense exposures, including sungazing or vitreoretinal endoillumination. This term has been misused commercially to suggest, falsely, that ambient environmental light exposure causes phototoxicity to the retina, leading to age-related macular degeneration (AMD). We analyze clinical, epidemiologic, and biophysical data regarding blue-filtering optical chromophores.

DESIGN

Perspective.

METHODS

Analysis and integration of data regarding the blue light hazard and blue-blocking filters in ophthalmology and related disciplines.

RESULTS

Large epidemiologic studies show that blue-blocking intraocular lenses (IOLs) do not decrease AMD risk or progression. Blue-filtering lenses cannot reduce disability glare because image and glare illumination are decreased in the same proportion. Blue light essential for optimal rod and retinal ganglion photoreception is decreased by progressive age-related crystalline lens yellowing, pupillary miosis, and rod and retinal ganglion photoreceptor degeneration. Healthful daily environmental blue light exposure decreases in older adults, especially women. Blue light is important in dim environments where inadequate illumination increases risk of falls and associated morbidities.

CONCLUSIONS

The blue light hazard is misused as a marketing stratagem to alarm people into using spectacles and IOLs that restrict blue light. Blue light loss is permanent for pseudophakes with blue-blocking IOLs. Blue light hazard misrepresentation flourishes despite absence of proof that environmental light exposure or cataract surgery causes AMD or that IOL chromophores provide clinical protection. Blue-filtering chromophores suppress blue light critical for good mental and physical health and for optimal scotopic and mesopic vision.

Effect of Blue Light-Filtering Intraocular Lenses on Insomnia After Cataract Surgery: A Nationwide Cohort Study With 10-Year Follow-up

PURPOSE

To compare the incidence of clinically diagnosed insomnia after cataract surgery in pseudophakic eyes with blue light-filtering intraocular lenses (BF-IOLs) and non-BF-IOLs.

DESIGN

Nationwide cohort study using the Taiwan National Health Insurance Research Database.

METHODS

We enrolled 171,415 patients who underwent cataract surgery in both eyes between 2008 and 2013 and followed them till 2018. Propensity score matching (PSM) was used to balance the baseline characteristics between the 2 IOL groups. The Cox model and cause-specific hazard model were used to estimate the hazard ratios (HRs) and subdistribution hazard ratio (SHR).

RESULTS

Overall, 19,604 (11.4%) and 151,811 (88.6%) patients had BF-IOL and non-BF-IOL implants, respectively. The BF-IOL group tended to be younger and had fewer chronic diseases. Within a mean follow-up period of 6.2 years, the incidence rates of insomnia (per 100 person-years) in the BF-IOL and non-BF-IOL groups were 2.97 and 3.21, respectively. There was no significant difference in the incidence rate of insomnia between the 2 IOL groups after treating all-cause mortality as a competing risk (SHR 0.98, 95% CI 0.95-1.01) and after PSM (HR 0.97, 95% CI 0.92-1.01), respectively. Subgroup analysis revealed no significant difference in the insomnia rate between the 2 IOL groups for various age groups, 2 sex groups, and men with and without benign prostatic hyperplasia.

CONCLUSION

In Taiwan, the use of a BF-IOL for up to 10 years had no apparent disadvantage over non-BF-IOLs with respect to insomnia.

Cross-sectional study of intraocular cataract lens replacement, circadian rest–activity rhythms, and sleep quality in older adults

Study Objectives

Age-related cataract decreases light transmission at the most sensitive spectrum for circadian photoentrainment, with negative ramifications for human health. Here, we assessed whether intraocular lens replacement (IOL) in older patients with previous cataract was associated with increased stability and amplitude of circadian rest–activity rhythms, and improved sleep quality.

Methods

Our cross-sectional study included sixteen healthy older individuals without ocular diseases (controls; 55–80 years; 63.6 ± 5.6y; 8 women) and 13 patients with previous cataract and bilateral IOL (eight with blue-blocking [BB] lens and five with ultraviolet-only [UV] blocking lens; 55–80 years; 69.9 ± 5.2y; 9 women). The study comprised three weeks of at home rest–activity assessments using wrist-worn actigraphs, and each week preceded a laboratory protocol. Primary outcomes were actigraphy-derived interdaily stability, intradaily variability, and relative amplitude of circadian rest–activity rhythms. Secondary outcomes were actigraphy-assessed sleep quality (i.e. time in bed, sleep duration, sleep efficiency, mean wake bout time and fragmentation index).

Results

Patients with IOL had significantly higher interdaily stability (“Group” effect: pFDR =.001), but not intradaily variability (“Group” effect: pFDR = n.s.), and significantly higher relative amplitude of rest–activity rhythms (“Group” effect: pFDR &lt; .001). Moreover, patients with IOL had significantly higher activity levels during the day and lower levels during the evening, as compared to healthy older controls (“Group” effect: pFDR = .03). Analyses of actigraphy-derived sleep parameters yielded no significant differences across groups (“Group” effect: all pFDR &gt; .1).

Conclusions

Our cross-sectional study suggests that enhancing spectral lens transmission in patients with cataract may benefit their circadian health.