Consequences of Preservative Uptake and Release by Contact Lenses

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.

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.

All soft contact lenses are not created equal

Soft contact lenses that have been prescribed by eye care practitioners are sometimes substituted for alternative lenses by unqualified, unregulated and sometimes even fully regulated lens suppliers, in the mistaken belief that there is essentially no difference between different soft lens types. This review considers the implications of inappropriately substituting soft contact lens types in terms of (a) lens properties: surface treatment, internal wetting agents, material, total diameter, back optic zone radius, thickness, edge profile, back surface design, optical design, power, colour (tint) and ultraviolet protection; and (b) lens usage: wearing modality (daily versus overnight wear) and replacement frequency. Potential aspects of patient dissatisfaction and adverse events when prescribed soft lenses are substituted for lenses with different properties or intended usage are considered. Substitution of 15 of the 16 lens properties considered (i.e. except for back surface design) was found to be related to at least one - and as many as six - potential sources of patient dissatisfaction and adverse ocular events. Contact lens are medical devices which are prescribed and fitted; they should never be substituted for another lens type in the absence of a new prescription further to a full finalised fitting, for the simple reason that all soft contact lenses are not created equal. A substituted lens may have properties that results in undesirable consequences in respect of vision, ocular health, comfort and cosmetic appearance, and may be incompatible with the lifestyle of the patient.

Antiviral effect of multipurpose contact lens disinfecting solutions against coronavirus

Purpose

To evaluate the antiviral potential of five multipurpose disinfecting solutions against coronavirus (mouse hepatitis virus, a surrogate for SARS-CoV-2 human corona virus).

Methods

Test solutions (Biotrue, renu Advanced [Bausch and Lomb], ACUVUE RevitaLens [Johnson and Johnson Vision], cleadew [Ophtecs corp.] or AOSept Plus [Alcon]) were mixed with the coronavirus mouse hepatitis virus at 10⁴ plaque forming units (PFU)/mL as the final concentration and incubated at room temperature for the specified disinfection time. Surviving virus from each sample was then quantified by standard plaque forming unit assay and the reduction of PFU for each disinfectant was compared to the phosphate buffer saline (PBS) treated negative control. A regimen test was also conducted using Biotrue.

Results

The three multipurpose disinfecting solutions Biotrue (containing PHMB and polyquaternium-1), renu Advanced (PHMB, polyquaternium-1 and alexidine) and ACUVUE RevitaLens (polyquaternium-1 and alexidine) did not kill the coronavirus at the manufacturers recommended disinfection time in the stand alone test. After treatment, the virus’s titer (3.8 ± 0.2 log₁₀ for Biotrue, 3.7 ± 0.1 log₁₀ for renu and 3.7 ± 0.2 log₁₀ for RevitaLens) was similar to the negative control (3.7 ± 0.1 log₁₀; p ≥ 0.996). AOSept Plus (hydrogen peroxide) and cleadew (povidone iodine) significantly (p < 0.001) reduced the numbers of coronaviruses to below the detection limit (i.e. killed 3.7 ± 0.1 log₁₀ viruses compared to control). However, there was a significant reduction (p = 0.028) in numbers of coronaviruses attached to lenses when using the regimen test with Biotrue.

Conclusions

This study shows that oxidative contact lens disinfecting solutions (i.e. those containing povidone-iodine or hydrogen peroxide) provide superior antiviral activity against a coronavirus surrogate of SARS-CoV-2, unless the full regimen test (rub, rinse, disinfect) is used.

Uptake and Release of a Multipurpose Solution Biocide (MAP-D) From Hydrogel and Silicone Hydrogel Contact Lenses Using a Radiolabel Methodology

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the uptake and release of radiolabelled myristamidopropyl dimethylamine (MAP-D) on reusable daily wear contact lenses (CLs) over 7 days.

METHODS

Three silicone hydrogel (SH) CL materials (lotrafilcon B, balafilcon A, senofilcon A) and two conventional hydrogel (CH) materials (etafilcon A, omafilcon A) were tested. A short-term (experiment 1, N=4) and a longer-term (experiment 2, N=3) study was conducted. In experiment 1, the CLs were incubated in 2 mL of phosphate buffered solution (PBS) containing 14C MAP-D (5 μg/mL) for 8 hrs. The release of 14C MAP-D was measured at t=0.25, 0.5, 1, 2, 4, 8, and 24 hr in PBS. In experiment 2, the CLs were incubated in the 14C MAP-D solution for 8 hrs followed by a 16-hr release in PBS. This cycle was repeated daily for 7 days. At the end of both experiments, lenses were extracted to determine the total uptake of MAP-D. The radioactivity was measured using a beta scintillation counter.

RESULTS

In experiment 1, all three SH lenses sorbed similar amounts of MAP-D (P=0.99), all of which were higher than the two CH materials (P<0.01). However, the CH materials released a greater amount of MAP-D than the SH materials (P<0.01). In experiment 2, the uptake of MAP-D in SH materials increased over 7 days, whereas the amount of MAP-D remained constant in the CH materials (P=0.99). Similar to experiment 1, the CH lenses released more MAP-D than SH lenses after 7 days (P<0.01).

CONCLUSION

The SH materials absorbed greater amounts of MAP-D compared to CH materials. However, the CH materials released the greatest amount of MAP-D. Radioactive labelling of MAP-D offers a highly sensitive method of assessing the uptake and release profiles of biocides to CL materials.

The impact of patient behaviour and care system compliance on reusable soft contact lens complications

Reusable soft daily wear contact lenses (CLs) remain popular and were fit to just over half of all wearers in the most recent international CL prescribing survey. Unlike daily disposable CLs, reusables require cleaning and disinfecting after every use, along with storage in a CL case. These additional requirements add a number of steps to the daily wear and care routine, increasing the opportunities for CL wearers to exhibit non-compliant behaviour. The impact of non-compliance ranges from poor lens comfort through to potentially sight-threatening infective keratitis. The coronavirus pandemic has refocused the profession on the importance of hand hygiene in particular, and the need for promoting safe CL wear in general. This review summarises typical non-compliant behaviour related to reusable CLs, and examines strategies and opportunities to better support wearers. Patient education has a central role in encouraging compliant behaviour, although patient recall of information is low, and personal belief systems may result in continuation of non-compliant behaviour despite awareness of the risks. CL care solutions are required for the daily disinfection of lenses, however misuse of multipurpose solutions (MPS) and hydrogen peroxide (H₂O₂)-based care systems can challenge their ability to be fully efficacious. Standard efficacy testing is reviewed, with consideration of how well current protocols model real-world use of CL solutions. Although some recommendations are in place for the inclusion of additional variables such as lens cases, CL materials, organic soil and efficacy against Acanthamoeba, opportunity still exists to reevaluate global standards to ensure consistency of testing in all markets. Finally, potential future innovations are discussed which may further support increased safety in reusable lens wear through novel antimicrobial additions to both CL materials and cases.

Enhancement of Contact Lens Disinfection by Combining Disinfectant with Visible Light Irradiation

Multiple use contact lenses have to be disinfected overnight to reduce the risk of infections. However, several studies demonstrated that not only microorganisms are affected by the disinfectants, but also ocular epithelial cells, which come into contact via residuals at reinsertion of the lens. Visible light has been demonstrated to achieve an inactivation effect on several bacterial and fungal species. Combinations with other disinfection methods often showed better results compared to separately applied methods. We therefore investigated contact lens disinfection solutions combined with 405 nm irradiation, with the intention to reduce the disinfectant concentration of ReNu Multiplus, OptiFree Express or AOSept while maintaining adequate disinfection results due to combination benefits. Pseudomonads, staphylococci and E. coli were studied with disk diffusion assay, colony forming unit (cfu) determination and growth delay. A log reduction of 4.49 was achieved for P. fluorescens in 2 h for 40% ReNu Multiplus combined with an irradiation intensity of 20 mW/cm² at 405 nm. For AOSept the combination effect was so strong that 5% of AOSept in combination with light exhibited the same result as 100% AOSept alone. Combination of disinfectants with visible violet light is therefore considered a promising approach, as a reduction of potentially toxic ingredients can be achieved.

The use of preservatives in dry eye drops

Topical ocular preparations are widely recommended by health care professionals, or chosen by patients, to help manage dry eye disease (DED). The chronic and progressive nature of DED may result in the administration of topical products several times a day, over a period of many years. Given DED is a condition that by definition affects the ocular surface, it is important to understand how the repeated use of eye drops may impact the ocular surface, influence clinical signs, affect symptoms, and impact the overall disease process of dry eye. The component in topical preparations with the greatest potential to adversely affect the ocular surface is the preservative. This paper reviews the literature in relation to the use of preservatives in formulations for dry eye. The ocular effects of benzalkonium chloride (BAK) are summarised and compared to the performance of alternative preservatives and preservative-free formulations. Use of preserved and preservative-free drops in relation to the management of varying stages of DED is discussed.