Early Symptomatic Presbyopes—What Correction Modality Works Best?

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: Evaluation and diagnosis

It is important to be able to measure the range of clear focus in clinical practice to advise on presbyopia correction techniques and to optimise the correction power. Both subjective and objective techniques are necessary: subjective techniques (such as patient reported outcome questionnaires and defocus curves) assess the impact of presbyopia on a patient and how the combination of residual objective accommodation and their natural DoF work for them; objective techniques (such as autorefraction, corneal topography and lens imaging) allow the clinician to understand how well a technique is working optically and whether it is the right choice or how adjustments can be made to optimise performance. Techniques to assess visual performance and adverse effects must be carefully conducted to gain a reliable end-point, considering the target size, contrast and illumination. Objective techniques are generally more reliable, can help to explain unexpected subjective results and imaging can be a powerful communication tool with patients. A clear diagnosis, excluding factors such as binocular vision issues or digital eye strain that can also cause similar symptoms, is critical for the patient to understand and adapt to presbyopia. Some corrective options are more permanent, such as implanted inlays / intraocular lenses or laser refractive surgery, so the optics can be trialled with contact lenses in advance (including differences between the eyes) to better communicate with the patient how the optics will work for them so they can make an informed choice.

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.

Multifocal contact lens success predictability

PURPOSE

The current multi-study analysis combined data from three studies to quantify the relationship between the initial reaction to soft multifocal contact lens (MFCL) design types at dispensing and evaluate the predictability of overall vision satisfaction (OVS) and intention to purchase (ITP) after 1 week of wear.

METHOD

Three prospective studies tested MFCLs over 1-week of wear following the same protocol, using a range of potentially predictive ratings at dispensing, and both OVS and ITP at 1-week as an indicator acceptance level. In each study, two of MyDay® multifocal, clariti® 1 day multifocal, Biofinity® multifocal (worn as a daily disposable lens) or 1 DAY ACUVUE® MOIST MULTIFOCAL were dispensed for 1-week of daily wear. OVS was recorded on a 100-point VAS and ITP on a 5-point LIKERT scale. Fourteen possible predictors were entered in the statistical model, and predictability was assessed using Chi-square Automatic Interaction Detector (CHAID) statistical test.

RESULTS

A total of 210 participants (152 female & 58 male; 53.9 ± 6.5 years, range 41-71 years), representing 420 MFCL fits, equally distributed between emergent n = 65, established n = 70 and advanced n = 75 presbyopes, completed the studies. OVS on dispensing was the predictor of both OVS (p < 0.001) and ITP (p < 0.001) at 1-week. For OVS predictability, 70.8 % with OVS at dispensing > 91 points reported good OVS at 1-week and 73.4 % with OVS on dispensing ≤ 80 points reported poor OVS at 1-week. For ITP predictability, 74.6 % with OVS at dispensing > 94 points reported a positive ITP at 1-week and 65.9 % with OVS on dispensing ≤ 63 points reported negative ITP at 1-week.

CONCLUSION

Overall vision satisfaction at the time of dispensing MFCLs is a powerful indicator of both OVS and ITP after 1-week of wear. Initial patient subjective assessments provide a clinically useful indicator of the likeliness of success.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Wearer Experience and Eye Care Professional Acceptance with a 1 Day Multifocal Contact Lens

PURPOSE

A large observational survey was undertaken to determine eye care professional (ECP) and patient experience of stenfilcon A multifocal soft contact lens (MyDay multifocal) when prescribed in a real-world setting.

METHODS

A total of 196 ECPs from eleven countries fit up to ten presbyopes with stenfilcon A multifocal. Data were collected on fit success at the initial visit, patient satisfaction with comfort, vision at distance, intermediate, and near, overall vision, overall satisfaction, and handling at the initial and follow-up visits after 1-2 weeks of wear. ECPs completed questionnaires on multifocal fitting experience and expectations before and after the fitting period.

RESULTS

A total of 196 pre-fitting and 141 post-fitting ECP surveys were collected. A total of 1505 initial fits (mean age 53.4, range 38 to 81 years, 73% female, 27% neophytes) and 1440 follow-up visits were completed. The mean distance vision contact lens prescription was -1.32DS (range -12.00DS to +8.00DS) with Add powers: Low 56%, Medium 24%, and High 21%. At the follow-up visit 77% (n=1108) of trials were successful. Mean patient satisfaction ratings (1-10 scale, where 1 is not at all satisfied, and 10 extremely satisfied) at the initial visit were higher than eight out of ten for comfort, vision, and overall satisfaction, and were not significantly different after 1-2 weeks of wear. Stenfilcon A multifocal was preferred by 66% of patients over their habitual correction. In most cases mean satisfaction scores and the proportion of patients highly satisfied were not significantly different between myopes and hyperopes, across Add range, between new and habitual wearers, and wearers of frequently replaced and 1 day contact lenses.

CONCLUSION

ECPs in real-world clinical settings found stenfilcon A multifocal contact lenses easy to fit to a wide range of patients, with a high fit success rate and high levels of patient satisfaction for overall comfort, vision, satisfaction, and handling.

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.

Correcting Presbyopia With Autofocusing Liquid-Lens Eyeglasses

OBJECTIVE

Presbyopia, an age-related ocular disorder, is characterized by the loss in the accommodative abilities of the human eye. Conventional methods of correcting presbyopia divide the field of view, thereby resulting in significant vision impairment. We demonstrate the design, assembly and evaluation of autofocusing eyeglasses for restoration of accommodation without dividing the field of view.

METHODS

The adaptive optics eyeglasses comprise of two variable-focus liquid lenses, a time-of-flight range sensor and low-power, dual microprocessor control electronics, housed within an ergonomic frame. Subject-specific accommodation deficiency models were utilized to demonstrate high-fidelity accommodative correction. The abilities of this system to reduce accommodation deficiency, its power consumption, response time, optical performance and MTF were evaluated.

RESULTS

Average corrected accommodation deficiencies for 5 subjects ranged from -0.021 D to 0.016 D. Each accommodation correction calculation was performed in ∼67 ms which consumed 4.86 mJ of energy. The optical resolution of the system was 10.5 cycles/degree, and featured a restorative accommodative range of 4.3 D. This system was capable of running for up to 19 hours between charge cycles and weighed ∼132 g.

CONCLUSION

The design, assembly and performance of an autofocusing eyeglasses system to restore accommodation in presbyopes has been demonstrated.

SIGNIFICANCE

The new autofocusing eyeglasses system presented in this article has the potential to restore pre-presbyopic levels of accommodation in subjects diagnosed with presbyopia.

Visual performance with multifocal contact lenses and progressive addition spectacles

PURPOSE

As presbyopia occurs, new visual demands create a need for clear vision at multiple distances. Many spectacle wearers adapt into progressive addition lenses (PAL) in order to see clearly at distance, intermediate, and near. A multifocal contact lens provides the ability to see at these same distances without the prismatic effects of a spectacle lens or the peripheral obstruction of a spectacle frame. No studies have been done to date comparing the effect of these types of presbyopic vision correction on a variety of tests of visual performance representative of everyday tasks.

METHODS

A battery of visual performance tasks were completed by subjects while wearing their habitual PAL spectacles. These subjects were then fit with a multifocal contact lens and wore lenses for 2 weeks or more before completing the tasks again. These functional vision tests included assessments of coincidence anticipation timing, peripheral search and hand-eye coordination, and dynamic visual acuity. Following functional vision testing, subjects completed a preference survey comparing both types of refractive correction while performing common activities of daily living.

RESULTS

Performance on the majority of the tests of visual performance were equivalent (P < 0.05) when comparing PAL spectacles and multifocal contact lenses. Survey results demonstrated a preference for multifocal contact lenses overall.

CONCLUSION

PAL spectacles are widely prescribed for presbyopic patients. The findings of this study suggest that in addition to providing excellent vision, multifocal contact lenses provide functional vision performance equal to PAL spectacle wear and patients may prefer them over PAL spectacles.

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.

Near visual function measured with a novel tablet application in patients with astigmatism

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

While the clinical focus of performance metrics is traditionally based on visual acuity, research from the field of visual impairment has demonstrated that metrics such as reading speed and critical print size correlate much more strongly with subjective patient reported outcomes and assessed ability in real-world tasks.

BACKGROUND

More recently, digital device use has increasingly replaced many paper-based tasks. Therefore, this study aimed to assess the correlation between standard acuity/contrast metrics and functional reading ability compared to real-world performance on an iPad-based reading task with astigmatic patients corrected wearing toric and mean spherical equivalent contact lenses.

METHODS

Thirty-four adult participants, with -0.75 to -1.50-D of refractive astigmatism, were enrolled in a double-masked cross-over study and fitted with toric and spherical equivalent contact lenses, in random order. A digital application was developed to assess zoom, contrast modifications, the distance at which the tablet was held, blink rate, and time to complete the reading task. High and low contrast near logMAR visual acuity were measured along with reading performance (critical print size and optimal reading speed).

RESULTS

The amount participants chose to increase tablet font size (zoom) was correlated with their high-contrast visual acuity with toric correction (r = 0.434, p = 0.010). With best sphere correction, zoom was associated with reading speed (r = -0.450, p = 0.008) and working distance (r = 0.522, p = 0.002). Text zoom was also associated with horizontal (toric: r = 0.898, p < 0.001; sphere: r = 0.880, p < 0.001) and vertical scrolling (toric: r = 0.857, p < 0.001; sphere: r = 0.846, p < 0.001). There was a significant negative association between the selection of text contrast and zoom (toric: r = -0.417, p = 0.0141; sphere: r = -0.385, p = 0.025).

CONCLUSION

Real-world task performance allows more robust assessment of visual function than standard visual metrics alone. Digital technology offers the opportunity to better understand the impact of different vision correction options on real-world task performance.

Nationwide Mass Inventory and Degradation Assessment of Plastic Contact Lenses in US Wastewater

Plastics pose ecological and human health risks, with disposable contact lenses constituting a potential high-volume pollution source. Using sales data and an online survey of lens users (n = 416) alongside laboratory and field experiments at a conventional sewage treatment plant, we determined the environmental fate and mass inventories of contact lenses in the United States. The survey results revealed that 21 ± 0.8% of lens users flush their used lenses down the drain, a loading equivalent to 44 000 ± 1700 kg y^-1 of lens dry mass discharged into US wastewater. Biological treatment of wastewater did not result in a measurable loss of plastic mass (p = 0.001) and caused only very limited changes in the polymer structure, as determined by μ-Raman spectroscopy. During sewage treatment, the lenses were found to accumulate as fragments in sewage sludge, resulting in an estimated accumulation of 24 000 ± 940 kg y^-1 of microplastics destined for application on US agricultural soils contained in sewage sludge. Recycling of the contact lenses and their packaging amounted to only 0.04% of the total waste volume associated with contact lens use. This is the first study to identify contact lenses and more specifically silicone hydrogels, as a previously overlooked source of plastic and microplastic pollution.

Pattern of reading eye movements during monovision contact lens wear in presbyopes

Monovision can be used as a method to correct presbyopia with contact lenses (CL) but its effect on reading behavior is still poorly understood. In this study eye movements (EM) were recorded in fifteen presbyopic participants, naïve to monovision, whilst they read arrays of words, non-words, and text passages to assess whether monovision affected their reading. Three conditions were compared, using daily disposable CLs: baseline (near correction in both eyes), conventional monovision (distance correction in the dominant eye, near correction in the non-dominant eye), and crossed monovision (the reversal of conventional monovision). Behavioral measures (reading speed and accuracy) and EM parameters (single fixation duration, number of fixations, dwell time per item, percentage of regressions, and percentage of skipped items) were analyzed. When reading passages, no differences in behavioral and EM measures were seen in any comparison of the three conditions. The number of fixations and dwell time significantly increased for both monovision and crossed monovision with respect to baseline only with word and non-word arrays. It appears that monovision did not appreciably alter visual processing when reading meaningful texts but some limited stress of the EM pattern was observed only with arrays of unrelated or meaningless items under monovision, which require the reader to have more in-depth controlled visual processing.

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.

Predicting Short-term Performance of Multifocal Contact Lenses

OBJECTIVE

To investigate if initial multifocal contact lens (MFCL) performance predicts short-term dispensing performance.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis of 55 participants (Px) in a masked, crossover, clinical trial, using ACUVUE OASYS for Presbyopia and AIR OPTIX AQUA Multifocal. Subjective questionnaires were administered at the following instances: initial fitting, two take home questionnaires (THQ) completed between days 2 and 4 and at assessment, ≥5 days after fitting. Questionnaires included vision clarity and lack of ghosting at distance, intermediate and near at day/night time points rated on a 1 to 10 (1-step, 10 most favorable) rating scale. Vision stability, vision while driving, overall vision satisfaction, willingness to purchase and comfort, as well as acuity-based measures were also collected.

RESULTS

There were no statistical differences in comfort and vision at all distances, in vision stability or driving at either time points between THQ and assessment (P>0.05). However, there was a statistical decline in subjective overall vision satisfaction and comfort between fitting and assessment visits (P<0.001). Willingness to purchase remained the same at fitting and assessment in 68% of Px, whereas only 4% of Px converted to a positive willingness to purchase at assessment. The majority of acuity-based measures remained constant between fitting and assessment visits.

CONCLUSION

Initial performance at fitting was not able to predict short-term performance of MFCL. Subjective measures peaked at fitting and declined thereafter whereas acuity-based measures remained constant. Utility of subjective rating tools may aid practitioners to gauge success of MFCL.

Fitting success for three multifocal designs: Multicentre randomised trial

PURPOSE

To determine if the discontinuation of commercially-available simultaneous vision Multifocal Soft Contact Lenses is independent from the multifocal design. To determine causes for discontinuation and psychosocial factors involved.

METHODS

Multicentre single-blinded randomised controlled trial with external blinded evaluation for a three months follow-up period for three intervention groups. 150 single-vision soft wearers were randomly assigned a spherical near centred lens (S-CN), distance centred lens (CD) or aspherical near centred lens (A-CN). Cases of discontinuation, anxiety and quality of life were measured at one week and one month.

RESULTS

120 females and 30 males were included with an age range of 40-62 (48.79 ± 5.23). At one month, the S-CN design had a statistically significant higher risk of discontinuation than the other two OR: 6.12 (95%CI 2.5-14.9). Twenty-eight subjects discontinued wearing S-CN at first week (56%), while discontinuation of CD and A-CD were 15 (30%) and 11 (22%), with a statistically significant difference between S-CN design and the other two (p = 0.001). There were not statistically significant differences when direct comparison between discontinuation of CD and A-CN was made (p = 0.36). Thirty-two percent discontinued the use because of poor distance vision and 28% because of both poor distance and near vision. Psychosocial factors were not statistically significant.

CONCLUSIONS

Discontinuation of Multifocal Soft Contact Lenses is dependent on the design. Most common cause for discontinuation is poor distance vision. Psychosocial factors do not impact on discontinuation rates.

A Survey of Presbyopic Contact Lens Wearers in a University Setting

PURPOSE

To determine why presbyopic patients discontinue contact lens wear and describe their opinions of comfort and visual quality with contact lenses.

METHODS

A survey assessing current age, gender, contact lens material/design, and opinions of contact lens comfort and visual quality was mailed to 2400 presbyopic patients (age 40 years and older) that have had eye exams in the Ohio State University College of Optometry's Contact Lens Services over the last 4 years.

RESULTS

A total of 496 surveys were analyzed. The mean age of survey respondents was 57 ± 9 years, and 68% of the sample was female. Permanent discontinuation of contact lens wear was reported by 15%. No association was found between contact lens discontinuation and age (p = 0.7), gender (p = 0.2), age of beginning contact lens wear (p = 0.1), or contact lens material (p = 0.1). Poor vision (38%), discomfort (34%), convenience (20%), and cost (6%) were the primary reported reasons for discontinuation. There was no difference between the proportion of subjects reporting "poor vision" as their primary discontinuation reason and those reporting "discomfort" (p = 0.7). Discontinued wearers had a worse overall opinion of their distance (p = 0.03), intermediate (p = 0.01), and near vision (p = 0.002) compared to subjects who were still wearing their contact lenses.

CONCLUSIONS

Discomfort has been reported as the primary reason for contact lens discontinuation. In this presbyopic population, dissatisfaction with vision and discomfort were reported equally as often as primary reasons for discontinuation. As well, subjects who ceased contact lens wear had worse overall opinions of their vision at all distances than current contact lens wearers. The results of this survey suggest that presbyopes have unique demands and opinions related to contact lens wear.

[The search for electrophysiological predictors of visual comfort after presbyopia correction with contact lenses]

Starting at 40 years of age, prespyopia affects a quarter of the world population. Many techniques of presbyopia surgery have emerged in recent years. The purpose of this study was to compare monovision and multifocality and to identify clinical and electrophysiological predictive markers of visual comfort for each correction available in clinical practice. Ten presbyopic patients participated in this study. Patients received monovision and multifocal correction using contact lenses for three weeks each in a random order. A clinical evaluation (visual acuity, TNO test, binocular contrast sensitivity and quality of vision questionnaires) and an electrophysiological evaluation (monocular and binocular pattern VEP with multiple spatial frequencies: 60, 30 and 15') were performed before and after each correction modality. The P100 was significantly wider and slightly earlier after binocular compared to monocular stimulation at T0. The TNO stereopsis score decreased significantly after correction. No other significant differences, either on clinical or electrophysiological criteria, were found between the two modes of correction. Several significant correlations were found between the stereoacuity difference depending upon correction and evoked potentials by binocular pattern at T0. The larger the stereoacuity difference (better stereoacuity with multifocal compensation), the longer the latency of the P100 using 60' checks (R=0.82; P=0.004) and the greater the amplitude of the N75 using 30' (R=0.652; P=0.04). Our study found no differences between the 2 types of correction, but it highlights a benefit of VEP used in current practice and measurement of the P100 wave, the best indicator of stereopsis and the most consistent, to predict visual comfort after compensation presbyopia.

Short-term comparison between extended depth-of-focus prototype contact lenses and a commercially-available center-near multifocal

PURPOSE

To compare the visual performance of prototype contact lenses which extend depth-of-focus (EDOF) by deliberate manipulation of multiple higher-order spherical aberration terms and a commercially-available center-near lens (AIR OPTIX Aqua Multifocal, AOMF).

METHODS

This was a prospective, cross-over, randomized, single-masked (participant), short-term clinical trial where 52 participants (age 45-70 years) were stratified as low, medium or high presbyopes and wore EDOF and AOMF on different days. Objective measures comprised high and low contrast visual acuity (HCVA/LCVA, logMAR), and contrast sensitivity (log units) at 6m; HCVA at 70cm, 50cm and 40cm and stereopsis (seconds of arc) at 40cm. HCVA at 70cm, 50cm and 40cm were measured as "comfortable acuity" rather than conventional resolution acuity. Subjective measures comprised clarity-of-vision and ghosting at distance, intermediate and near, overall vision satisfaction and ocular comfort (1-10 numeric rating scale) and lens purchase (yes/no response). Statistical analysis included repeated measures ANOVA, paired t-tests and McNemar's test.

RESULTS

Significant differences between lens types were independent of strata (p≥0.119). EDOF was significantly better than AOMF for HCVA at 40cm (0.42±0.18 vs. 0.48±0.22, p=0.024), stereopsis (98±88 vs. 141±114, p<0.001), clarity-of-vision at intermediate (8.5±1.6 vs. 7.7±1.9, p=0.006) and near (7.3±2.5 vs. 6.2±2.5, p=0.005), lack-of-ghosting (p=0.012), overall vision satisfaction (7.5±1.7 vs. 6.4±2.2, p<0.001) and ocular comfort (9.0±1.0 vs. 8.3±1.7, p=0.002). Significantly more participants chose to only-purchase EDOF (33% vs. 6%, p=0.003).). There were no significant differences between lens types for any objective measure at 6m or clarity-of-vision at distance (p≥0.356).

CONCLUSIONS

EDOF provides better intermediate and near vision performance in presbyopes than AOMF with no difference for distance vision during short-term wear.

Visual performance comparison between contact lens-based pinhole and simultaneous vision contact lenses

BACKGROUND

The aim was to evaluate the visual performance provided with a contact lens-based pinhole design against a simultaneous vision multifocal contact lens.

METHODS

In a cross-over study at the University of Valencia, 22 presbyopic patients were evaluated using an artificial pupil fitted on the non-dominant eye and the simultaneous vision PureVision Multifocal contact lenses. After one month of contact lens wear, binocular distance visual acuity (BDVA), binocular near visual acuity (BNVA), defocus curve, binocular distance contrast sensitivity, binocular near contrast sensitivity, and stereoacuity were measured, under photopic conditions (85 cd/m(2)). In addition, binocular distance visual acuity and binocular distance contrast sensitivity were examined under mesopic conditions (5 cd/m(2)).

RESULTS

Mean binocular distance visual acuity for pinhole and PureVision Multifocal were 0.02 ± 0.04 and 0.01 ± 0.04 logMAR under photopic conditions and 0.16 ± 0.06 and 0.12 ± 0.04 logMAR for binocular near visual acuity under mesopic conditions, respectively. No statistically significant differences were found between both types of lenses at distance for both lighting levels and intermediate distances (p > 0.05). There was a significant difference at near vision under photopic conditions (p = 0.03). Binocular distance contrast sensitivity revealed statistically significant differences between the pinhole system and PureVision Multifocal for six and 12 cpd (cycles per degree) spatial frequencies at the two luminance levels, while for near vision, differences were also significant for 18 cpd. Stereoacuity was better with PureVision Multifocal (127 ± 49.3 seconds of arc) compared with the pinhole lens (220.2 ± 32.3 seconds of arc, p = 0.004).

CONCLUSION

Pinhole and PureVision Multifocal contact lenses provide good binocular vision for distance and functional intermediate vision. Although it was better with the PureVision Multifocal, near vision was not satisfactory for either of the two contact lens options.

Task oriented visual satisfaction and wearing success with two different simultaneous vision multifocal soft contact lenses

Purpose

A longitudinal prospective, cross-over, double masked study was designed to evaluate task oriented visual satisfaction and wearing success with two types of simultaneous vision multifocal soft contact lenses.

Methods

Twenty-two presbyopic subjects followed two 14-day trial periods in which they were alternatively and randomly fitted with two types of multifocal lenses. Habitual tasks were described in terms of observation distance, visual demand level and time allocation. Subjects graded visual satisfaction with each pair of lenses and each habitual task at different times during each trial. Overall satisfaction was evaluated after completion of the two trial periods. Wearing success was determined by the percentage of subjects opting to continue multifocal lens wear and by the number of subjects still wearing their lenses six months later.

Results

Viewing distance and visual demand level were found to influence visual satisfaction (p < 0.001). Visual satisfaction decreased for tasks involving higher visual demands and for near and far viewing distances, rather than for intermediate vision or a combination of near and far vision. A combined effect of lens type and evaluation time was discovered (p = 0.046). Although 78% of subjects decided to continue lens wear, only one subject was wearing them on a daily basis 6 months after the completion of the study. Insufficient quality of vision was reported as the main reason for multifocal contact lens discontinuation.

Conclusions

A task oriented visual satisfaction evaluation may prove helpful in lens design selection, as well as in predicting wearing success.