A Survey of Presbyopic Contact Lens Wearers in a University Setting

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.

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.

Presbyopia correction with multifocal contact lenses: Evaluation of silent reading performance using eye movements analysis

PURPOSE

Many activities of daily living rely on reading, thus is not surprising that complaints from presbyopes originate in reading difficulties rather in visual acuity. Here, the effectiveness of presbyopia correction with multifocal contact lenses (CLs) is evaluated using an eye-fixation based method of silent reading performance. ΜETHODS: Visual performance of thirty presbyopic volunteers (age: 50 ± 5 yrs) was assessed monocularly and binocularly following 15 days of wear of monthly disposable CLs (AIR OPTIX™ plus HydraGlyde™, Alcon Laboratories) with: (a) single vision (SV) lenses - uncorrected for near (b) aspheric multifocal (MF) CLs. LogMAR acuity was measured with ETDRS charts. Reading performance was evaluated using standard IReST paragraphs displayed on a screen (0.4 logMAR print size at 40 cm distance). Eye movements were monitored with an infrared eyetracker (Eye-Link II, SR Research Ltd). Data analysis included computation of reading speed, fixation duration, fixations per word and percentage of regressions.

RESULTS

Average reading speed was 250 ± 68 and 235 ± 70 wpm, binocularly and monocularly, with SV CLs, improving statistically significantly to 280 ± 67 (p = 0.002) and 260 ± 59 wpm (p = 0.01), respectively, with MF CLs. Moreover, fixation duration, fixations per word and ex-Gaussian parameter of fixation duration, μ, showed a statistically significant improvement when reading with MF CLs, with fixation duration exhibiting the stronger correlation (r = 0.79, p < 0.001) with improvement in reading speed. The correlation between improvement in VA and reading speed was moderate (r = 0.46, p = 0.016), as was the correlation between VA and any eye fixation parameter.

CONCLUSION

Average silent reading speed in a presbyopic population was found improved with MF compared to SV CL correction and was faster with binocular compared to monocular viewing: this was mainly due to the faster average fixation duration and the lower number of fixations. Evaluating reading performance using eye fixation analysis could offer a reliable outcome of functional vision in presbyopia correction.

Visual discomfort and contact lens wear: A review

The purpose of this manuscript is to describe how vision influences contact lens discomfort and review the evidence supporting the hypothesis that contact lens discomfort can be caused by vision and vision-related disorders. Contact lens discomfort is a misunderstood and difficult to manage clinical condition. Most treatments and strategies aimed at alleviating discomfort focus on optimizing the contact lens fit and its relationship with the ocular surface, but these strategies commonly fail at relieving discomfort symptoms. Many vision and vision-related disorders share symptoms with those reported by uncomfortable contact lens wearers. This paper will review evidence and literature that describes how these vision and vision-related disorders may influence comfort in contact lens wearers. Acknowledging how vision influences contact lens discomfort will improve future research intended to better understand the condition, allow for more effective clinical management, and reduce rates of discontinuation.

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.

Pharmacological Treatment in Presbyopia

Pharmacological treatment of presbyopia may be an alternative for those who want a spectacle-free scenario and an easy-to-use method with lower risk of irreversible ocular adverse events. There are two main agents, miotics and lens softeners, investigated as agents for the pharmacological treatment. Miotic agents treat presbyopia by creating a pinhole effect which may increase the depth of focus at all working distances. The miotic agents have been studied for application to only one eye for monovision or both eyes. Their effect is temporary with common adverse events, such as headache and dim vision at nighttime, with no known long-term safety and efficacy. There have been studies on the miotic agents in combination with other agents for additive treatment effects or lessening adverse events, however, these combination effects are not clear. Lens softeners increase the elasticity of the lens, which is targeted at one of the etiologic mechanisms of presbyopia. There is only one lens softener being investigated in only a few trials. The results were inconclusive. The recent approval of 1.25% pilocarpine for treatment of presbyopia by the US FDA may be an important milestone for investigation of real-world data of pharmacological treatment of 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.

Presbyopia - A Review of Current Treatment Options and Emerging Therapies

Presbyopia is a common age-related vision disorder characterized by a progressive inability to focus on near objects. If uncorrected or under-corrected, presbyopia can significantly impact patients' quality of life. Presbyopia represents an area of considerable unmet need due to its rising prevalence worldwide as the population ages, the high proportion of under-treated individuals in some parts of the world, and the limitations of currently available corrective methods. Progressive or bifocal spectacles are associated with peripheral blur, a restricted visual field and impaired depth perception, which have been linked to an increased risk of falls in the elderly. Contact lens options can be difficult to maintain due to the development of age-related dry eye symptoms and reduced manual dexterity. Other corrective methods involve surgical interventions that modify the optics of the cornea, replace the crystalline lens, or attempt to restore active accommodation. While patients undergoing surgery report satisfactory outcomes post-operatively, many of them eventually require reading glasses. Non-invasive therapies with novel mechanisms of action are currently being investigated; these include miotic agents and UNR844, a lipoic acid choline ester. In this narrative review, available evidence on presbyopia prevalence, quality of life impact and risk factors are described, with a focus on observational studies in non-clinical settings. The diagnosis pathway and patient journey in presbyopia are outlined, and various treatment options are analyzed. The data reviewed herein reveals significant gaps in the provision of vision correction for this common condition, with a paucity of effective, non-invasive treatment options broadly accessible to presbyopic individuals.

Patients' attitudes and beliefs to presbyopia and its correction

OBJECTIVE

Presbyopia is the gradual inability to focus near objects with age. This study explores patients' attitudes and beliefs towards presbyopia including preferred modes of near refractive correction.

METHODS

In the United Kingdom, twenty-four volunteers completed an online questionnaire and attended a structured, recorded focus group. Participants' age ranged between 36 and 48 years, representing a pre-presbyopic and a presbyopic population. Attitudes and beliefs about presbyopia, its significance, and opinions about current refractive correction including multifocal contact lenses were transcribed and coded using content analysis for overarching themes and patterns.

RESULTS

Six participants (25%) were already wearing a near visual correction while 18 (75%) were not. Five key primary themes with clear inter-participant similarities were identified as 'age-related' (75%), 'acceptance' (50%), clear lack of 'familiarity with the word presbyopia' (65%), a mixed/ reluctant attitude 'towards (multifocal) contact lenses' (62.5%), and 'comfort and convenience' of a presbyopic correction (79%) whereby cost is of less importance.

CONCLUSION

The need for a reading correction was perceived as a sign of age. Spectacles were the most preferred mode of near vision correction, while comfort and convenience were seen as more important than cost. Patient education about presbyopia is lacking. Multifocal contact lenses are not necessarily the preferred visual correction even if the patient already wears contact lenses for distance.

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

PURPOSE

To evaluate visual function, ocular surface integrity and dry eye symptoms with an extended depth-of-focus (EDOF) design and a conventional multifocal (MF) contact lens (CL) after 15 days of wear.

METHODS

A crossover single mask randomised clinical trial was conducted including 30 presbyopes who used an EDOF and a conventional MF CL (Biofinity MF) for 15 days each. Defocus curves, depth-of-focus range, contrast sensitivity (CS) under photopic and mesopic conditions (with and without glare) and subjective perception of halos and glare were evaluated. The ocular surface was evaluated through non-invasive Keratograph tear breakup time (NIKBUT), averaged tear breakup time (NIKBUT-avg), tear meniscus height (TMH), bulbar and limbal redness, and conjunctival and corneal staining. Dry eye symptoms were assessed with the OSDI questionnaire.

RESULTS

No statistically significant differences were found for defocus curves or depth-of-focus between the two CLs (both p > 0.05). Subjective perception of halos and glare was not significantly different between CLs. Statistically significant differences were observed for CS under mesopic conditions for low spatial frequencies (p = 0.008). None of the CL produced significant changes in NIKBUT, NIKBUT-avg, TMH or redness. No change in conjunctival staining was observed in 76.7 % and 73.3 % of participants for EDOF and Biofinity MF, respectively. No change in corneal staining was observed in 86.7 % and 83.3 % of participants for EDOF and Biofinity MF, respectively. No changes were observed in the symptomatology measured with OSDI questionnaire (p > 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Both CL for presbyopia offer good visual quality, preserve the ocular surface integrity and provide the patient with similar symptomatology levels after 15 days of lens wear.

A Review of Contact Lens Dropout

PURPOSE

Contact lens (CL) dropout is likely a major factor contributing to the near stagnant growth in the CL market. The purpose of this review is to summarize the current state of knowledge related to the frequency of CL dropout and the factors associated with it.

METHODS

PubMed.gov was searched on or before March 22, 2020, with the terms "contact lens" with "dropout" or "cessation" or "disruption" or "discomfort". Pertinent articles were collected. The references from these articles were likewise searched to identify additional relevant articles. Only manuscripts written in English were included. No study design or date exclusions were imposed on this review.

RESULTS

This literature review found that CL dropout was frequent across developed countries, with a CL dropout frequency that ranged between 12.0% and 27.4% (pooled mean = 21.7%). The top cited reason for CL dropout in established CL wearers was discomfort, while vision was the top reason in neophyte CL wearers. If given the chance, CL dropouts are often able to successfully resume CL wear up to 74% of the time. While the literature is mixed with regard to factors promoting CL dropout, meibomian gland dysfunction appears to promote CL dropout.

CONCLUSION

CL dropout is a frequently encountered condition that may be curtailed by early detection, patient education, alterative CL options, or early treatment of underlying ocular surface diseases such as meibomian gland dysfunction.

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.

Presbyopic and non-presbyopic contact lens opinions and vision correction preferences

PURPOSE

To compare vision correction preferences, refractive error, and gender of non-presbyopes and presbyopes.

METHODS

Adults who wear spectacles or contact lenses completed a survey about refractive correction opinions and refractive error was measured.

RESULTS

Of the 304 subjects, 38.2% were presbyopic (≥40 years) and 59.2% were female. Spectacles were the primary vision correction for 78.0% of subjects. Compared to contact lens wearers, the proportion of presbyopes was higher (p=0.006) in spectacle wearers. There was no difference in the proportion of presbyopes and non-presbyopes who have tried contact lenses (p=0.2) or who would prefer to wear contact lenses (p=0.2). In contact lens wearers, there was no difference in the proportion of presbyopes and non-presbyopes with a history of temporary discontinuation (p=0.9). Within the contact lens wearing group, there was no refractive error difference between presbyopes and non-presbyopes (spherical equivalent p=0.6; power vector J0 p=0.5; power vector J45 p=0.4; anisometropia p=0.2). Overall, contact lens wearers were more likely to be female (p=0.004). There was no difference in gender in presbyopic and non-presbyopic contact lens wearers (p=0.5).

CONCLUSIONS

Presbyopes and non-presbyopes have similar opinions about spectacles and contact lenses. Presbyopes of all refractive errors prefer contact lens correction when good vision and comfort can be achieved. Eye care providers should not assume that presbyopia, refractive error, or gender are factors that preclude a patient from being interested in contact lens wear.