Extended depth of focus contact lenses vs. two commercial multifocals: Part 2. Visual performance after 1 week of lens wear

PURPOSE

To compare the visual performance of prototype contact lenses designed via deliberate manipulation of higher-order spherical aberrations to extend-depth-of-focus with two commercial multifocals, after 1 week of lens wear.

METHODS

In a prospective, participant-masked, cross-over, randomized, 1-week dispensing clinical-trial, 43 presbyopes [age: 42-63 years] each wore AIROPTIX Aqua multifocal (AOMF), ACUVUE OASYS for presbyopia (AOP) and extended-depth-of-focus prototypes (EDOF) appropriate to their add requirements. Measurements comprised high-contrast-visual-acuity (HCVA) at 6m, 70cm, 50cm and 40cm; low-contrast-visual-acuity (LCVA) and contrast-sensitivity (CS) at 6m and stereopsis at 40cm. A self-administered questionnaire on a numeric-rating-scale (1-10) assessed subjective visual performance comprising clarity-of-vision and lack-of-ghosting at various distances during day/night-viewing conditions and overall-vision-satisfaction.

RESULTS

EDOF was significantly better than AOMF and AOP for HCVA averaged across distances (p≤0.038); significantly worse than AOMF for LCVA (p=0.021) and significantly worse than AOMF for CS in medium and high add-groups (p=0.006). None of these differences were clinically significant (≤2 letters). EDOF was significantly better than AOMF and AOP for mean stereoacuity (36 and 13 seconds-of-arc, respectively: p≤0.05). For clarity-of-vision, EDOF was significantly better than AOP at all distances and AOMF at intermediate and near (p≤0.028). For lack-of-ghosting averaged across distances, EDOF was significantly better than AOP (p<0.001) but not AOMF (p=0.186). EDOF was significantly better than AOMF and AOP for overall-vision-satisfaction (p≤0.024).

CONCLUSIONS

EDOF provides better intermediate and near vision performance than either AOMF or AOP with no difference for distance vision after 1 week of lens wear.

Comparing the relative peripheral refraction effect of single vision and multifocal contact lenses measured using an autorefractor and an aberrometer: A pilot study

PURPOSE

To compare the contributions of single vision (SVCL) and multifocal contact lenses (MFCL) to the relative peripheral refraction (RPR) profiles obtained via an autorefractor and an aberrometer in a pilot study.

METHODS

Two instruments, Shin-Nippon NVision K5001 (SN) and COAS-HD, were modified to permit open field PR measurements. Two myopic adults (CF, RB) were refracted (cycloplegia) under eight conditions: baseline (no CL); three SVCLs: Focus Dailies(®) (Alcon, USA), PureVision(®) (Bausch & Lomb, USA) and AirOptix(®) (Alcon, USA); and four MFCLs: AirOptix(®) (Alcon, USA), Proclear(®) Distant and Near (Cooper Vision, USA), and PureVision(®) (Bausch & Lomb, USA). CLs had a distance prescription of -2.00D and for MFCLs, a +2.50D Add was selected. Five independent measurements were performed at field angles from -40° to +40° in 10° increments with both instruments. The COAS-HD measures were analyzed at 3mm pupil diameter. Results are reported as a change in the relative PR profile, as refractive power vector components: M, J180, and J45.

RESULTS

Overall, at baseline, M, J180 and J45 measures obtained with SN and COAS-HD were considerably different only for field angles ≥±30°, which agreed well with previous studies. With respect to M, this observation held true for most SVCLs with a few exceptions. The J180 measures obtained with COAS-HD were considerably greater in magnitude than those acquired with SN. For SVCLs, the greatest difference was found at -40° for AirOptix SV (ΔCF=3.20D, ΔRB=1.56D) and for MFCLs it was for Proclear Distance at -40° (ΔCF=2.58D, ΔRB=1.39D). The J45 measures obtained with SN were noticeably different to the respective measures with COAS-HD, both in magnitude and sign. The greatest difference was found with AirOptix Multifocal in subject RB at -40°, where the COAS-HD measurement was 1.50D more positive. In some cases, the difference in the RPR profiles observed between subjects appeared to be associated with CL decentration.

CONCLUSION

For most test conditions, distinct differences were observed between the RPR measures obtained with the two modified instruments. The differences varied with CL design and centration. Although the pilot study supports the interchangeable use of the two instruments for on- and off-axis refraction in unaided eyes or eyes corrected with low/no spherical aberration; we advocate the use of the COAS-HD over the SN for special purposes like refracting through multifocal CLs.

Barriers, motivators and enablers for dispensing multifocal contact lenses in Mumbai, India

PURPOSE

To understand the potential barriers, motivators and enablers in dispensing multifocal contact lenses (MFCL).

METHOD

Two focus group discussions were conducted to design questionnaires regarding the prescribing habits for multifocal contact lenses (MFCL). Questions on potential barriers and motivators were included. The questionnaires were distributed among 133 eye care practitioners across Mumbai, India. Practitioners fitting one or less patient per month with MFCL completed the survey describing potential barriers, while those who prescribed more MFCL's per month completed the survey describing enablers and motivators.

RESULTS

Responses from 102 practitioners were received. Most common potential barriers in prescribing MFCL were increased chair time (75%), lack of readily available trials (69%) and limitation in power range (63%). Lack of awareness among patients (90%) was the most common barrier from patients' outlook. Professional satisfaction (88%) and better business proposition (82%) were observed as main motivators while availability of the trials (84%) and correct patient selection (82%) were the major enablers. Graduate Optometrists felt dispensing MFCL did not offer a good business proposition (p=0.02). Experienced practitioners were observed to be least motivated (p=0.01) and believed that their patients found these lenses expensive (p=0.02).

CONCLUSION

To enhance the MFCL practice, barriers like lack of awareness and limitations in power range must be addressed. Trial lens availability may motivate practitioners to prescribe MFCL. Further probing is required to understand lack of motivation among experienced practitioners.