Evaluation of Tear Film Break-Up Time after First-Time Wearing of Verofilcon A Silicone Hydrogel, 1-day Disposable Contact Lenses: FTVeA study

doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-3105085/v1

Download PDF

Research Article

Evaluation of Tear Film Break-Up Time after First-Time Wearing of Verofilcon A Silicone Hydrogel, 1-day Disposable Contact Lenses: FTVeA study

https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-3105085/v1

This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License

Version 1

posted

You are reading this latest preprint version

Purpose

The dryness and discomfort associated with soft contact lenses (SCLs) prevent their continued use. Recently, verofilcon A, a new daily disposable silicone hydrogel material SCL, was introduced, which has a high-water content (surface water content of 80% or more) that overcomes the low water content drawback of silicone hydrogels. Furthermore, the surface treatment with SMARTSURFACE® Technology is expected to improve water-wettability during SCL wear. In this study, we evaluated the non-invasive tear break-up time (NIBUT) and comfort level in individuals wearing verofilcon A SCL for the first time.

Methods

We enrolled 42 first-time SCL wearers, comprising 84 eyes. NIBUT was measured using the DR-1α® dry eye observation device, at the state of the naked eye before SCL wear (baseline), and at 1 and 4 weeks after the first SCL wear. Additionally, we conducted a questionnaire survey during the fourth week to assess the comfort level (0–10) of SCL wear.

Results

The NIBUT values were significantly higher at 1 week (10.8 ± 2.2 s, p < 0.01) and 4 weeks (11.4 ± 2.2 s, p < 0.01) after the first SCL wear than those at baseline (5.9 ± 2.0 s). Comfort level in SCL use was significantly higher at 1 week (9.0 ± 1.1, p < 0.01) and 4 weeks (8.7 ± 1.2, p < 0.01) than that at baseline (7.8 ± 1.8), and this level was higher regardless of the baseline NIBUT value.

Conclusion

Prolonged BUT and increased comfort levels were observed in individuals wearing verofilcon A SCLs. Improvement in tear fluid retention was found to alleviate dry eye and discomfort, suggesting that verofilcon A may be a beneficial introductory lens for the first-time SCl wearers.

Trial registration number and date: UMIN registration numbers: UMIN000041107 (July/15/2020) and UMIN000042265 (October/28/2020)

Daily disposable soft contact lens

First-time wearers

Glasses

Silicone hydrogel

Verofilcon A

Non-invasive tear break-up time

In recent years, contact lenses (CLs), especially soft CLs (SCLs) made of silicone hydrogel material (SiHy-SCLs), have been constantly evolving with new technologies [1–2]. Additionally, new materials and surface surfactants have been added to the design of SiHy-SCLs [3, 4], which have led to an increased biocompatibility of the SCL surface with the human cornea and reduced irritation to the human cornea and conjunctiva [5, 6].

Several studies have reported on the relationship between SCL wear and eye dryness and discomfort [7, 8, 9, 10]. A large population-based study conducted in Canada during the mid-1990s investigated the relationship between CL and dry eye and reported that approximately 50.1% of 3,285 CL wearers experienced dry eye symptoms compared to 21.7% of 10,232 non-CL wearers [11]. In a recent Japanese study, among 105 CL wearers, the prevalence of severe dryness symptoms was 28% in men and 35% in women [12]. The prevalence of dry eye disease among 1,298 CL-wearing high school students was reported to be 37% [13]. A recent study conducted in Shandong, China, reported a 32.8% prevalence of dryness symptoms in 122 high school CL wearers [14].

Dry eyes and ocular discomfort are the main reasons for discontinuing SCL wear [15]. Previous reports observed a dropout rate of approximately 40% among CL wearers abandoning their CLs within 4 months [7]. In addition, a literature review of studies conducted over the past 20 years reported that 23–94% of CL wearers experienced discomfort [8]. Furthermore, studies have reported that approximately 12–51% of CL wearers discontinue using CLs [7, 16, 17, 18, 19]. These studies highlight the importance of selecting comfortable SCLs that are less likely to cause dry eye symptoms in first-time SCL wearers to avoid discontinuation of SCL wear.

In Japan, a new SiHy-SCL (Precision 1®, Alcon Japan, Inc., Tokyo, Japan) made of verofilcon A material was introduced in March 2021. Verofilcon A was first introduced in Oceania and the United States, and comfort studies on this material have been conducted in Australia/New Zealand and the United States [20, 21]. A survey conducted in Australia and New Zealand involving 129 new SCL wearers aged 18 years and older revealed that 91% agreed that "verofilcon A is the preferred lens," 79% agreed that "verofilcon A gives me the option of not wearing glasses," and 70% agreed that " verofilcon A is the best lens to start the contact lens wearing experience" [20]. In the United States, a randomized crossover clinical trial was conducted with two different SCLs, verofilcon A and etafilcon A, in 96 participants who were already wearing CL [21]. The results demonstrated that 73.9% of the participants preferred verofilcon A to etafilcon A. Additionally, satisfaction with visual acuity, SCL handling, and wearing comfort was significantly better for verofilcon A than that for etafilcon A [21]. These results suggest that verofilcon A provides a positive wearing experience among SCL users.

Decreased ocular surface moisture is the most important factor preventing continued SCL wear. The SCL placed on the corneal surface divides the tear film into two interfaces: the pre-SCL and post-SCL tear films [22, 23]. Of these, the amount of lipid layer and aqueous phase in the former pre-SCL tear film depends on the contact lens material and design [22, 24]. To date, various non-invasive methods have been employed for measuring tear film break-up time (BUT) on the SCL surface to assess non-invasive BUT (NIBUT), including (1) direct observation of SCL surface [25], (2) observation of the pre-SCL tear film [26], (3) assessment of color patterns using lipid layer interferometry [27, 28], (4) measurement of tear fluid meniscus height [29], and (5) the use of tear interferometer DR-1α® [30]. Among these, the DR1-α is well-established as an instrument that can measure NIBUT objectively and reproducibly. Therefore, in this study, the DR-1α® was used to measure the tear fluid breakup time on the CL surface.

Verofilcon A was developed as an SCL with a SiHy-SCL water gradient. The lens surface consists of a SiHy core containing 33% water, while the outer surface forms a layer containing 80% water [31]. The SCL has a lubricated surface with continuous high oxygen transmission [31]. This study aimed to measure NIBUT on the verofilcon A material SCL surface in the first-time SCL wearers and examine the relationship between NIBUT and comfort experienced with verofilcon A SCL wear.

1. Research design

This was an investigator-initiated, observational, prospective cohort study, conducted in accordance with the ethical guidelines of the Declaration of Helsinki (World Medical Association 2013) and Ethical Guidelines for Medical Health. The studies involving human participants were approved by the Teikyo University Ethical Review Committee (#19–211, #20–166). The study, along with several related studies, was registered as a clinical trial in the University Medical Information Network for Clinical Trials (UMIN-CTR) (UMIN registration numbers: UMIN000041107 and UMIN000042265). This study was conducted between April 2021 and May 2022 at the outpatient clinic of the Nerima Station West Eye Clinic and Department of Ophthalmology, Teikyo University School of Medicine. Written informed consent was obtained from all the participants after a complete explanation of the study content.

2. Participants

The inclusion criteria were as follows: (1) healthy participants; (2) age ≥ 12 years; (3) used glasses; (4) no history of CL wear; (5) myopic astigmatism; (6) refraction of − 0.5 to − 6.0 D, and (7) best corrected visual acuity of 20/25 or better. The exclusion criteria were as follows: (1) age < 12 years; (2) ocular or systemic disease; (3) history of refractive surgery; and (4) corneal epithelial erosion. During the study, participants were allowed to use artificial tear drops with the CLs. Participants were selected from among patients who wanted to wear CLs for the first time. Of the initial 58 participants, 42 were included in the study who tested for tear film stability. The age ranged from 12 to 63 (mean ± deviation, 18.4 ± 9.5) years. A total of 18 men and 24 women participated in the study.

3. Study schedule

Objective refraction and the corneal radius of curvature were determined using an autokeratorefractometer (TONOREF® III Plus, TOPCON, Yamagata, Japan) that measured spherical power, cylindrical power, corneal radius, and minimum and maximum corneal refractive powers. The refractive error was calculated using a spherical equivalent (sphere plus 1/2 cylinder). The NIBUT was measured using a tear interferometry DR-1α® (Kowa Co., Nagoya, Japan). It was measured on the corneal surface of the naked eye at baseline and on SCL surface with SCL worn at 1 and 4 weeks after SCL wear. NIBUT measurements were obtained for both eyes, and the average value was calculated.

Participants were asked to complete questionnaires regarding their experiences with wearing eyeglasses and SCLs at three time points: prior to the first SCL wear and 1 and 4 weeks after the first SCL wear. Registered participants underwent lens fitting by a CL specialist with more than 10 years of practical experience. Participants also received 1 h of training and practice by a CL practitioner to insert and remove SCLs by themselves. Participants were instructed to wear the SCLs after they were able to wear them properly. They were instructed to wear SCLs for 8–10 h per day for 5 days a week and glasses on other days of the week. The participants were informed that the SCLs were intended for daily disposable use and should be discarded after each day of wear. Examinations were conducted at baseline and after 1 and 4 weeks of the first SCL wear. All 42 participants enrolled in the study completed the one-month follow-up period.

4. Characteristics of the evaluated SCLs

Verofilcon A (PRECISION 1®) daily disposable SCLs composed of SiHy were used. Verofilcon A is made from a new high oxygen permeability (Dk; 90 × 10^− 11 barriers) material with a 2–3 µm thick surface, containing more than 80% water content and is a class 1 ultraviolet blocker (≥ 90% of UVA, ≥ 99% of UVB) [31]. Verofilcon A SCLs have a smooth surface owing to SMARTSURFACE® technology.

5. Grade of corneal superficial punctate keratopathy and bulbar conjunctival hyperemia

During the initial visit to our clinic, ocular findings were assessed through slit-lamp examination. Objective changes in corneal superficial punctate keratopathy (SPK) and bulbar conjunctival hyperemia were classified into four grades (0 = normal, 1 + = mild, 2 + = moderate, or 3 + = severe) [32, 33]. Specifically, the corneal epithelial erosion score was determined using fluorescein staining. The following scores were used: 0 = none, 1+ = < 1/3 of the total corneal area, 2 + = between 1/3 and 2/3 of the total corneal area, and 3 + = > 2/3 of the total corneal area. The following scores were used for conjunctival hyperemia: 0 = no hyperemia (-) normal findings, 1 + = mild (+) few dilated blood vessels, 2 + = moderate (++) many dilated vessels, and 3 + = severe (++) dilated vessels.

6. Questionnaires

The questionnaire consisted of four parts: 1) a questionnaire assessing the comfort level of wearing glasses at baseline and 2) three questionnaires evaluating the comfort and impression of wearing SCLs. We used the modified questionnaire scores by Marx et al. for assessment [20, 34].

The first questionnaire consisted of one item assessing the comfort of wearing glasses and SCLs. Participants rated on a scale of 1 (poor) to 10 (excellent) depending on whether they were comfortable while wearing glasses or SCLs overall (throughout the day) [20, 34]. Questionnaires were administered before wearing the SCLs (at the baseline visit) and at 1 and 4 weeks after the first SCL wear.

The second questionnaire consisted of three items related to participants’ impressions of wearing SCLs as follows: Q1 = More comfortable than expected, Q2 = As comfortable as no lenses at all. Q3 = So comfortable I barely felt anything [20, 34]. The participants were asked to indicate whether they agreed (yes) or disagreed (no) with each item, and the questionnaire was administered 4 weeks after the SCLs were fitted. Based on the scores for each item in the questionnaire, the severity of ocular symptoms and participants’ satisfaction with SCL comfort and vision were analyzed.

7. Statistical analyses

The two-tailed paired Student’s t-tests were used to determine the significance of differences between the two groups. Correlations among the variables were determined by calculating two-tailed Pearson correlation coefficients. Data were expressed as means ± standard deviation or percentages. Statistical analyses were performed using the SAS System software version 9.1 (SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC, USA), and the level of significance was set at p < 0.05.

1. Participant characteristics

A total of 42 participants were enrolled, and all of them completed the study, without any dropouts. The right and left eyes of participants had a similar values for mean refractive error (− 3.9 ± 1.6 vs. −3.8 ± 1.5 D), sphere (− 3.5 ± 1.6 vs. −3.4 ± 1.4 D), and cylinder (− 0.7 ± 0.4 vs. −0.8 ± 0.4 D). The refractive power of the SCLs used by the participants was (− 2.9 ± 1.4 D) and (− 2.8 ± 1.4 D) in the right and left eyes, respectively.

2. Changes in NIBUT over time

Figure 1 shows a typical ocular surface tear layer observed with DR1-α® (right eye of a 19-year-old boy). At baseline, proteinaceous deposits in the tear fluid and breakup of the tear fluid layer were observed 5 s after eyelid opening. In the first week after the first SCL wear, a dry spot appeared at 7 o'clock for 10 s, while in the fourth week, no tear film break-up was observed until 20 s. The mean NIBUT values for 42 eyes were calculated as follows: 5.9 ± 1.9 s (baseline, without SCL), 10.8 ± 2.2 s (1 week with SCL), and 11.4 ± 1.9 s (4 week with SCL), showing that the NIBUT was significantly longer at 1 week (p < 0.01) and 4 week with SCL (p < 0.01) compared to that at baseline (Fig. 2). Figure 3 shows significant correlation between the NIBUT at 1 and 4 weeks of SCL wear relative to the NIBUT at baseline (r = 0.47, p < 0.01; r = 0.35, p = 0.02).

3. Evaluation of the ocular surface using slit-lamp microscopy

Figure 4 shows a typical photograph of the ocular surface (right eye) of a 17-year-old boy. The SPK and hyperemia scores at baseline and 4 weeks (N = 84 eyes) are shown in Fig. 5. SPK was absent in all patients at both baseline and 4 weeks, and both scores were 0 ± 0. Conjunctival hyperemia score was 0.5 ± 0.7 at baseline and 0.5 ± 0.7 at 4 weeks with no deterioration.

4. Evaluation of visual comfort level

The comfort levels of the 42 patients at baseline (with glasses) and at 1 and 4 weeks of SCL wear are shown in Fig. 6. Comfort level was significantly higher at 1 week (9.0 ± 1.1, p < 0.01) and 4 weeks (8.7 ± 1.2, p < 0.01) than that at baseline (7.8 ± 1.8).

The participants were then divided into four groups based on the mean NIBUT values of both eyes at baseline as follows: BUT (0.0–4.0 s) (n = 9), (4.1–6.0 s) (n = 16), (6.1–8.0 s) (n = 14), and (8.1–12.0 s) (n = 3). Comparison of comfort level at 4 weeks of SCL wear among these four groups revealed no significant difference between the BUT (0.0–4.0) group, with the lowest value, and the other three groups. The comfort scores at 4 weeks were as follows: BUT (0.0–4.0 s): 8.9 ± 1.1, (4.1–6.0 s): 9.1 ± 0.9, (6.1–8.0 s): 8.0 ± 1.4, and (8.1–12.0 s): 10.0 ± 0.0 (Fig. 7).

5. Relationship between NIBUT at baseline and satisfaction level

Participants were divided into two groups based on the mean value of NIBUT in both eyes at baseline: BUT (0.0–6.0 s) (n = 25) and (6.1–12.0) (n = 17). The satisfaction with SCL wear was compared between the two groups, and both the groups demonstrated higher satisfaction in all aspects of SCL wear. No significant differences were observed between the two groups in any of the following items: Q1 = More comfortable than expected (100.0% vs. 100.0%), Q2 = As comfortable as no lenses (88.0% vs. 88.0%), and Q3 = So comfortable, I barely felt anything (100.0% vs. 88.0%) (Fig. 8).

1. Summary of the results

Our results demonstrated a significant increase in the mean NIBUT with verofilcon A at 1 and 4 weeks after of the first SCL wear compared to the naked-eye condition, before SCL wear. No difference was observed in visual comfort and satisfaction between individuals with low and those with normal NIBUT at baseline after wearing verofilcon A SCL. These findings suggested that verofilcon A prolongs the NIBUT on the surface of SCL in first-time SCL wearers and that patients exhibit high satisfaction with the wearing experience, regardless of NIBUT duration. This suggested that verofilcon A is an effective introductory lens for the first-time SCL wearers.

2. Comparison with other reports on NIBUT after wearing verofilcon A

In our study, we observed that wearing verofilcon A SCL resulted in a prolonged NIBUT on the SCL surface than that with the naked eye. The increased wetting of the ocular surface contributes to satisfaction experienced by the first-time SCL wearers. Previous clinical reports demonstrated a higher NIBUT on the SCL surface after 12 h of verofilcon A SCL wear than that of senofilcon A and nesofilcon A (9.15 ± 3.08 vs. 6.82 ± 2.69 vs. 4.73 ± 1.68 s) SCL wear [35]. Additionally, in an in vitro study on SCL water wettability, verofilcon A demonstrated better water stability than that of senofilcon A [35, 36, 37]. The contact angle for assessing the wettability of the SCL surface was 41.0° for verofilcon A, which was better than that for senofilcon A (96.5°) [35, 36]. In a recent clinical study, 81% of 172 SCL wearers expressed a preference for verofilcon A over other SCLs [20]. Additionally, in this study, participants reported that verofilcon A was more comfortable throughout the day, could be worn longer, and had fewer interruptions than SCLs containing senofilcon A and nesofilcon A [20]. Thus, wearing Verofilcon A may have improved the water wettability of the ocular surface, leading to better comfort.

3. Comparison with other reports on NIBUT after wearing SCLs with water gradient technology

Verofilcon A, as well as other SCLs with SMARTSURFACE® Technology, such as delefilcon A (DAILIES TOTAL 1®, Alcon Laboratories, Inc., Fort Worth, TX) and lehfilcon A (TOTAL30®, Alcon Laboratories, Inc.), have been studied regarding their impact on NIBUT after SCL wear. In a study comparing NIBUT before and after wearing lehfilcon A SCL, mean NIBUT increased to 21.27 ± 11.97 s after SCL wear compared to 15.19 ± 9.54 s before SCL wear [23]. In another study, mean NIBUT before and after wearing Lehfilcon A SCL was compared in participants with low and high scores on the Contact Lens Dry Eye Questionnaire-8 (CLDEQ-8) [38]. In participants with low CLDEQ-8 scores (Low CLDEQ-8 group), NIBUT was prolonged from 17.92 ± 10.88 s before SCL wear to 29.77 ± 16.47 s at 1 month after SCL wear. In contrast, in subjects with high CLDEQ-8 scores (High CEDEQ-8 group), NIBUT was prolonged from 17.92 ± 10.88 s before SCL wear to 18.52 ± 12.91 s at 1 month after SCL wear [38]. In a similar study, Fujimoto et al. retrospectively compared NIBUT in 50 delefilcon A or narafilcon A SCL users. The results demonstrated that delefilcon A with the water gradient technology had a longer NIBUT than narafilcon A (4.1 ± 2.4 vs. 2.7 ± 1.6 s) [30]. In another study, the mean NIBUT of participants who routinely wore delefilcon A SCL was longer (9.2 s) than those who routinely used stenfilcon A (6.3 s) or narafilcon A (5.1 s) SCLs [26]. The results of these previous studies and ours suggested that both water gradient and SMARTSURFACE® technologies prolong NIBUT.

4. Relationship between SCL discontinuation and dry eye

Dry eyes and discomfort experienced while wearing SCL may lead to the discontinuation of its use. In the present study, all 42 participants were able to use verofilcon A SCLs comfortably and without failure during the one-month study period. Surprisingly, in an online survey conducted in Canada involving 4,207 SCL wearers, 40% of participants discontinued wearing SCL within 4 months [19]. Compared with participants who discontinued SCL, those who did not discontinue SCL had higher usage of SiHy SCLs (49% vs. 38%). The primary reason reported for the discontinuation includes discomfort (24%), followed by dryness (20%), hyperemia (7%), and cost (7%) [19].

In another study, 110 participants (aged 13–19 years) who had not previously worn SCLs were randomly assigned to nelfilcon A SCLs (DAILIES AquaComfort Plus, Alcon Research Ltd, Fort Worth, Texas) or glasses for 6 months. By the end of the sixth month, 13 participants had discontinued the study, including 10 (17.5%) in the SCL group and 3 (5.7%) in the eyeglasses group. The proportion of participants who discontinued treatment was significantly higher in the SCL group than those in the eyeglasses group (p = 0.04) [39]. In a UK study involving 531 participants, the discontinuation rate of SCLs within the first year of wear was 20–25% [40]. The most common reasons for the discontinuation of SCLs were vision problems in 41%, discomfort in 36%, and handling problems of SCLs in 25% [40]. In a clinical study of verofilcon A wear involving 70 patients (140 eyes), 138 of the 140 eyes completed the 3-month study, with an interruption rate of 1.4% (one patient, two eyes). The reason for this interruption was a change in residence. Of the 138 eyes that completed the study, 136 (98.6%) maintained a visual acquity of 20/20 or better while habitually wearing verofilcon A SCL, without any interruptions due to SCL failure [41].

In our study, none of the patients discontinued wearing verofilcon A SCL. This observation had several reasons. The first reason was the short duration of our study (one month). Second, the ophthalmologist and practitioner carefully explained the SCL fitting process to the participants before initiating the fitting. Finally, the high comfort level experienced with verofilcon A SCL wear resulted in fewer dropouts. As shown in Fig. 7, no difference was observed in the comfort level of wearing verofilcon A SCL between participants with a short NIBUT of 0–4 s and those with a long NIBUT of 8.1–12.0 s at baseline. In addition, as shown in Fig. 8, all participants reported that wearing verofilcon A was more comfortable than they had expected, regardless of a low or high NIBUT at baseline.

5. Study limitations

This study had several limitations. First, this was an observational study of one group and not a randomized two-group study. Therefore, single- or double-masked groups were not used in this study. A one-group before-and-after comparative study may involve subjective bias in the study participants. Second, the study period was one month, and future long-term studies are warranted on the use of verofilcon A SCL. Third, most study participants were young because they were the first-time SCL wearers. Future studies should be conducted with a wider range of age groups. Fourth, NIBUT was measured using the instrument DR1-α🄬 in this study. Comparison with other tests to measure NIBUT, such as actual observation of NIBUT under a slit-lamp microscope using fluorescein, would be necessary.

In conclusion, we observed that NIBUT was prolonged after wearing verofilcon A SCL. Improved tear film instability on the surface of the SCL reduced dry eye symptoms and discomfort in SCL wearers, leading to fewer interruptions and continued use of the SCL. Verofilcon A may be useful as an introductory lens for the first-time SCL users.

Funding: This work was supported in part by a Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research from the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology of Japan [grant number 20H04347] and an unrestricted investigator-initiated grant from Alcon Japan Ltd. to Tatsuya Mimura, MD.

The funders had no role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Disclosure: The authors report no conflicts of interest in this work.

Competing Interests

Financial support: The authors have no relevant financial or non-financial interests to disclose.

Author Contributions: All authors contributed to the study conception and design. Material preparation, data collection and analysis were performed by [full name], [full name] and [full name]. The first draft of the manuscript was written by Naoko Misu, Tatsuya Mimura and all authors commented on previous versions of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Ethics approval: This study was performed in line with the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki. Approval was granted by the Ethics Committee of the Teikyo University (Date: December/03/2019, No.19-211, and Date: March/31/2022, No.20-166.).

Consent to participate: Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Consent to publish: The authors affirm that human research participants provided informed consent for publication of the images in Figures 1 and 4.

Study setting: Nerima Station West Eye Clinic, Nerima-ku, Tokyo, Japan and Department of Ophthalmology, Teikyo University School of Medicine, Itabashi-ku, Tokyo, Japan.

Acknowledgements: None

Jacob JT (2013) Biocompatibility in the development of silicone-hydrogel lenses. Eye Contact Lens 39(1):13-19. doi: 10.1097/ICL.0b013e31827dbb00. PMID: 23271477.
Tahhan N, Naduvilath TJ, Woods C, Papas E (2022) Review of 20 years of soft contact lens wearer ocular physiology data. Cont Lens Anterior Eye 45(1):101525. doi: 10.1016/j.clae.2021.101525. Epub 2021 Oct 19. PMID: 34686430.
Lira M, Silva R (2017) Effect of Lens Care Systems on Silicone Hydrogel Contact Lens Hydrophobicity. Eye Contact Lens 43(2):89-94. doi: 10.1097/ICL.0000000000000247. PMID: 26859741.
Musgrave CSA, Fang F (2019) Contact Lens Materials: A Materials Science Perspective. Materials (Basel) 12(2):261. doi: 10.3390/ma12020261. PMID: 30646633; PMCID: PMC6356913.
Tauste A, Ronda E, Baste V, Bråtveit M, Moen BE, Seguí Crespo MD (2018) Ocular surface and tear film status among contact lens wearers and non-wearers who use VDT at work: comparing three different lens types. Int Arch Occup Environ Health 91(3):327-335. doi: 10.1007/s00420-017-1283-2. Epub 2017 Dec 4. PMID: 29204707.
Eftimov PB, Yokoi N, Peev N, Paunski Y, Georgiev GA (2021) Relationships between the material properties of silicone hydrogels: Desiccation, wettability and lubricity. J Biomater Appl 35(8):933-946. doi: 10.1177/0885328220967526. Epub 2020 Nov 1. PMID: 33135571; PMCID: PMC7917563.
Dumbleton K, Caffery B, Dogru M, Hickson-Curran S, Kern J, Kojima T, Morgan PB, Purslow C, Robertson DM, Nelson JD; members of the TFOS International Workshop on Contact Lens Discomfort (2013) The TFOS International Workshop on Contact Lens Discomfort: report of the subcommittee on epidemiology. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 54(11):TFOS20-36. doi: 10.1167/iovs.13-13125. PMID: 24058130.
Alipour F, Khaheshi S, Soleimanzadeh M, Heidarzadeh S, Heydarzadeh S (2017) Contact Lens-related Complications: A Review. J Ophthalmic Vis Res 12(2):193-204. doi: 10.4103/jovr.jovr_159_16. PMID: 28540012; PMCID: PMC5423374.
Markoulli M, Kolanu S (2017) Contact lens wear and dry eyes: challenges and solutions. Clin Optom (Auckl) 9:41-48. doi: 10.2147/OPTO.S111130. PMID: 30214359; PMCID: PMC6095561.
McMonnies CW (2021) Could contact lens dryness discomfort symptoms sometimes have a neuropathic basis? Eye Vis (Lond) 8(1):12. doi: 10.1186/s40662-021-00236-4. PMID: 33820563; PMCID: PMC8022668.
Doughty MJ, Fonn D, Richter D, Simpson T, Caffery B, Gordon K (1997) A patient questionnaire approach to estimating the prevalence of dry eye symptoms in patients presenting to optometric practices across Canada. Optom Vis Sci 74(8):624-31. doi: 10.1097/00006324-199708000-00023. PMID: 9323733.
Uchino M, Nishiwaki Y, Michikawa T, Shirakawa K, Kuwahara E, Yamada M, Dogru M, Schaumberg DA, Kawakita T, Takebayashi T, Tsubota K (2011) Prevalence and risk factors of dry eye disease in Japan: Koumi study. Ophthalmology 118(12):2361-2367. doi: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2011.05.029. Epub 2011 Sep 1. PMID: 21889799.
Uchino M, Dogru M, Uchino Y, Fukagawa K, Shimmura S, Takebayashi T, Schaumberg DA, Tsubota K (2008) Japan Ministry of Health study on prevalence of dry eye disease among Japanese high school students. Am J Ophthalmol 146(6):925-9.e2. doi: 10.1016/j.ajo.2008.06.030. Epub 2008 Aug 23. PMID: 18723141.
Zhang Y, Chen H, Wu X (2012) Prevalence and risk factors associated with dry eye syndrome among senior high school students in a county of Shandong Province, China. Ophthalmic Epidemiol 19(4):226-30. doi: 10.3109/09286586.2012.670742. Epub 2012 May 31. PMID: 22650150.
Rex J, Knowles T, Zhao X, Lemp J, Maissa C, Perry SS (2018) Elemental Composition at Silicone Hydrogel Contact Lens Surfaces. Eye Contact Lens 44 Suppl 2:S221-S226. doi: 10.1097/ICL.0000000000000454. PMID: 29341977.
Pritchard N, Fonn D, Brazeau D (1999) Discontinuation of contact lens wear: a survey. Int Contact Lens Clin 26(6):157-162. doi: 10.1016/s0892-8967(01)00040-2. PMID: 11384832.
Young G, Veys J, Pritchard N, Coleman S (2002) A multi-centre study of lapsed contact lens wearers. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 22(6):516-527. doi: 10.1046/j.1475-1313.2002.00066.x. PMID: 12477016.
Richdale K, Sinnott LT, Skadahl E, Nichols JJ (2007) Frequency of and factors associated with contact lens dissatisfaction and discontinuation. Cornea 26(2):168-174. doi: 10.1097/01.ico.0000248382.32143.86. PMID: 17251807.
Dumbleton K, Woods CA, Jones LW, Fonn D (2013) The impact of contemporary contact lenses on contact lens discontinuation. Eye Contact Lens 39(1):93-99. doi: 10.1097/ICL.0b013e318271caf4. PMID: 23266586.
Grant T, Tang A (2020) A Survey of Contact Lens Wearers and Eye Care Professionals on Satisfaction with a New Smart-Surface Silicone Hydrogel Daily Disposable Contact Lens. Clin Optom (Auckl) 12:9-15. doi: 10.2147/OPTO.S233328. PMID: 32021532; PMCID: PMC6969706.
Miller J, Giedd B, Subbaraman LN (2021) Clinical Comparison of a Silicone Hydrogel and a Conventional Hydrogel Daily Disposable Contact Lens. Clin Ophthalmol 15:4339-4345. doi: 10.2147/OPTH.S332651. PMID: 34744430; PMCID: PMC8565979.
Marx S, Eckstein J, Sickenberger W (2020) Objective Analysis of Pre-Lens Tear Film Stability of Daily Disposable Contact Lenses Using Ring Mire Projection. Clin Optom (Auckl) 12:203-211. doi: 10.2147/OPTO.S262353. PMID: 33244285; PMCID: PMC7685356.
Capote-Puente R, Bautista-Llamas MJ, Manzoni C, Sánchez-González JM (2022) Pre-Lens Tear Meniscus Height, Lipid Layer Pattern and Non-Invasive Break-Up Time Short-Term Changes with a Water Gradient Silicone Hydrogel Contact Lens. Life (Basel) 12(11):1710. doi: 10.3390/life12111710. PMID: 36362865; PMCID: PMC9697334.
Young G, Efron N (1991) Characteristics of the pre-lens tear film during hydrogel contact lens wear. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 11(1):53-58. PMID: 2034456.
Graham AD, Lin MC (2021) The relationship of pre-corneal to pre-contact lens non-invasive tear breakup time. PLoS One 16(6):e0247877. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0247877. PMID: 34181641; PMCID: PMC8238214.
Guillon M, Patel T, Patel K, Gupta R, Maissa CA (2019) Quantification of contact lens wettability after prolonged visual device use under low humidity conditions. Cont Lens Anterior Eye 42(4):386-391. doi: 10.1016/j.clae.2019.03.004. Epub 2019 Apr 4. Erratum in: Cont Lens Anterior Eye. 2020 Feb;43(1):91. PMID: 30954378.2; PMCID: PMC8419878.
Bai Y, Nichols JJ (2017) Advances in thickness measurements and dynamic visualization of the tear film using non-invasive optical approaches. Prog Retin Eye Res 58:28-44. doi: 10.1016/j.preteyeres.2017.02.002. Epub 2017 Feb 23. PMID: 28254520.
Bai Y, Ngo W, Nichols JJ (2019) Characterization of the thickness of the tear film lipid layer using high resolution microscopy. Ocul Surf 17(2):356-359. doi: 10.1016/j.jtos.2018.12.003. Epub 2018 Dec 15. PMID: 30562612; PMCID: PMC7039323.
Binotti WW, Bayraktutar B, Ozmen MC, Cox SM, Hamrah P (2020) A Review of Imaging Biomarkers of the Ocular Surface. Eye Contact Lens 46 Suppl 2(Suppl 2):S84-S105. doi: 10.1097/ICL.0000000000000684. PMID: 31833999; PMCID: PMC7354708.
Fujimoto H, Ochi S, Yamashita T, Inoue Y, Kiryu J (2021) Role of the Water Gradient Structure in Inhibiting Thin Aqueous Layer Break in Silicone Hydrogel-Soft Contact Lens. Transl Vis Sci Technol 10(11):5. doi: 10.1167/tvst.10.11.5. PMID: 3447322
Tyler’s quarterly soft contact lens parameter guide (2022) Tyler’s Q soft contact lens Param Guid. November 2022.
Miyazaki D, Fukushima A, Uchio E, Shoji J, Namba K, Ebihara N, Takamura E, Fukuda K, Matsuda A, Okamoto S, Fukagawa K, Fujishima H, Ohno S, Ohashi Y; Japanese Society of Ocular Allergology, The Japanese Society of Allergology (2022) Executive summary: Japanese guidelines for allergic conjunctival diseases 2021. Allergol Int 71(4):459-471. doi: 10.1016/j.alit.2022.07.005. Epub 2022 Sep 10. PMID: 36096976.
Mimura T, Usui T, Yamagami S, Miyai T, Amano S (2012) Relation between total tear IgE and severity of acute seasonal allergic conjunctivitis. Curr Eye Res 37(10):864-870. doi: 10.3109/02713683.2012.689069. Epub 2012 May 17. PMID: 22595024.
Marx S, Lauenborg B, Kern JR (2018) Performance evaluation of delefilcon a water gradient daily disposable contact lenses in first-time contact lens wearers. Cont Lens Anterior Eye 41(4):335-341. doi: 10.1016/j.clae.2017.12.019. Epub 2018 Feb 14. PMID: 29426803.
Penbe A, Kanar HS, Donmez Gun R (2022) Comparison of the Pre-Lens Tear Film Stability and Visual Performance of a Novel and Two Other Daily Disposable Contact Lenses in Healthcare Professionals Wearing Facial Masks for Prolonged Time. Clin Optom (Auckl) 14:183-192. doi: 10.2147/OPTO.S384246. PMID: 36246994; PMCID: PMC9562811.
SIBF. Surface characterization methods developed to optimize the “SMARTSURFACE®” chemistry for Precision1™ (One Day Contact Lenses).Presented at the BioInterface workshop and symposium of the Surfaces in Biomaterials Foundation. September 4–6, 2019; Park City, Utah
Tucker BLE, Bauman E, Subbaraman L (2019) Characterization of the surface properties of a novel daily disposable silicone hydrogel contact lens. Poster presented at the American Academy of Optometry (AAO) Annual Meeting. October 23–26, 2019; Orlando, Florida; Poster #62.
Capote-Puente R, Bautista-Llamas MJ, Sánchez-González JM (2023) Tear Film Dynamics between Low and High Contact Lens Dry Eye Disease Questionnaire (CLDEQ-8) Score with a Lehfilcon A Silicone Hydrogel Water Gradient Contact Lens: A Non-Invasive Methodology Approach. Diagnostics (Basel) 13(5):939. doi: 10.3390/diagnostics13050939. PMID: 36900083; PMCID: PMC10001148.
Plowright AJ, Maldonado-Codina C, Howarth GF, Kern J, Morgan PB (2015) Daily disposable contact lenses versus glasses in teenagers. Optom Vis Sci 92(1):44-52. doi: 10.1097/OPX.0000000000000454. PMID: 25562479.
Sulley A, Young G, Hunt C, McCready S, Targett MT, Craven R (2018) Retention Rates in New Contact Lens Wearers. Eye Contact Lens 44 Suppl 1:S273-S282. doi: 10.1097/ICL.0000000000000402. PMID: 28617731.
Cummings S, Giedd B, Pearson C (2020) Clinical performance of a novel daily disposable soft contact lens. JCLRS 4:e23–e30. doi:10.22374/jclrs. v4i1.39

No competing interests reported.

Download PDF

Version 1

posted

You are reading this latest preprint version

Evaluation of Tear Film Break-Up Time after First-Time Wearing of Verofilcon A Silicone Hydrogel, 1-day Disposable Contact Lenses: FTVeA study

Status:

Version 1

Abstract

Figures

Introduction

Methods

1. Research design

2. Participants

3. Study schedule

4. Characteristics of the evaluated SCLs

5. Grade of corneal superficial punctate keratopathy and bulbar conjunctival hyperemia

6. Questionnaires

7. Statistical analyses

Results

1. Participant characteristics

2. Changes in NIBUT over time

3. Evaluation of the ocular surface using slit-lamp microscopy

4. Evaluation of visual comfort level

5. Relationship between NIBUT at baseline and satisfaction level

Discussion

1. Summary of the results

2. Comparison with other reports on NIBUT after wearing verofilcon A

3. Comparison with other reports on NIBUT after wearing SCLs with water gradient technology

4. Relationship between SCL discontinuation and dry eye

5. Study limitations

Conclusion

Declarations

References

Additional Declarations

Status:

Version 1