Dataset Information

Risk factors and causative organisms in microbial keratitis in daily disposable contact lens wear.

ABSTRACT:

Purpose

This study investigated independent risk factors and causative organisms in microbial keratitis in daily disposable contact lens (CL)-wearers.

Methods

A multisite prospective case-control study was undertaken. Cases were daily disposable CL-wearers attending Moorfields Eye Hospital with microbial keratitis and those reported through a one-year surveillance study in Australia and in New Zealand. A population-based telephone survey identified daily disposable CL-wearing controls. Subjects completed a questionnaire describing CL-wear history, hygiene and demographics. The sample used for risk factor analysis was weighted in proportion to the CL-wearing population at each location. Corneal scrape results were accessed. Independent risk factors were determined using multiple binary logistic regression. Causative organisms in different CL-wear modalities were compared using a chi-squared test.

Results

963 daily disposable CL-wearers were identified, from which 67 cases and 374 controls were sampled. Independent risk factors were; wearing CLs every day compared with less frequent use (OR 10.4x; 95% CI 2.9-56.4), any overnight wear (OR 1.8x; 95% CI 1.6-2.1), less frequent hand washing (OR 1.8x; 95% CI 1.6-2.0), and smoking (OR 1.3x; 95% CI 1.1-1.6). Certain daily disposable CLs (OR 0.2x; 95% CI 0.1-0.2) had protective effects. Environmental organisms were less frequently recovered with daily disposable CLs (20%), compared with other modalities (36%; p<0.02).

Conclusion

Overnight wear, increased exposure in daily wear, smoking and poor hand hygiene are significant risk factors for microbial keratitis with daily disposable CLs. Risk varied with daily disposable CL type. The profile of causative organisms is consistent with less severe disease.

SUBMITTER: Stapleton F

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5558933 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveThe purpose of this study was to evaluate the wear experience of satisfied wearers of a particular reusable toric soft contact lens when refit into a water surface technology daily disposable toric soft contact lens.Methods30 participants completed the study over three visits. At the first visit, subjects were refit into with their habitual reusable toric soft contact lens (comfilcon A) to maximize fit and vision. Subjects returned after one week and were then refit into the study daily disposable soft contact lenses (verofilcon A) and completed surveys of their initial impressions of comfort, vision, and satisfaction. Participants wore the study lenses for two weeks, and then returned for their final visit to complete a vision and ocular health check. At the final visit, subjects also completed surveys to rate their overall and end-of-day comfort, quality of vision, stability of vision, and dryness using a visual analog scale (VAS). Participants also answered questions about their wear experience with the lenses. Overall median and interquartile range (IQR) of all data and surveys was calculated.ResultsInitial impressions of the study lenses revealed a median (IQR) score of 85 (28) for vision, 91 (25) for comfort, and 87 (21) for satisfaction. Overall VAS scores after two weeks of wear found median scores of 93 (16) for quality of vision, 88 (28) for stability of vision, and 91 (20) for comfort. End-of-day median scores were 82(27) for quality of vision, 90 (35) for stability of vision, and 80 (38) for comfort. Overall dryness scores were 20(45) and end-of-day dryness was 39 (46). Median(IQR) binocular logMAR visual acuity with the study lenses was -0.16(0.1). Median rotation of the lenses was 0(4.3) degrees.ConclusionParticipants wearing the daily disposable study lenses for astigmatism gave high scores in vision and comfort both at initial fitting and after two weeks of lens wear. Results showed that satisfied wearers of comfilcon A reusable toric soft contact lenses can be successfully refit with verofilcon A daily disposable contact lenses.

Project description:PurposeMicrobial contamination of contact lenses is associated with corneal infection and inflammation. This study determined the microbiological, clinical, and demographic factors that are associated with bacterial contamination of a silicone hydrogel contact lens when worn for continuous wear (CW).MethodsTwo hundred five healthy subjects were enrolled in the Longitudinal Analysis of Silicone Hydrogel Contact Lens Study and were fitted with lotrafilcon A lenses for monthly CW and followed for 1 year. Lenses were aseptically removed after 1 week and 4 months of wear and cultured using an agar sandwich technique. Lids and conjunctiva were routinely cultured at baseline and after 1 week and 4 months of CW. Lenses and ocular sites were considered to have substantial microbial bioburden when they harbored pathogenic organisms or high levels of commensal organisms. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses were conducted to examine whether substantial conjunctival or lid bioburden, subject demographics, lens-wearing history, symptoms, and biomicroscopic signs were associated with lens bioburden.ResultsAbout one third (32.4%) of subjects had substantial bacterial bioburden in either eye across multiple visits. Over half (53.2%) and about one tenth (11.7%) of subjects had substantial lid and conjunctival bioburden, respectively, and 11.2% discontinued because of discomfort. The adjusted odds ratios (and 95% confidence intervals) for presence of substantial lens bioburden were 2.49 (1.17-5.30), 4.24 (1.45-12.40), and 4.11 (1.17-14.46) for substantial lid bioburden, substantial conjunctival bioburden, and lens discomfort, respectively.ConclusionsBacterial contamination of silicone hydrogel contact lenses is common during CW. Substantial lens bioburden is associated with discomfort precluding successful CW. The presence of substantial lid and conjunctival bioburden is associated with a 2.5-fold and more than fourfold greater risk of substantial lens bioburden and is likely the major route of contamination.

Project description:PurposeTo compare the subjective performances of verofilcon A daily disposable silicone hydrogel contact lenses (CLs) and etafilcon A hydrogel CLs.MethodsSuccessful wearers of spherical soft CLs for distance correction were prospectively randomized to wear verofilcon A or etafilcon A lenses for 1 week and crossed over to the alternative lenses. The primary study objective was a comparison of distance visual acuity (VA). Exploratory endpoints included subjective overall lens preference (5-point scale) and subjective ratings (10-point scales) of end-of-day (EOD) vision, overall handling, insertion comfort, EOD comfort, overall quality of vision, overall comfort, vision throughout the day, lens handling at insertion, and lens handling at removal.ResultsOf 92 subjects (184 eyes), 46 each were randomized to verofilcon A or etafilcon A lenses and subsequently crossed over to the other lenses. Evaluation of distance VA showed that verofilcon A lenses were noninferior to etafilcon A lenses. Comparison of lens preference showed that 68 (73.9%) subjects somewhat or strongly preferred verofilcon A lenses, whereas 21 (22.9%) somewhat or strongly preferred etafilcon A lenses (p<0.0001). Mean ± SD ratings of EOD vision (8.6±1.5 vs 7.7±1.9), overall handling (8.7±1.5 vs 6.9±2.3), insertion comfort (9.2±1.0 vs 7.7±1.9), and EOD comfort (8.0±1.9 vs 7.0±2.2) were all significantly (p≤0.0001 each) higher for verofilcon A than for etafilcon A lenses. Mean ± SD ratings of overall quality of vision (8.9±1.2 vs 8.2±1.8), overall comfort (8.6±1.5 vs 7.4±1.8), vision throughout the day (8.9±1.3 vs 8.1±1.8), lens handling at insertion (9.0±1.4 vs 6.9±2.5), and lens handling at removal (8.3±2.1 vs 7.7±2.2) were also significantly higher for verofilcon A lenses. No subject experienced any ocular adverse events.ConclusionAfter 1 week of wear, the study population reported that ratings for subjective endpoints were significantly higher for verofilcon A lenses than for etafilcon A lenses.