Dataset Information

Role of the Water Gradient Structure in Inhibiting Thin Aqueous Layer Break in Silicone Hydrogel-Soft Contact Lens.

ABSTRACT:

Purpose

Soft contact lenses (SCLs) are effective for refractive error correction, but prolonged wear triggers discomfort and discontinuation. This study investigates whether water gradient technology of delefilcon A-based SCLs improve tear film dynamics.

Methods

This retrospective observational study included 50 asymptomatic delefilcon A or narafilcon A users. Data on thin aqueous layer break (TALB; %), noninvasive tear break-up time (NIBUT), tear meniscus height (TMH; mm), subjective dryness, and higher-order aberrations (HOAs) were collected. Measurements of the bare eye, the SCL-worn eye after 15 minutes (visit 1 [v1]) and 30 ± 5 days after v1 after SCL was worn for ≥5 hours (visit 2 [v2]) were recorded.

Results

TALB was significantly reduced in the delefilcon A group compared to the narafilcon A group (33.3% vs. 85.5% at v1; P < 0.0001 and 31.7% vs. 80.4% at v2; P < 0.0001). The NIBUT was also significantly higher in the former (4.2 ± 2.1 seconds vs. 2.9 ± 1.5 at v1; P < 0.01 and 4.1 ± 2.3 seconds vs. 2.7 ± 1.6 seconds at v2; P < 0.01) across both visits. The TMH was significantly reduced in the former in both v1 and v2. The total ocular HOAs were significantly lower in the former at v1 (P < 0.001) and v2 (P < 0.05) compared to the bare eye.

Conclusions

The water gradient technology of delefilcon A reduces TALB and increases NIBUT.

Translational relevance

The use of water gradient technology improves tear film dynamics and alleviate pathological break-up pattern, improving lens performance.

SUBMITTER: Fujimoto H

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8419878 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

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.