Clinical Comparison of a Silicone Hydrogel and a Conventional Hydrogel Daily Disposable Contact Lens

ABSTRACT:

Purpose

To compare the subjective performances of verofilcon A daily disposable silicone hydrogel contact lenses (CLs) and etafilcon A hydrogel CLs.

Methods

Successful 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.

Results

Of 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.

Conclusion

After 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.

SUBMITTER: Miller J 

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8565979 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature