April 2014
Volume 55, Issue 13
Free
ARVO Annual Meeting Abstract  |   April 2014
Comparison of soft contact lens comfort using three contact lens materials and four contact lens solutions
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • David A Berntsen
    The Ocular Surface Institute, College of Optometry, University of Houston, Houston, TX
  • Sheila B Hickson-Curran
    Johnson and Johnson Vision Care, Jacksonville, FL
  • Lyndon William Jones
    Centre for Contact Lens Research, School of Optometry, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, ON, Canada
  • Jessica Horne Mathew
    The Ocular Surface Institute, College of Optometry, University of Houston, Houston, TX
  • Aftab A Mirza
    Eurolens Research, Faculty of Life Science, University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom
  • Philip B Morgan
    Eurolens Research, Faculty of Life Science, University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom
  • Marc M. Schulze
    Centre for Contact Lens Research, School of Optometry, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, ON, Canada
  • Jason J Nichols
    The Ocular Surface Institute, College of Optometry, University of Houston, Houston, TX
  • Footnotes
    Commercial Relationships David Berntsen, Alcon (F), Johnson and Johnson Vision Care (F); Sheila Hickson-Curran, Johnson and Johnson Vision Care (E); Lyndon Jones, Abbott Medical Optics (F), Advanced Vision Research (F), Alcon (F), AlgiPharma (F), Allergan (F), Bausch + Lomb (F), CooperVision (F), Essilor (F), Johnson and Johnson Vision Care (F), Oculus (F), TearScience (F), Visioneering Technologies (F); Jessica Mathew, Alcon (F), Allergan (F), CooperVision (F), Johnson and Johnson Vision Care (F); Aftab Mirza, Johnson and Johnson Vision Care (F); Philip Morgan, Johnson and Johnson Vision Care (F); Marc Schulze, Abbott Medical Optics (F), Advanced Vision Research (F), Alcon (F), AlgiPharma (F), Allergan (F), Bausch + Lomb (F), CooperVision (F), Essilor (F), Johnson and Johnson Vision Care (F), Oculus (F), TearScience (F), Visioneering Technologies (F); Jason Nichols, Alcon (F), Allergan (F), Johnson and Johnson Vision Care (F)
  • Footnotes
    Support None
Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science April 2014, Vol.55, 863. doi:https://doi.org/
  • Views
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      ×
      This feature is available to authenticated users only.
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      David A Berntsen, Sheila B Hickson-Curran, Lyndon William Jones, Jessica Horne Mathew, Aftab A Mirza, Philip B Morgan, Marc M. Schulze, Jason J Nichols; Comparison of soft contact lens comfort using three contact lens materials and four contact lens solutions. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2014;55(13):863. doi: https://doi.org/.

      Download citation file:


      © ARVO (1962-2015); The Authors (2016-present)

      ×
  • Supplements
Abstract

Purpose: To compare subjective comfort across three different contact lens multipurpose solutions (MPS) to comfort with a peroxide-based solution with three different soft contact lenses.

Methods: Habitual soft contact lens wearers were enrolled at three sites and completed a washout period with no contact lens solution by wearing daily disposable lenses (etafilcon A) and spectacles for at least four days. Subjects were then randomly assigned to a 2-week disposable lens type worn on a daily wear basis: etafilcon A, galyfilcon A, or senofilcon A. Subjects wore a new lens of their assigned type for 10-14 days each while using one of four contact lens care solutions, in random order (A - polyaminopropyl biguanide + polyquaternium, B - POLYQUAD + Aldox, C - alexidine + polyquaternium-1, and D - hydrogen peroxide) with a washout period of at least four days using daily disposable lenses and spectacles between each new solution. The Contact Lens User Experience (CLUE) questionnaire was used to assess comfort after use of each care solution. Using a linear mixed model that controlled for factors including age, comfort score at baseline, and lens type, the CLUE comfort score after using each solution was analyzed, and comfort with each MPS was compared to comfort with the peroxide solution. Non-inferiority of the MPS compared to the peroxide solution was set a priori as the lower limit of the adjusted 95% confidence interval (CI) being greater than -5.

Results: Of 237 subjects randomized, 208 (88%) completed all follow-up visits. Mean age (±SD) of the subjects was 31±10 years and 68% were female. Comparing across all lens types, subjective CLUE comfort score with each MPS was not significantly different than with the peroxide solution (F = 0.04; p = 0.99). The adjusted mean ± SE difference in comfort and 95% CI for each MPS compared to solution D (the peroxide solution) were: solution A (0.0 ± 1.9; 95% CI: -4.5,4.4), solution B (-0.4 ± 1.9; 95% CI: -4.7,4.0), and solution C (-0.5 ± 1.9; 95% CI: -4.9,3.9).

Conclusions: CLUE comfort using the four solutions tested was similar. The three MPSs tested provided subjective comfort that was the same as (non-inferior to) the peroxide system. These data demonstrate that MPSs provide subjective comfort that is comparable with peroxide disinfection.

Keywords: 477 contact lens • 466 clinical (human) or epidemiologic studies: treatment/prevention assessment/controlled clinical trials  
×
×

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

Sign in or purchase a subscription to access this content. ×

You must be signed into an individual account to use this feature.

×