May 2008
Volume 49, Issue 13
Free
ARVO Annual Meeting Abstract  |   May 2008
A Comparison of Silcone Hydrogel vs. Specialty Dry Eye Contact Lenses in Previous Dry Eye Patients With and Without Restasis Treatment
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • T. P. Kislan
    Hazleton Eye Specialists, Hazleton, Pennsylvania
  • F. A. Bucci, Jr.
    Bucci Laser Vision Institute, Wilkes Barre, Pennsylvania
  • Footnotes
    Commercial Relationships  T.P. Kislan, Allergan, Inc., R; F.A. Bucci, Allergan, Inc., R.
  • Footnotes
    Support  None.
Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science May 2008, Vol.49, 101. doi:https://doi.org/
  • Views
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      ×
      This feature is available to authenticated users only.
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      T. P. Kislan, F. A. Bucci, Jr.; A Comparison of Silcone Hydrogel vs. Specialty Dry Eye Contact Lenses in Previous Dry Eye Patients With and Without Restasis Treatment. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2008;49(13):101. doi: https://doi.org/.

      Download citation file:


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

      ×
  • Supplements
Abstract

Purpose: : To compare the performance of the silicone hydrogel contact lens Acuvue Advance (AA) with that of the specialty dry eye contact lenses Proclear Biocompatible (PB) and Extreme H20 Extra (EE) in dry eye patients with and without RESTASIS® use.

Methods: : 105 dry eye patients reporting ocular surface discomfort with their present spherical contact lenses were enrolled in this investigator-masked study. Exclusion criteria included patients presenting with use of RESTASIS, omega fatty acids, punctal occlusion, PB, EE, or silicone hydrogels. After a 2-week wash out with REFRESH TEARS® QID, all patients were fit with AA lenses OD and randomized to the following lenses OS: Group A1, PB (n=27); A2, EE (n=26); B1, PB (n=26); B2, EE (n=26). Groups A1 and A2 could use REFRESH TEARS® as needed; Groups B1 and B2 were instructed to use RESTASIS® BID in both eyes and not to use any artificial tears. Outcome measures: Schirmer scores, tear break-up time (TBUT), and patient assessment of lens wear-time and comfort. Follow-up visits: week 1, and months 1, 3, and 6.

Results: : All study lenses outperformed the patient’s previous lenses for all outcome measures (p ≤ .001) by 1 month. The performance of the specialty dry eye lenses, PB and EE, was similar, however both outperformed the silicone hydrogel lens, AA, for all outcome measures (p≤.007) by 3 months. Across all lens types, RESTASIS® use produced significantly more favorable outcomes on all measures by 1 month (p ≤.009).

Conclusions: : 1. All lens types outperformed the previous lens materials. 2. "Dry eye contact lens" (PB-omafilxon-A and EE-hioxifilcon-A) provided significantly more favorable comfort, wear time, Schirmer scores, and TBUT than did the use of silicone hydrogel lenses (AA-galyfilcon-A). 3. The performance of all study lens types was significantly improved by the concomitant use of RESTASIS®.

Keywords: contact lens • cyclosporine • lacrimal gland 
×
×

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.

×