June 2021
Volume 62, Issue 8
Open Access
ARVO Annual Meeting Abstract  |   June 2021
Clinical Subjective Performance of Two Daily Disposable Soft Contact Lenses
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • Lakshman N Subbaraman
    Alcon Research LLC, Johns Creek, Georgia, United States
  • Jason Miller
    EyeCare Professionals of Powell, Ohio, United States
  • Bradley Giedd
    Maitland Vision Center, Florida, United States
  • Footnotes
    Commercial Relationships   Lakshman Subbaraman, Alcon (E); Jason Miller, Alcon (F); Bradley Giedd, Alcon (F)
  • Footnotes
    Support  Alcon
Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science June 2021, Vol.62, 670. doi:
  • Views
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      ×
      This feature is available to authenticated users only.
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      Lakshman N Subbaraman, Jason Miller, Bradley Giedd; Clinical Subjective Performance of Two Daily Disposable Soft Contact Lenses. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2021;62(8):670.

      Download citation file:


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

      ×
  • Supplements
Abstract

Purpose : To compare the subjective performance of verofilcon A daily disposable silicone hydrogel contact lenses, which have a core with 51% water content and a surface with >80% water content, with those of etafilcon A hydrogel contact lenses, which have a water content of 58%.

Methods : In this prospective, multicenter, clinical study, successful soft contact lens wearers were randomized to wear verofilcon A or etafilcon A lenses for 8 (-1/+2) days (n=92 completed). After a washout period, subjects were dispensed the alternative lenses. Exploratory endpoints included subjective overall lens preference (5-point scale) and subjective ratings (10 point scale) of end-of-day (EOD) vision, overall handling, insertion comfort, EOD comfort, lens handling at insertion, overall comfort, overall quality of vision, vision throughout the day, and lens handling at removal. Furthermore, Likert questionnaires (5-point scale) were completed at end-of-day during the 1-week follow-up visits conducted after the first and second treatment periods.

Results : Of the study subjects, 68 (73.9%) preferred or strongly preferred verofilcon A lenses, whereas 21 (22.9%) preferred 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 lens handling at insertion (9.0±1.4 vs 6.9±2.5), overall comfort (8.6±1.5 vs 7.4±1.8), overall quality of vision (8.9±1.2 vs 8.2±1.8), vision throughout the day (8.9±1.3 vs 8.1±1.8), and lens handling at removal (8.3±2.1 vs 7.7±2.2) were statistically significantly higher for verofilcon A than for etafilcon A lenses. Compared to etafilcon A, the Likert questionnaires revealed higher percentage of subjects wearing verofilcon A who strongly agreed or agreed for questions about lens freshness, comfort, vision and handling.

Conclusions : These results demonstrate that verofilcon A lenses performed better than etafilcon A lenses with respect to overall preference, and other subjective endpoints evaluated in this study.

This is a 2021 ARVO Annual Meeting abstract.

×
×

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.

×