June 2023
Volume 64, Issue 8
Open Access
ARVO Annual Meeting Abstract  |   June 2023
Comparison of the clinical performance of two daily disposable soft contact lenses: verofilcon A versus nesofilcon A
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • Lakshman N Subbaraman
    Alcon Research LLC, Johns Creek, Georgia, United States
  • Katherine Bickle
    ProCare Vision Centers, Inc, Granville, Ohio, United States
  • John Capellani
    Franklin Park Eye Center PC, Franklin Park, Illinois, United States
  • Brenda Edwards
    Heart of America Eye Care, Shawnee Mission, Kansas, United States
  • Bradley Giedd
    Kindred Optics at Maitland Vision, Maitland, Florida, United States
  • Colton Heinrich
    Clarke Eyecare Center, Wichita Falls, Texas, United States
  • Gina Wesley
    Complete Eye Care of Medina, Medina, Minnesota, United States
  • Susan Whaley
    Tallahassee Eye Center, Tallahassee, Florida, United States
  • Footnotes
    Commercial Relationships   Lakshman Subbaraman Alcon Research LLC, Code E (Employment); Katherine Bickle Paid Principal Investigator for clinical study at Alcon Research LLC, Code C (Consultant/Contractor); John Capellani Paid Principal Investigator for clinical study at Alcon Research LLC, Code C (Consultant/Contractor); Brenda Edwards Paid Principal Investigator for clinical study at Alcon Research LLC, Code C (Consultant/Contractor); Bradley Giedd Paid Principal Investigator for clinical study at Alcon Research LLC, Code C (Consultant/Contractor); Colton Heinrich Paid Principal Investigator for clinical study at Alcon Research LLC, Code C (Consultant/Contractor); Gina Wesley Paid Principal Investigator for clinical study at Alcon Research LLC, Code C (Consultant/Contractor); Susan Whaley Paid Principal Investigator for clinical study at Alcon Research LLC, Code C (Consultant/Contractor)
  • Footnotes
    Support  None
Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science June 2023, Vol.64, 3525. doi:
  • Views
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      ×
      This feature is available to authenticated users only.
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      Lakshman N Subbaraman, Katherine Bickle, John Capellani, Brenda Edwards, Bradley Giedd, Colton Heinrich, Gina Wesley, Susan Whaley; Comparison of the clinical performance of two daily disposable soft contact lenses: verofilcon A versus nesofilcon A. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2023;64(8):3525.

      Download citation file:


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

      ×
  • Supplements
Abstract

Purpose : To evaluate the clinical performance of two commercially available daily disposable soft contact lenses (SCLs), verofilcon A and nesofilcon A.

Methods : A prospective, randomized, controlled, double-masked, bilateral, crossover, daily wear, multicenter study was conducted in the US (Jan-Mar 2022). Subjects aged ≥18 years with non-diseased eyes requiring vision correction in the spherical power range of -1.00 D to -6.00 D were included. Subjects needed to be successful wearers of spherical SCLs over past 3 months for ≥5 days/week and ≥10 hours/day. Eligible subjects were randomized (1:1; single crossover) to wear verofilcon A or nesofilcon A SCLs bilaterally for ≥10 hours/day for 8-11 days, and attended 3 visits. On the day prior to visits 2 and 3, subjects were asked to wear study SCLs for ≥16 hours and complete take-home questionnaires. Primary endpoint: distance visual acuity (VA; log MAR) at week 1 (non-inferiority margin: 0.05). Other endpoints: subjective ratings (visual analog scale: 0 to 100) for comfort, vision and overall impression at 16 hours; and lens movement (-2=unacceptably tight to +2=unacceptably loose) and position (0=optimal lens centration to 2=unacceptable decentration) at week 1.

Results : In total, 126 subjects completed the study (mean±SD age: 32.4±7.8 years; female: 66.7%). At week 1, verofilcon A was noninferior to nesofilcon A for distance VA (mean±SD logMAR: -0.13±0.08 vs -0.13±0.07; 95% UCL of LSM difference: 0.00). Verofilcon A had significantly higher ratings than nesofilcon A for comfort (77.9±18.7 vs 63.7±26.8), vision (84.1±15.6 vs 76.4±21.4) and overall impression (80.5±17.3 vs 68.9±24.9) at 16 hours (all p≤0.0001). All lenses had optimal/acceptable fit (in both primary and peripheral gazes) and optimal centration/acceptable decentration at week 1.

Conclusions : Verofilcon A SCL was noninferior to nesofilcon A for distance visual acuity at week 1. Verofilcon A had higher subjective ratings than nesofilcon A SCLs for comfort, vision, and overall impression even after long hours of wear (16 hours of wear). All lenses had optimal movement and position at week 1.

This abstract was presented at the 2023 ARVO Annual Meeting, held in New Orleans, LA, April 23-27, 2023.

×
×

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.

×