Javascript must be enabled to continue!
Eye Sensitivity in Soft Contact Lens Wearers
View through CrossRef
ABSTRACT
Purpose
To estimate the prevalence of self‐reported “sensitive eyes” (SEs) in soft contact lens (CL) wearers, evaluate the clinical characteristics of patients with SEs, and examine the effect of refitting them with silicone hydrogel lenses.
Methods
After self‐assessment, 2154 CL wearers were separated into SE and non‐SE patients. Demographics, biometric data, wearing time, symptoms, and signs were compared between the two populations. Sixty‐three SE patients were randomized into senofilcon A (senA) lenses and 65 into a non–senA arm (lotrafilcon B, omafilcon A, and balafilcon A lenses). The performance of senA lenses was compared against habitual and non‐senA lenses 2 weeks later.
Results
A total of 12.2% of CL wearers reported SEs with their habitual CLs. No significant differences were noticed between SE and non‐SE patients in sex, age, or refraction. The prevalence of dryness (43 vs 19%, p < 0.0001), irritation (25 vs 11%, p < 0.0001), redness (20 vs 6%, p < 0.0001), and stinging (6 vs 1%, p < 0.0001) was higher in SE patients. Average wearing time (13.0 vs 14.1 hours, p < 0.0001) was lower in this group. Limbal/bulbar hyperemia and corneal/conjunctival staining were not significantly different between the two populations. Senofilcon A increased the number of patients reporting no dryness (habitual vs senA, 20 vs 44%, p < 0.0003), irritation (22 vs 37%, p = 0.015), redness (52 vs 76%, p =0.009) and stinging (58 vs 77%, p = 0.012) but did not significantly affect clinical signs. Senofilcon A was significantly more efficient than non‐senA lenses in improving dryness (scale of 0 to 3: senA vs non‐senA, 0.64 vs 1.02, p = 0.0056), irritation (0.72 vs 1.16, p = 0.0015), and stinging (0.18 vs 0.53, p = 0.0049).
Conclusions
A substantial proportion of CL wearers report SEs with their habitual lenses. These patients are characterized by a high prevalence of additional symptoms, which are not reflected in clinical signs. Senofilcon A, or lenses with similar properties, may help reduce these symptoms in SE patients.
Title: Eye Sensitivity in Soft Contact Lens Wearers
Description:
ABSTRACT
Purpose
To estimate the prevalence of self‐reported “sensitive eyes” (SEs) in soft contact lens (CL) wearers, evaluate the clinical characteristics of patients with SEs, and examine the effect of refitting them with silicone hydrogel lenses.
Methods
After self‐assessment, 2154 CL wearers were separated into SE and non‐SE patients.
Demographics, biometric data, wearing time, symptoms, and signs were compared between the two populations.
Sixty‐three SE patients were randomized into senofilcon A (senA) lenses and 65 into a non–senA arm (lotrafilcon B, omafilcon A, and balafilcon A lenses).
The performance of senA lenses was compared against habitual and non‐senA lenses 2 weeks later.
Results
A total of 12.
2% of CL wearers reported SEs with their habitual CLs.
No significant differences were noticed between SE and non‐SE patients in sex, age, or refraction.
The prevalence of dryness (43 vs 19%, p < 0.
0001), irritation (25 vs 11%, p < 0.
0001), redness (20 vs 6%, p < 0.
0001), and stinging (6 vs 1%, p < 0.
0001) was higher in SE patients.
Average wearing time (13.
0 vs 14.
1 hours, p < 0.
0001) was lower in this group.
Limbal/bulbar hyperemia and corneal/conjunctival staining were not significantly different between the two populations.
Senofilcon A increased the number of patients reporting no dryness (habitual vs senA, 20 vs 44%, p < 0.
0003), irritation (22 vs 37%, p = 0.
015), redness (52 vs 76%, p =0.
009) and stinging (58 vs 77%, p = 0.
012) but did not significantly affect clinical signs.
Senofilcon A was significantly more efficient than non‐senA lenses in improving dryness (scale of 0 to 3: senA vs non‐senA, 0.
64 vs 1.
02, p = 0.
0056), irritation (0.
72 vs 1.
16, p = 0.
0015), and stinging (0.
18 vs 0.
53, p = 0.
0049).
Conclusions
A substantial proportion of CL wearers report SEs with their habitual lenses.
These patients are characterized by a high prevalence of additional symptoms, which are not reflected in clinical signs.
Senofilcon A, or lenses with similar properties, may help reduce these symptoms in SE patients.
Related Results
Vision‐Specific Quality of Life and Modes of Refractive Error Correction
Vision‐Specific Quality of Life and Modes of Refractive Error Correction
ABSTRACT:
Purpose
Many studies currently use surveys to assess patients’ reports of vision‐specific quality of life to de...
Comparative Clinical Performance of Rigid versus Soft Hyper Dk Contact Lenses Used for Continuous Wear
Comparative Clinical Performance of Rigid versus Soft Hyper Dk Contact Lenses Used for Continuous Wear
ABSTRACT
Purpose.
The purpose of this study is to investigate the comparative clinical performance of two hyper Dk contac...
Assessment of corneal reflex and vision-related functions among contact lens wearers: a cross-sectional study
Assessment of corneal reflex and vision-related functions among contact lens wearers: a cross-sectional study
Abstract
Purpose
To evaluate the effects of soft, hard, and scleral contact lenses (CLs) on corneal reflex sensitivity and visi...
Multifocal Contact Lens Myopia Control
Multifocal Contact Lens Myopia Control
ABSTRACT
Purpose
Previous studies on soft multifocal contact lens myopia control published in the peer‐reviewed literatur...
Comparison of Anterior Eye Conditions between Contact Lens Users and Non-Contact Lens Users
Comparison of Anterior Eye Conditions between Contact Lens Users and Non-Contact Lens Users
Contact lenses are the invention of technological developments in the field of ophthalmology. Contact lenses were used to improve vision in the form of thin and clear plastic. The ...
Preocular Tear Film Characteristics of Nonwearers and Soft Contact Lens Wearers
Preocular Tear Film Characteristics of Nonwearers and Soft Contact Lens Wearers
ABSTRACT:
The aims of the current investigation were to: (1) characterize (structure, volume, and stability) the preocular tear film of contact lens wearers and n...
Attitudes of Successful Contact Lens Wearers Toward Refractive Surgery
Attitudes of Successful Contact Lens Wearers Toward Refractive Surgery
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Traditionally, spectacle wearers and contact lens failures have been the patient population targeted for refractive surgery. We surveyed successful c...
A Randomized Trial on the Benefits of Refitting Symptomatic Contact Lens Wearers with Daily Disposable Lenses
A Randomized Trial on the Benefits of Refitting Symptomatic Contact Lens Wearers with Daily Disposable Lenses
Backgraund/objetive: Contact lens discomfort (CLD) is a prevalent issue affecting up to 50% of wearers and contributes to discontinuation in approximately 30% of cases. This study ...

