Wear Experiences with Two Soft Contact Lenses for Astigmatism of Different Modalities.

IF 1.4 Q3 OPHTHALMOLOGY Clinical Optometry Pub Date : 2024-03-26 eCollection Date: 2024-01-01 DOI:10.2147/OPTO.S452132
Jennifer Swingle Fogt, Nidhi Satiani, Katherine M Bickle, Gina Wesley, Kimberly Patton
{"title":"Wear Experiences with Two Soft Contact Lenses for Astigmatism of Different Modalities.","authors":"Jennifer Swingle Fogt, Nidhi Satiani, Katherine M Bickle, Gina Wesley, Kimberly Patton","doi":"10.2147/OPTO.S452132","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Patients expect to have excellent vision and comfort when wearing soft contact lenses. The purpose of this study was to compare the wear experiences of participants with astigmatism when wearing a daily disposable soft toric lens to an established, commonly used reusable toric lens.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In this crossover study, habitual soft toric lens wearers were fit with a daily replacement soft toric lens (delefilcon A) and a reusable, 1-month replacement soft toric lens (comfilcon A) in a randomized order. After 30 days of wear, Visual analog scale (VAS) surveys were used to assess wear experience, including vision and comfort, for overall wear and end-of-day wear. Scores were compared statistically with mixed-effects linear models. Participants also responded to questions about convenience, ease of use, and satisfaction with both lenses and preference questions based upon comfort, vision, and overall performance.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Fifty-nine participants completed the multi-site crossover study. VAS scores [mean(std dev)] for overall quality of vision for the delefilcon A [80.4(16.4)] and comfilcon A [66.8(27.7)] lenses were statistically significant (P=0.002). The difference in the mean overall comfort scores for the delefilcon A lenses [71.6(26.3)] and comfilcon A lenses [63.2(28.9)] was 8.4, which exceeds the establish criteria for clinical significance, although not statistically significant (P=0.08). Overall satisfaction scores were 68.8(26.9) for the delefilcon A and 59.7(30.3) for the comfilcon A lenses (P=0.08). Both lenses provided mean binocular visual acuities better than 20/20 Snellen equivalent. Over half of the participants preferred the delefilcon A lenses based upon comfort, vision, and overall performance. Convenience, ease of use, and satisfaction all scored higher with delefilcon A lenses.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The results of this study show that wear experience with delefilcon A lenses for astigmatism can meet or exceed that of comfilcon A toric lenses while also providing healthy, daily disposable lens wear.</p>","PeriodicalId":43701,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Optometry","volume":"16 ","pages":"93-100"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10981420/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Optometry","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2147/OPTO.S452132","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"OPHTHALMOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: Patients expect to have excellent vision and comfort when wearing soft contact lenses. The purpose of this study was to compare the wear experiences of participants with astigmatism when wearing a daily disposable soft toric lens to an established, commonly used reusable toric lens.

Methods: In this crossover study, habitual soft toric lens wearers were fit with a daily replacement soft toric lens (delefilcon A) and a reusable, 1-month replacement soft toric lens (comfilcon A) in a randomized order. After 30 days of wear, Visual analog scale (VAS) surveys were used to assess wear experience, including vision and comfort, for overall wear and end-of-day wear. Scores were compared statistically with mixed-effects linear models. Participants also responded to questions about convenience, ease of use, and satisfaction with both lenses and preference questions based upon comfort, vision, and overall performance.

Results: Fifty-nine participants completed the multi-site crossover study. VAS scores [mean(std dev)] for overall quality of vision for the delefilcon A [80.4(16.4)] and comfilcon A [66.8(27.7)] lenses were statistically significant (P=0.002). The difference in the mean overall comfort scores for the delefilcon A lenses [71.6(26.3)] and comfilcon A lenses [63.2(28.9)] was 8.4, which exceeds the establish criteria for clinical significance, although not statistically significant (P=0.08). Overall satisfaction scores were 68.8(26.9) for the delefilcon A and 59.7(30.3) for the comfilcon A lenses (P=0.08). Both lenses provided mean binocular visual acuities better than 20/20 Snellen equivalent. Over half of the participants preferred the delefilcon A lenses based upon comfort, vision, and overall performance. Convenience, ease of use, and satisfaction all scored higher with delefilcon A lenses.

Conclusion: The results of this study show that wear experience with delefilcon A lenses for astigmatism can meet or exceed that of comfilcon A toric lenses while also providing healthy, daily disposable lens wear.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
佩戴两种软性隐形眼镜治疗不同模式散光的体验。
导言:患者希望在配戴软性隐形眼镜时获得良好的视力和舒适度。本研究的目的是比较散光患者配戴日抛型软性散光隐形眼镜和成熟、常用的可重复使用散光隐形眼镜时的配戴体验:在这项交叉研究中,按随机顺序为习惯性软性散光透镜佩戴者配戴了日抛软性散光透镜(delefilcon A)和可重复使用、1 个月更换一次的软性散光透镜(comfilcon A)。配戴 30 天后,使用视觉模拟量表 (VAS) 调查评估配戴体验,包括整体配戴和终日配戴的视力和舒适度。采用混合效应线性模型对得分进行统计比较。参与者还回答了关于镜片的方便性、易用性和满意度的问题,以及基于舒适度、视力和整体性能的偏好问题:59名参与者完成了这项多站点交叉研究。delefilcon A [80.4(16.4)] 和 comfilcon A [66.8(27.7)] 镜片整体视觉质量的 VAS 评分[平均值(标准差)]具有统计学意义(P=0.002)。delefilcon A 镜片[71.6(26.3)]和 comfilcon A 镜片[63.2(28.9)]的平均总体舒适度得分相差 8.4 分,虽然没有统计学意义(P=0.08),但超过了临床意义的既定标准。delefilcon A 和 comfilcon A 的总体满意度分别为 68.8(26.9)和 59.7(30.3)(P=0.08)。两种镜片的平均双眼视力均优于 20/20 斯奈伦等效视力。根据舒适度、视力和整体性能,一半以上的参与者更喜欢 delefilcon A 镜片。结论:这项研究的结果表明,佩戴 delefilcon A 镜片治疗散光的体验可以达到或超过 comfilcon A 散光镜片,同时还能提供健康的日抛镜片佩戴体验。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Clinical Optometry
Clinical Optometry OPHTHALMOLOGY-
CiteScore
3.00
自引率
5.90%
发文量
29
审稿时长
16 weeks
期刊介绍: Clinical Optometry is an international, peer-reviewed, open access journal focusing on clinical optometry. All aspects of patient care are addressed within the journal as well as the practice of optometry including economic and business analyses. Basic and clinical research papers are published that cover all aspects of optics, refraction and its application to the theory and practice of optometry. Specific topics covered in the journal include: Theoretical and applied optics, Delivery of patient care in optometry practice, Refraction and correction of errors, Screening and preventative aspects of eye disease, Extended clinical roles for optometrists including shared care and provision of medications, Teaching and training optometrists, International aspects of optometry, Business practice, Patient adherence, quality of life, satisfaction, Health economic evaluations.
期刊最新文献
A Novel Optometry-Led Decision-Making Community Referral Refinement Scheme for Neovascular Age-Related Macular Degeneration Screening. Comparison of Samfilcon A and Balafilcon A Bandage Contact Lenses in Reducing Postoperative Symptoms After Pterygium Surgery. How Can We Better Inform Patients of the Importance of Contact Lens Compliance?: Current Perspectives. Comparison of the Diagnosis and Management of Demodex Blepharitis Between Eye Care Practitioners in India and Australasia - A Survey-Based Comparison. Optometry Educators' Teaching Experiences and Opportunities Pre-, During, and Post-COVID-19 in South Africa.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1