Vision Correction Habits After COVID-19 Onset in Spectacle and Contact Lens Wearers.

PURPOSE: To determine how vision correction habits changed after the 2019 coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic onset. METHODS: Participants reported vision correction habits, refractive error, screen time, mask wearing time, and dry eye symptoms since the COVID-19 pandemic onset through email survey. RESULTS: A total of 133 participants completed the survey. Worsening dry eye symptoms were associated with increased screen time ( P =0.04). Hours per day of spectacle wear increased by approximately 1 hr ( P =0.001) and was associated with increased screen time ( P =0.002). Worsening dry eye symptoms were associated with increased days per week of spectacle wear ( P =0.02). Participants wore contact lenses about one day per week less than before the pandemic ( P =0.0001). Increased mask wearing time was associated with increased days per week of contact lens wear ( P =0.03). CONCLUSIONS: After pandemic onset, hours per day of spectacle wear increased, and days per week of contact lens wear decreased. Increases in hourly spectacle wear were associated with increased screen time, whereas increased daily contact lens wear was associated with increased mask wear time, suggesting that spectacles may be preferred for screen time activities and contact lenses for mask wear.

A randomised clinical trial of multifocal contact lenses and contact lens discomfort.

PURPOSE: To determine how multifocal contact lenses affect contact lens discomfort. METHODS: This randomised, participant-masked, crossover clinical trial fitted 84 uncomfortable soft contact lens wearers (30-40 years old) with single vision and multifocal contact lenses. Contact lens discomfort was assessed using the Contact Lens Dry Eye Questionnaire-8 (CLDEQ-8). RESULTS: There was no difference between multifocal and single vision survey scores (p = 0.08). There was an interaction between lens type and age group (p = 0.05). CLDEQ-8 scores with the single vision lens were less symptomatic than multifocal scores in participants <35 years old (p = 0.01). Single vision and multifocal scores for the older age group were not different. Subjectively, those in the <35 year-old age group preferred the single vision lens for intermediate (p = 0.02), distance (p = 0.003), and overall vision (p = 0.002). In the ≥35 year-old age group, no lens was significantly preferred for vision. CONCLUSIONS: Participants in the younger age group had more favourable wearing experiences with the single vision lens compared to the multifocal lens. The older age group, however, had similar wearing experiences with both lens types. While younger contact lens wearers may prefer the wearing experience with single vision lenses, some uncomfortable contact lens wearers approaching 40 years old may benefit from wearing a multifocal contact lens sooner in life than is typically practised.

A Survey of Presbyopic Contact Lens Wearers in a University Setting.

PURPOSE: To determine why presbyopic patients discontinue contact lens wear and describe their opinions of comfort and visual quality with contact lenses. METHODS: A survey assessing current age, gender, contact lens material/design, and opinions of contact lens comfort and visual quality was mailed to 2400 presbyopic patients (age 40 years and older) that have had eye exams in the Ohio State University College of Optometry's Contact Lens Services over the last 4 years. RESULTS: A total of 496 surveys were analyzed. The mean age of survey respondents was 57 ± 9 years, and 68% of the sample was female. Permanent discontinuation of contact lens wear was reported by 15%. No association was found between contact lens discontinuation and age (p = 0.7), gender (p = 0.2), age of beginning contact lens wear (p = 0.1), or contact lens material (p = 0.1). Poor vision (38%), discomfort (34%), convenience (20%), and cost (6%) were the primary reported reasons for discontinuation. There was no difference between the proportion of subjects reporting "poor vision" as their primary discontinuation reason and those reporting "discomfort" (p = 0.7). Discontinued wearers had a worse overall opinion of their distance (p = 0.03), intermediate (p = 0.01), and near vision (p = 0.002) compared to subjects who were still wearing their contact lenses. CONCLUSIONS: Discomfort has been reported as the primary reason for contact lens discontinuation. In this presbyopic population, dissatisfaction with vision and discomfort were reported equally as often as primary reasons for discontinuation. As well, subjects who ceased contact lens wear had worse overall opinions of their vision at all distances than current contact lens wearers. The results of this survey suggest that presbyopes have unique demands and opinions related to contact lens wear.

Can Binocular Vision Disorders Contribute to Contact Lens Discomfort?

PURPOSE: To determine the relationship between binocular vision (BV) disorder and dry eye symptoms and the frequency of BV disorders in subjects with contact lens-induced dry eye symptoms. METHODS: Subjects recruited for a larger dry eye study (n = 104) completed the Ocular Surface Disease Index (OSDI) and Convergence Insufficiency Symptom Survey (CISS) to determine if symptoms assessed on these two surveys were related. Also, myopic soft contact lens wearers (n = 29) with self-reported dry eye symptoms were recruited. Subjects completed the OSDI and CISS to assess severity of dry eye and BV disorder symptoms. Basic BV and dry eye testing was performed on each subject. RESULTS: Severity of symptoms assessed on the OSDI and CISS was found to be significantly correlated in the larger subject group (ρ = 0.68, p = 0.0001). This significant correlation warranted further investigation of both symptoms and clinical signs. In the group of myopic soft contact lens wearers, 48.3% had a BV disorder. This proportion appeared to be higher than previously reported prevalence estimates of BV disorders. Accommodative lag greater than or equal to 1.00 diopter was the most common BV disorder sign encountered (48.3%), and pseudo-convergence insufficiency was the most common BV disorder (31.0%). CONCLUSIONS: Symptoms related to dry eye and BV disorders overlap. Subjects with symptoms of discomfort while wearing soft contact lenses may be experiencing a concurrent or stand-alone BV disorder. Accommodative insufficiency and pseudo-convergence insufficiency were common in the sample of myopic soft contact lens wearers. Clinicians should screen symptomatic contact lens-induced dry eye patients for BV disorders. Dry eye studies should assess basic BV function.

Visual discomfort and contact lens wear: A review.

The purpose of this manuscript is to describe how vision influences contact lens discomfort and review the evidence supporting the hypothesis that contact lens discomfort can be caused by vision and vision-related disorders. Contact lens discomfort is a misunderstood and difficult to manage clinical condition. Most treatments and strategies aimed at alleviating discomfort focus on optimizing the contact lens fit and its relationship with the ocular surface, but these strategies commonly fail at relieving discomfort symptoms. Many vision and vision-related disorders share symptoms with those reported by uncomfortable contact lens wearers. This paper will review evidence and literature that describes how these vision and vision-related disorders may influence comfort in contact lens wearers. Acknowledging how vision influences contact lens discomfort will improve future research intended to better understand the condition, allow for more effective clinical management, and reduce rates of discontinuation.

A review of meibomian gland structure, function, and contact lens wear.

PURPOSE: To provide a balanced literature review of the studies that have evaluated the effect of contact lenses on meibomian gland (MG) health. METHODS: A PubMed.gov literature search was conducted on or before May 15, 2021. No other time constraints were applied. Search terms included the following: "meibomian gland(s)" plus "contact lens(es)" or "meibography" plus "contact lens(es)". Only full text articles written in English were considered. The reference lists of recovered papers were used to identify articles missed during the primary search. Included articles were required to discuss the impact of contact lenses on MG morphology or function and were graded according to the level of evidence presented. RESULTS: The literature indicates that contact lenses impact MG function; however, the data are equivocal regarding contact lenses inducing MG structural changes. The literature likewise indicates that the mechanism(s) by which contact lenses impact the MGs are likely multifactorial. Recent data suggests that MGs may have some plasticity. Detected differences between studies likely stem from varied populations evaluated, study designs, and the duration of the evaluation periods. CONCLUSIONS: With this literature review finding conflicting relationships between MG health and contact lens use, future longitudinal studies with standardized clinical MG assessments are needed to determine the true impact of contact lenses on MG health. Until these data are obtained, contact lens wearers should undergo a full MG evaluation, especially because recent data suggest that MG treatments may restore MG structure and function.

A study of contact lens compliance in a non-clinical setting.

PURPOSE: To evaluate soft contact lens replacement, overnight (ON) wear, and contact lens case compliance in a non-clinical sample. METHODS: Subjects (n = 297) were recruited at the Center for Science and Industry (COSI) in Columbus, Ohio. Adult (≥ 18 years) soft contact lens wearers completed a survey about contact lens replacement, ON contact lens wear, and contact lens case replacement habits. RESULTS: Two-week replacement lenses (according to the manufacturer's replacement schedule [MRS]) were most common (45.5%), followed by monthly (34.3%) and daily replacement (20.2%). Non-compliance with replacement schedule was reported in 38.7% of subjects. Age (p = 0.02), years of lens wear (p = 0.02), and MRS (p <0.0001) affected replacement compliance. Post-hoc analysis showed daily replacement wearers were more compliant than two-week (p <0.0001) and monthly (p <0.0001) replacement wearers with prescribed lens replacement. Non-compliance with prescribed ON wear was reported in 23.9% of subjects. Subjects who were non-compliant with lens replacement were more likely to be non-compliant with ON wear (p = 0.02) and had worn contact lenses for less time (p = 0.02). Of the subjects who used contact lens cases, 74.6% were unsure when they should replace their case. Frequency of case replacement was not associated with age (p = 0.5), gender (p = 0.5), years of contact lens wear (p = 0.7), MRS (p = 0.4), replacement compliance (p = 0.3), or ON wear compliance (p = 0.7). CONCLUSIONS: Daily replacement wearers were most likely to be compliant with contact lens replacement, but all subjects, including daily replacement wearers, had similar ON wear non-compliance. Non-compliant lens replacement was associated with non-compliant ON wear, but contact lens case replacement was not related to either compliance category. The majority of subjects had no knowledge of proper contact lens case replacement, despite compliance in other categories.

Presbyopic and non-presbyopic contact lens opinions and vision correction preferences.

PURPOSE: To compare vision correction preferences, refractive error, and gender of non-presbyopes and presbyopes. METHODS: Adults who wear spectacles or contact lenses completed a survey about refractive correction opinions and refractive error was measured. RESULTS: Of the 304 subjects, 38.2% were presbyopic (≥40 years) and 59.2% were female. Spectacles were the primary vision correction for 78.0% of subjects. Compared to contact lens wearers, the proportion of presbyopes was higher (p=0.006) in spectacle wearers. There was no difference in the proportion of presbyopes and non-presbyopes who have tried contact lenses (p=0.2) or who would prefer to wear contact lenses (p=0.2). In contact lens wearers, there was no difference in the proportion of presbyopes and non-presbyopes with a history of temporary discontinuation (p=0.9). Within the contact lens wearing group, there was no refractive error difference between presbyopes and non-presbyopes (spherical equivalent p=0.6; power vector J0 p=0.5; power vector J45 p=0.4; anisometropia p=0.2). Overall, contact lens wearers were more likely to be female (p=0.004). There was no difference in gender in presbyopic and non-presbyopic contact lens wearers (p=0.5). CONCLUSIONS: Presbyopes and non-presbyopes have similar opinions about spectacles and contact lenses. Presbyopes of all refractive errors prefer contact lens correction when good vision and comfort can be achieved. Eye care providers should not assume that presbyopia, refractive error, or gender are factors that preclude a patient from being interested in contact lens wear.

Contact lens associated microbial keratitis: practical considerations for the optometrist.

Microbial keratitis (MK) is a corneal condition that encompasses several different pathogens and etiologies. While contact lens associated MK is most often associated with bacterial infections, other pathogens (fungi, Acanthamoeba species, etc) may be responsible. This review summarizes the risk factors, microbiology, diagnostic characteristics, and treatment options for all forms of contact lens-related MK.