A Comparative Study Between an Oil-in-Water Emulsion and Nonlipid Eye Drops Used for Rewetting Contact Lenses.

OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to determine the clinical impact of using SYSTANE BALANCE Lubricant Eye Drops (Alcon, Fort Worth, TX), an oil-in-water emulsion, as a rewetting eye drop in symptomatic contact lens wearers. METHODS: Subjects who had previously experienced contact lens discomfort (CLD), with a mean lens wearing history of 18.6±12.8 years, were randomly assigned to use a Test (SYSTANE BALANCE Lubricant Eye Drops; n=76) or control (habitual nonlipid contact lens rewetting eye drop; n=30) drop over their contact lenses within 5 min of lens insertion and then subsequently at 2 hr intervals up to a maximum of 4 drops per eye daily for a 1-month period. Assessments of subjective comfort, comfortable wearing time, lid wiper epitheliopathy (LWE), and corneal staining were conducted at baseline and after 1 month, after 6 hr of lens wear. RESULTS: Comfort, wearing time, LWE, and corneal staining all showed statistically significant improvements in the test group using SYSTANE BALANCE Lubricant Eye Drops at the 1-month visit compared with baseline data (all P<0.01) and compared with the control group at the 1-month visit (P<0.01, P=0.01, P<0.01, and P=0.03, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: The use of SYSTANE BALANCE Lubricant Eye Drops as a rewetting drop in a group of wearers who experienced symptoms of CLD improved subjective comfort scores, increased comfortable wearing time, and reduced signs of LWE and corneal staining, when compared with the use of non-lipid-containing contact lens rewetting eye drops.

Inhibition of defocus-induced myopia in chickens.

PURPOSE: To determine the effect of wearing a lens with a unique peripheral optical design on the development and progression of defocus-induced myopia in newly hatched chickens. METHODS: Eighty-five newly hatched chickens underwent bilateral retinoscopy and A-scan ultrasound to determine their refractive error and axial length. They were randomly divided into Control and two Test groups, in which each chicken was fitted with a goggle-lens over the right eye, with the left eye remaining untreated. The Control group wore a lens of power -10.00 diopters (D) of standard spherical optical design. The two Test lenses both had a central optical power -10.00 D, but used different peripheral myopia progression control (MPC) designs. For all groups, retinoscopy was repeated on days 3, 7, 10, and 14; ultrasound was repeated on day 14. RESULTS: On day 0 there was no statistical difference in refractive error (mean +6.92 D) or axial length (mean 8.06 mm) between Test and Control groups or treated and untreated eyes (all P 0.05). At day 14, 37 (43.5%) of 85 chickens had not experienced goggle detachment and were included in the final analyses. in this cohort there was a significant refractive difference between the treated eyes of the control group (n = 17) and those of test 1 (n = 14) and Test 2 (N = 6) groups (both P <0.01): Control -4.65 ± 2.11 D, Test 1 +4.57 ± 3.11 D, Test 2 +1.08 ± 1.24 D (mean ± SEM). There was also a significant axial length difference (both P < 0.01): Control 10.55 ± 0.36 mm, Test 1 9.99 ± 0.14 mm, Test 2 10.17 ± 0.18 mm. CONCLUSIONS: Use of these unique MPC lens designs over 14 days caused a significant reduction in the development of defocus-induced myopia in chickens; the degree of reduction appeared to be design specific.