Blue-light filtering spectacle lenses for visual performance, sleep, and macular health in adults.

BACKGROUND: 'Blue-light filtering', or 'blue-light blocking', spectacle lenses filter ultraviolet radiation and varying portions of short-wavelength visible light from reaching the eye. Various blue-light filtering lenses are commercially available. Some claims exist that they can improve visual performance with digital device use, provide retinal protection, and promote sleep quality. We investigated clinical trial evidence for these suggested effects, and considered any potential adverse effects. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of blue-light filtering lenses compared with non-blue-light filtering lenses, for improving visual performance, providing macular protection, and improving sleep quality in adults. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; containing the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register; 2022, Issue 3); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid Embase; LILACS; the ISRCTN registry; ClinicalTrials.gov and WHO ICTRP, with no date or language restrictions. We last searched the electronic databases on 22 March 2022. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), involving adult participants, where blue-light filtering spectacle lenses were compared with non-blue-light filtering spectacle lenses. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Primary outcomes were the change in visual fatigue score and critical flicker-fusion frequency (CFF), as continuous outcomes, between baseline and one month of follow-up. Secondary outcomes included best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), contrast sensitivity, discomfort glare, proportion of eyes with a pathological macular finding, colour discrimination, proportion of participants with reduced daytime alertness, serum melatonin levels, subjective sleep quality, and patient satisfaction with their visual performance. We evaluated findings related to ocular and systemic adverse effects. We followed standard Cochrane methods for data extraction and assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 1 (RoB 1) tool. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence for each outcome. MAIN RESULTS: We included 17 RCTs, with sample sizes ranging from five to 156 participants, and intervention follow-up periods from less than one day to five weeks. About half of included trials used a parallel-arm design; the rest adopted a cross-over design. A variety of participant characteristics was represented across the studies, ranging from healthy adults to individuals with mental health and sleep disorders. None of the studies had a low risk of bias in all seven Cochrane RoB 1 domains. We judged 65% of studies to have a high risk of bias due to outcome assessors not being masked (detection bias) and 59% to be at high risk of bias of performance bias as participants and personnel were not masked. Thirty-five per cent of studies were pre-registered on a trial registry. We did not perform meta-analyses for any of the outcome measures, due to lack of available quantitative data, heterogenous study populations, and differences in intervention follow-up periods. There may be no difference in subjective visual fatigue scores with blue-light filtering lenses compared to non-blue-light filtering lenses, at less than one week of follow-up (low-certainty evidence). One RCT reported no difference between intervention arms (mean difference (MD) 9.76 units (indicating worse symptoms), 95% confidence interval (CI) -33.95 to 53.47; 120 participants). Further, two studies (46 participants, combined) that measured visual fatigue scores reported no significant difference between intervention arms. There may be little to no difference in CFF with blue-light filtering lenses compared to non-blue-light filtering lenses, measured at less than one day of follow-up (low-certainty evidence). One study reported no significant difference between intervention arms (MD - 1.13 Hz lower (indicating poorer performance), 95% CI - 3.00 to 0.74; 120 participants). Another study reported a less negative change in CFF (indicating less visual fatigue) with high- compared to low-blue-light filtering and no blue-light filtering lenses. Compared to non-blue-light filtering lenses, there is probably little or no effect with blue-light filtering lenses on visual performance (BCVA) (MD 0.00 logMAR units, 95% CI -0.02 to 0.02; 1 study, 156 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), and unknown effects on daytime alertness (2 RCTs, 42 participants; very low-certainty evidence); uncertainty in these effects was due to lack of available data and the small number of studies reporting these outcomes. We do not know if blue-light filtering spectacle lenses are equivalent or superior to non-blue-light filtering spectacle lenses with respect to sleep quality (very low-certainty evidence). Inconsistent findings were evident across six RCTs (148 participants); three studies reported a significant improvement in sleep scores with blue-light filtering lenses compared to non-blue-light filtering lenses, and the other three studies reported no significant difference between intervention arms. We noted differences in the populations across studies and a lack of quantitative data. Device-related adverse effects were not consistently reported (9 RCTs, 333 participants; low-certainty evidence). Nine studies reported on adverse events related to study interventions; three studies described the occurrence of such events. Reported adverse events related to blue-light filtering lenses were infrequent, but included increased depressive symptoms, headache, discomfort wearing the glasses, and lower mood. Adverse events associated with non-blue-light filtering lenses were occasional hyperthymia, and discomfort wearing the spectacles. We were unable to determine whether blue-light filtering lenses affect contrast sensitivity, colour discrimination, discomfort glare, macular health, serum melatonin levels or overall patient visual satisfaction, compared to non-blue-light filtering lenses, as none of the studies evaluated these outcomes. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review found that blue-light filtering spectacle lenses may not attenuate symptoms of eye strain with computer use, over a short-term follow-up period, compared to non-blue-light filtering lenses. Further, this review found no clinically meaningful difference in changes to CFF with blue-light filtering lenses compared to non-blue-light filtering lenses. Based on the current best available evidence, there is probably little or no effect of blue-light filtering lenses on BCVA compared with non-blue-light filtering lenses. Potential effects on sleep quality were also indeterminate, with included trials reporting mixed outcomes among heterogeneous study populations. There was no evidence from RCT publications relating to the outcomes of contrast sensitivity, colour discrimination, discomfort glare, macular health, serum melatonin levels, or overall patient visual satisfaction. Future high-quality randomised trials are required to define more clearly the effects of blue-light filtering lenses on visual performance, macular health and sleep, in adult populations.

The effect of blue-light blocking spectacle lenses on visual performance, macular health and the sleep-wake cycle: a systematic review of the literature.

PURPOSE: Blue-blocking (BB) spectacle lenses, which attenuate short-wavelength light, are being marketed to alleviate eyestrain and discomfort when using digital devices, improve sleep quality and potentially confer protection from retinal phototoxicity. The aim of this review was to investigate the relative benefits and potential harms of these lenses. METHODS: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), recruiting adults from the general population, which investigated the effect of BB spectacle lenses on visual performance, symptoms of eyestrain or eye fatigue, changes to macular integrity and subjective sleep quality. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library and clinical trial registers, until 30 April 2017. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane tool. RESULTS: Three studies (with 136 participants) met our inclusion criteria; these had limitations in study design and/or implementation. One study compared the effect of BB lenses with clear lenses on contrast sensitivity (CS) and colour vision (CV) using a pseudo-RCT crossover design; there was no observed difference between lens types (log CS; Mean Difference (MD) = -0.01 [-0.03, 0.01], CV total error score on 100-hue; MD = 1.30 [-7.84, 10.44]). Another study measured critical fusion frequency (CFF), as a proxy for eye fatigue, on wearers of low and high BB lenses, pre- and post- a two-hour computer task. There was no observed difference between low BB and standard lens groups, but there was a less negative change in CFF between the high and low BB groups (MD = 1.81 [0.57, 3.05]). Both studies compared eyestrain symptoms with Likert scales. There was no evidence of inter-group differences for either low BB (MD = 0.00 [-0.22, 0.22]) or high BB lenses (MD = -0.05 [-0.31, 0.21]), nor evidence of a difference in the proportion of participants showing an improvement in symptoms of eyestrain or eye fatigue. One study reported a small improvement in sleep quality in people with self-reported insomnia after wearing high compared to low-BB lenses (MD = 0.80 [0.17, 1.43]) using a 10-point Likert scale. A study involving normal participants found no observed difference in sleep quality. We found no studies investigating effects on macular structure or function. CONCLUSIONS: We find a lack of high quality evidence to support using BB spectacle lenses for the general population to improve visual performance or sleep quality, alleviate eye fatigue or conserve macular health.

The effect of varying glucose levels on the ex vivo crystalline lens: implications for hyperglycaemia-induced refractive changes.

PURPOSE: Refractive changes in diabetic eyes have long been reported but with equivocal results. The lens has been a more recent focus as the source of any change but it is possible that multiple sources of variation have made it difficult to demonstrate a systematic change clinically. The aim of this study was therefore to use a bovine lens model to investigate the optical changes in hyperglycaemia and when lenses are returned to normal glucose levels as would occur following commencement of treatment. METHOD: Bovine eyes were obtained and their lenses excised under sterile conditions before placing them in culture medium within an incubator using standard tissue culture techniques. In the first experiment, lenses were transferred into culture medium containing 5 mm (n = 12), 15 mm (n = 12) and 30 mm (n = 12) glucose. Measurements were made of the change in back vertex focusing distance with equatorial lens diameter using the ScanTox(™) measurement system. From these measurements, the back vertex focal length and primary longitudinal spherical aberration were derived. In a second experiment, lenses maintained at 30 mm glucose (n = 7) were stepped down to 5 mm glucose to simulate starting diabetic therapy and measured in the same way. Changes over time were assessed with a linear regression model. RESULTS: A trend towards myopia was observed with increasing hyperglycaemia, this was not statistically significant. When lenses were stepped-down from hyperglycaemia to normal physiological levels of glucose, a hyperopic shift was observed in line with published clinical studies that again failed to reach statistical significance. High variability in the measurement on longitudinal spherical aberration prevented any significant trends being measured. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that there are no consistent crystalline lens-induced refractive changes following exposure to hyperglycaemia for time-periods up to 5 days used in the current study. It is possible that bovine lenses are able to offset the raised osmotic pressure from high glucose levels in the short-term by a process of osmoregulation and that repeated osmotic stress or longer term exposure may be required to induce the changes in refraction that are seen clinically.

A new software for automated counting of glistenings in intraocular lenses in vivo.

AIM: To assess the performance of a bespoke software for automated counting of intraocular lens (IOL) glistenings in slit-lamp images. METHODS: IOL glistenings from slit-lamp-derived digital images were counted manually and automatically by the bespoke software. The images of one randomly selected eye from each of 34 participants were used as a training set to determine the threshold setting that gave the best agreement between manual and automatic grading. A second set of 63 images, selected using randomised stratified sampling from 290 images, were used for software validation. The images were obtained using a previously described protocol. Software-derived automated glistenings counts were compared to manual counts produced by three ophthalmologists. RESULTS: A threshold value of 140 was determined that minimised the total deviation in the number of glistenings for the 34 images in the training set. Using this threshold value, only slight agreement was found between automated software counts and manual expert counts for the validating set of 63 images (κ=0.104, 95%CI, 0.040-0.168). Ten images (15.9%) had glistenings counts that agreed between the software and manual counting. There were 49 images (77.8%) where the software overestimated the number of glistenings. CONCLUSION: The low levels of agreement show between an initial release of software used to automatically count glistenings in in vivo slit-lamp images and manual counting indicates that this is a non-trivial application. Iterative improvement involving a dialogue between software developers and experienced ophthalmologists is required to optimise agreement. The results suggest that validation of software is necessary for studies involving semi-automatic evaluation of glistenings.

Suprathreshold contrast perception of resolvable high spatial frequencies remain intact in keratoconus.

Contrast detection thresholds are elevated with optical quality loss in keratoconus. This study hypothesized that suprathreshold contrast perception is also impaired in keratoconus, with the impairment being predictable from the pattern of loss in threshold-level performance. Contrast detection thresholds were determined across a range of spatial frequencies in 12 cases with mild to severe keratoconus and 12 age-similar controls. These values were used to predict the contrast needed to achieve perceptual matches between reference and test spatial frequency pairs (peak of CSF Vs. 0.3x, 0.5x, 2x or 3x spatial frequency from the peak) for stimuli at 10% and 50% suprathreshold contrast. Contrast thresholds predicted a 1.5 to 6.7-fold increase in the test pattern's contrast to obtain a perceptual match with the reference pattern in keratoconus, relative to controls. Contrary to predictions, the empirical data of contrast matches between test and reference patterns were similar for higher than peak spatial frequencies at both contrast levels. However, as predicted, test patterns required higher contrast than the reference pattern for a perceptual match for lower than peak spatial frequencies. These results were similar to controls and invariant of disease severity, interocular asymmetry and short-term changes in optical quality. Unlike thresholds, suprathreshold contrast perception of resolvable high spatial frequencies appears immune to optical quality losses in keratoconus. These results are discussed in the context of the prevailing models of contrast constancy in healthy humans. Breakdown of contrast constancy at lower than peak spatial frequencies may reflect the properties of the testing paradigm employed here.

Structure-Function Relationship in Keratoconus: Spatial and Depth Vision.

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to determine changes in spatial and depth vision with increasing severity of keratoconus and to model the structure-function relationship to identify distinct phases of loss in visual function with disease severity. Methods: Best-spectacle corrected, monocular high-contrast visual acuity, contrast sensitivity function (CSF) and stereoacuity of 155 cases (16-31 years) with mild to advanced bilateral keratoconus was determined using standard psychophysical tests. Disease severity was quantified using the multimetric D-index. The structure-function relationship was modeled using linear, positive exponential, negative exponential, and logistic nonlinear regression equations. Results: The logistic regression model explained the highest proportion of variance for spatial vision, without bias in the residual plots (R2 ≥ 66%, P < 0.001). Visual acuity showed a distinct ceiling phase and a steeper loss rate with increasing D-index (1.8 units/D-index) in this model. The area under the CSF lacked this ceiling phase and had a shallower loss rate (0.28 units/D-index). Stereoacuity loss with D-index was poorly explained by all models tested (P ≤ 0.2). Cases with lower and bilaterally symmetric D-index had better stereoacuity (181.6-376 arc seconds) than those with higher D-index (>400 arc second); both were significantly poorer than controls (approximately 30 arc second). Conclusions: Vision loss in keratoconus varies with the visual function parameter tested. Contrast sensitivity may be an earlier indicator of spatial vision loss than visual acuity. Depth perception is significantly deteriorated from very early stages of the disease. Translational Relevance: The study outcomes may be used to forecast longitudinal vision loss in keratoconus and to apply appropriate interventions for timely preservation/enhancement of vulnerable visual functions.

Changes in scanning laser polarimetry before and after laser capsulotomy for posterior capsular opacification.

PURPOSE: To investigate changes in scanning laser polarimetry with variable corneal compensation (GDx-VCC) parameters caused by posterior capsular opacification (PCO). METHODS: In this comparative case-control series, 20 eyes due to undergo YAG laser capsulotomy for PCO were recruited. GDx-VCC was performed before and after laser capsulotomy, and digital photographs were taken of the PCO to assess their severity and type. The other eye of each subject was used as the control group. RESULTS: Typical scan score was significantly improved after laser from 33 to 55.1 (P=0.001; n=19) and TSNIT score was significantly lower, dropping from 62.3 to 58.9 (P=0.03; n=19). There was no change in the nerve fiber index. All parameters in the control group remained unchanged except the Q-score which rose from 8.1 to 8.8 (P=0.05; n=16). There was no correlation between severity of PCO or the pearly/fibrous nature and the change in parameter values. CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that in subjects being considered with GDx-VCC, the presence of visually significant PCO may introduce artifact as judged by the typical scan score.

Fourier analysis of induced irregular astigmatism. Photorefractive keratectomy versus laser in situ keratomileusis in a bilateral cohort of hyperopic patients.

PURPOSE: To analyze corneal topographic data by Fourier analysis to determine differences in irregular astigmatism following spherical hyperopic correction by photorefractive keratectomy (PRK) or laser in situ keratomileusis (LASIK). SETTING: Department of Ophthalmology, St. Thomas' Hospital, London, United Kingdom. METHODS: Thirty-six eyes of 18 patients with moderate hyperopia had LASIK in 1 eye and PRK in the other eye. The flap was cut on a nasal hinge with a Moria LSK One microkeratome. The laser was a Summit SVS Apex Plus with an optical zone of 6.5 mm and a blending zone of 1.5 mm. Corneal topographic data were acquired with a TMS-1 topographer (Computed Anatomy Inc.) preoperatively and 1, 3, 6, and 12 months postoperatively. The ASCII files containing the dioptric power values were extracted and analyzed with custom-written software to extract the Fourier harmonics. RESULTS: The irregular astigmatism increased in both groups postoperatively, peaking at 3 months and then decreasing over the next 9 months. There was no statistically significant difference between the 2 groups at any time point (P<.05). The change in the topographically derived equivalent sphere showed undercorrection in both groups at all time points. Regular astigmatism showed a marginal statistically significant increase in the LASIK group at 12 months (P =.049). CONCLUSION: Irregular astigmatism, equivalent sphere, and regular astigmatism were not significantly different in the PRK and LASIK groups during the follow-up. Based on the corneal topography, the 2 procedures induced an equal amount of irregular astigmatism.

Optical coherence tomography may be used to predict visual acuity in patients with macular edema.

PURPOSE: To determine whether the volume of retinal tissue passing between the inner and outer retina in macular edema could be used as an indicator of visual acuity. METHODS: Diabetic and uveitic patients with cystoid macular edema (81 subjects, 129 eyes) were recruited. Best corrected logMAR visual acuity and spectral optical coherence tomography (OCT/SLO; OTI, Toronto, ONT, Canada) were performed in all patients. Coronal OCT scans obtained from a cross section of the retina between the plexiform layers were analyzed with a grid of five concentric radii (500, 1000, 1500, 2000, and 2500 µm centered on the fovea). The images were analyzed to determine the amount of retinal tissue present within each ring. A linear regression model was developed to determine the relationship between tissue integrity and logMAR visual acuity. RESULTS: A linear relationship between tissue integrity and VA was demonstrated. The volume of retinal tissue between the plexiform layers in rings 1 and 2 (up to 1000 µm from the foveal center) predicted 80% of visual acuity. By contrast, central macular thickness within the central 1000 µm predicted only 14% of visual acuity. CONCLUSIONS: This study showed that the cross-sectional area of retinal tissue between the plexiform layers in cystoid macular edema, as imaged by OCT, is the best indicator of visual function at baseline. Further prospective treatment trials are needed to investigate this parameter as a predictor of visual outcome after intervention.