Lubricating drops for contact lens discomfort in adults.

BACKGROUND: Contact lens discomfort is a symptom-based clinical diagnosis that affects 13% to 75% of contact lens wearers. The Tear Film and Ocular Surface Society defines contact lens discomfort as "a condition characterized by episodic or persistent adverse ocular sensations related to lens wear either with or without visual disturbance, resulting from reduced compatibility between the lens and ocular environment, which can lead to decreased wearing time and discontinuation from lens wear." Signs of the condition include conjunctival hyperemia, corneal and conjunctival staining, altered blinking patterns, lid wiper epitheliopathy, and meibomian gland dysfunction. Eye care specialists often treat contact lens discomfort with lubricating drops, including saline, although there is no clear evidence showing this treatment is effective and safe. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of lubricating drops for ocular discomfort associated with contact lens wear in adults. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register), MEDLINE, Embase.com, two other databases, and two trials registries to May 2024, without date or language restrictions. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included parallel-group randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated lubricating drops, including saline, versus no treatment, or that evaluated lubricating drops versus saline, in adult contact lens wearers. We included studies regardless of publication status, language, or year of publication. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We applied standard Cochrane methodology. The critical outcome was contact lens discomfort. Important outcomes were corneal fluorescein staining and conjunctival redness. Adverse outcomes were incident microbial keratitis, inflammatory corneal infiltrates, and participant discontinuation. We assessed risk of bias for outcomes reported in the summary of findings table using the Cochrane risk of bias tool RoB 2, and we rated the certainty of the evidence using GRADE. MAIN RESULTS: We included seven RCTs conducted in the USA, Canada, Italy, and France. They randomized a total of 463 participants to lubricating drops, saline, or no treatment. Four trials evaluated lubricating drops and saline versus no treatment, but one of them provided no usable outcome data. Three trials evaluated lubricating drops versus saline. Study characteristics All trial participants were adults, and the mean age ranged from 25.7 years to 36.7 years. The proportion of women varied from 15% to 82%. The trials lasted between one and four weeks. Of the five trials that reported contact lens discomfort, we judged three at high risk of bias, and considered the other two had some risk of bias concerns. Lubricating drops (including saline) versus no treatment Lubricating drops compared with no treatment may reduce contact lens discomfort, measured on a 37-point scale (lower is better), but the evidence is very uncertain (mean difference [MD] -5.9 points, 95% confidence interval [CI] -3.74 to -8.05; 2 RCTs; 119 participants). One trial found no difference between lubricating drops and no treatment in "end-of-day" comfort. The trial that compared saline with no treatment provided no results for the control group. Two studies measured corneal fluorescein staining on a scale of 0 to 20 (lower is better). We found low-certainty evidence of little to no difference between lubricating drops and no treatment in changes in the extent (MD -0.15 points, 95% CI -0.86 to 0.56; 2 RCTs; 119 participants), depth (MD -0.01 points, 95% CI -0.44 to 0.42; 2 RCTs; 119 participants), or type (MD 0.04 points, 95% CI -0.38 to 0.46; 2 RCTs; 119 participants) of corneal fluorescein staining scores. Regarding conjunctival redness, measured on a scale of 0 to 4 (lower is better), there was low-certainty evidence of little to no difference between lubricating drops and no treatment in nasal region scores (MD 0.10, 95% CI -0.29 to 0.49; 1 RCT; 73 participants) and temporal region scores (MD 0.00, 95% CI -0.39 to 0.39; 1 RCT; 73 participants). No studies reported microbial keratitis or inflammatory corneal infiltrates, and no trials reported vision-threatening adverse events up to four weeks of treatment. All trials reported the proportion of participants who discontinued participation. In two trials, no participants left any treatment group. Our meta-analysis of another two studies suggests little difference in the number of people who dropped out of the lubricating treatment group versus the no treatment group (risk ratio [RR] 1.42, 95% CI 0.19 to 10.94; 138 participants; low-certainty evidence). Lubricating drops versus saline Lubricating drops may have little to no effect compared with saline on contact lens discomfort measured on a visual analog scale of 0 to 100 (lower is better), but the evidence is very uncertain (MD 9.5 points, 95% CI -4.65 to 23.65; 1 RCT; 39 participants). No studies reported corneal fluorescein staining or conjunctival redness. No studies reported microbial keratitis or inflammatory corneal infiltrates, and no trials reported vision-threatening adverse events up to four weeks of treatment. Our meta-analysis of three studies suggests little difference in the number of people who dropped out of the lubricating treatment group versus the saline group (RR 1.56, 95% CI 0.47 to 5.12; 269 participants; low-certainty evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Very low-certainty evidence suggests that lubricating drops may improve contact lens discomfort compared with no treatment, but may have little or no effect on contact lens discomfort compared with saline. Low-certainty evidence also suggests that lubricating drops may have no unwanted effects that would lead to discontinuation over one to four weeks. Current evidence suggests that prescribing lubricating drops (including saline) to people with contact lens discomfort is a viable option. However, most studies did not assess patient-reported contact lens (dis)comfort using a validated instrument. Therefore, further well-designed trials are needed to generate high-certainty evidence on patient-reported outcomes as well as on longer-term safety outcomes.

Changes in corneal epithelial irregularity following treatment with artificial tears.

SIGNIFICANCE: Dry eye sufferers have a highly irregular corneal epithelial surface compared with those without dry eye. This study demonstrated that corneal epithelial thickness irregularity can be significantly reduced after as little as 48 hours following treatment with regular use of topical ocular lubricants. PURPOSE: This study aimed to compare changes in corneal epithelial thickness irregularity factor (EIF) and ocular symptoms in a population with symptoms of dry eye before and up to 4 weeks after treatment with two commercially available lubricating eye drops versus saline. METHODS: We conducted a prospective single-center, investigator-masked, randomized, parallel-group dispensing study. Participants with moderate to severe symptoms of dry eye (Ocular Surface Disease Index score >23 at baseline) were enrolled and randomly assigned to receive either 0.15% hyaluronic acid + hydroxypropyl guar, 0.2% hyaluronic acid, or saline (16 in each group). Corneal epithelial thickness measurements were obtained along vertical and horizontal CASIA SS-1000 Optical Coherence Tomography scans at baseline and after 48 hours, 2 weeks, and 4 weeks. The Ocular Surface Disease Index questionnaire was administered at baseline, 2 weeks, and 4 weeks. RESULTS: Forty-eight participants (male-to-female ratio, 17:31) completed the study. Horizontal EIF was significantly lower at all follow-up visits compared with baseline (p=0.001), but there were no significant differences between study eye drops (p=0.34). No significant difference in vertical EIF was observed over time (p=0.32) or between eye drops (p=0.08). Ocular symptoms significantly improved after 2 and 4 weeks of treatment compared with baseline (p<0.001), but no differences were observed between eye drops (p=0.46). CONCLUSIONS: All treatments were effective for reducing EIF along the horizontal meridian 48 hours after initiation of treatment, and improvements were maintained for 4 weeks. Improvements in ocular symptoms were observed with all study treatments.

Antimicrobial resistance in ocular infection: A review.

Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) is a global public health threat with significant impact on treatment outcomes. The World Health Organization's Global Action Plan on AMR recommended strengthening the evidence base through surveillance programs and research. Comprehensive, timely data on AMR for organisms isolated from ocular infections are needed to guide treatment decisions and inform researchers and microbiologists of emerging trends. This article aims to provide an update on the development of AMR in ocular organisms, AMR in bacterial ocular infections and on AMR stewardship programs globally. The most common ocular pathogens are Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Staphylococcus spp., Streptococcus pneumoniae, and Haemophilus influenzae in ocular infections. A variety of studies and a few surveillance programs worldwide have reported on AMR in these infections over time. Fluoroquinolone resistance has increased particularly in Asia and North America. For conjunctivitis, the ARMOR cumulative study in the USA reported a slight decrease in resistance to ciprofloxacin. For keratitis, resistance to methicillin has remained stable for S. aureus and CoNS, while resistance to ciprofloxacin has decreased for MRSA globally. Methicillin-resistance and multidrug resistance are also emerging, requiring ongoing monitoring. Antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) programmes have a critical role in reducing the threat of AMR and improving treatment outcomes. To be successful AMS must be informed by up-to-date AMR surveillance data. As a profession it is timely for ophthalmology to act to prevent AMR leading to greater visual loss through supporting surveillance programmes and establishing AMS.

Dry eye symptoms in children: can we reliably measure them?

PURPOSE: Many dry eye questionnaires are available, but these may not be suitable for paediatric eye care. The feasibility of use and repeatability of symptom questionnaires administered to children was examined. METHODS: Participants aged 6-15 years (n = 62; 25M:37F; 40% male) completed six questionnaires twice in random order at a single visit: Symptoms assessment in dry eye (SANDE), ocular surface disease index (OSDI), numerical rating scale (NRS), ocular comfort index (OCI, n = 30), dry eye questionnaire 5 (DEQ-5) and the instant ocular symptoms survey (IOSS). Completion time and need for assistance were recorded and relationships with age examined (Pearson correlation, independent t-test). The number of participants requiring assistance and with which items were compared (linear mixed model, pairwise test). Repeatability (coefficient of repeatability (CoR), limit of agreement, bias) and intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) were examined. RESULTS: Completion time was ≤2 min for each individual questionnaire. Younger participants took longer to complete (r = -0.43 to -0.60, p ≤ 0.01), and required more assistance (p ≤ 0.001). Forty-eight participants required assistance with at least one questionnaire. Older children (13-15 years) only required assistance with OSDI (p ≤ 0.004) and NRS (p ≤ 0.003). Participants required more assistance with SANDE, OSDI and NRS than with DEQ-5 and IOSS (p ≤ 0.02) and with gritty (OSDI, 77% of participants; OCI, 100%) and foreign body sensation (NRS, 92%) items. CoR was similar for all questionnaires with no evidence of a learning effect (p > 0.05). ICC was moderate to excellent. CONCLUSIONS: Dry eye questionnaires can be used reliably in paediatric eye care; more time and assistance may be required for younger children. The DEQ-5 and IOSS are recommended for use in younger age children.

Smartphone gaming induces dry eye symptoms and reduces blinking in school-aged children.

PURPOSE: Smartphone use by children is rising rapidly, but its ocular surface impact is unknown. This study examined the effect of smartphone use on blinking, symptoms, and tear function in children. METHODS: Prospective intervention study where 36 children aged 6-15years (14 M:22 F) played games on a smartphone continuously for one hour. Symptoms (SANDE, IOSS, NRS) and tear film (lipid layer thickness, tear secretion, stability) were assessed before and after gaming. Blink rate and interblink interval were measured in situ using an eye tracking headset, before (during conversation) and continuously throughout gaming. Symptoms and tear film changes were examined using paired t-tests. Changes in blinking throughout one hour were examined using repeated measures ANOVA, post-hoc comparisons with Bonferroni correction. Associations examined using Pearson bivariate correlation. Significance level was 0.05. RESULTS: Symptoms worsened following one hour smartphone gaming (SANDE + 8.2units, p = 0.01; IOSS + 1.3units, p < 0.001; NRS-average +6.3units, p = 0.03; NRS-comfort +7.6units, p = 0.04; NRS-tiredness +10.1units, p = 0.01), but tear film remained unchanged. Blink rate reduced from 20.8 blinks/min to 8.9 blinks/min (p < 0.001) and interblink interval increased from 2.9 s to 8.7 s (p = 0.002) within the first minute of gaming relative to baseline conversation, and this effect remained unchanged throughout one hour of gaming. CONCLUSIONS: Smartphone use in children results in dry eye symptoms and immediate and sustained slowing of blinking, with no change in tear function evident up to one hour. Given the ubiquitous use of smartphones by children, future work should examine whether effects reported herein persist or get worse over a longer term causing cumulative damage to the ocular surface.

Blinking and normal ocular surface in school-aged children and the effects of age and screen time.

PURPOSE: Baseline ocular surface characteristics in children require investigation. This study characterised blinking and relationships with ocular symptoms, tear film and digital device use. METHODS: 45 children aged 6-15 years (56% female) participated in a cross-sectional study. Ocular surface symptoms (Instant Ocular Symptoms Survey, Dry Eye Questionnaire 5, Symptoms Assessment in Dry Eye, Ocular Surface Disease Index, Ocular Comfort Index and Numerical Rating Scale) and clinical indices (lipid layer thickness, tear secretion and stability, meibomian gland) were assessed. Blink rate and interblink interval were measured in situ using a wearable eye-tracking headset (Pupil Labs GmbH, Germany). Associations between blinking, ocular surface, age, and digital device use (bivariate and partial correlations) and between automated and manually counted blink rate (Bland & Altman) were examined. RESULTS: Mean blink rate and interblink interval were 20.5±10.5 blinks/min and 2.9±1.9 s during conversation. There was no difference between automated and manual blink rate (p=0.78) and no relationship between blinking and digital device use, age or sex. Mean group symptoms were within normal range and not associated with clinical measurements including blinking. Greater tear volume was associated with a faster blink rate (r=0.46, p=0.001) and shorter interblink interval (r=-0.36, p=0.02). Older age was associated with improved tear volume (r=0.37, p=0.01) and stability (r=0.38, p=0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Blinking characterised in situ was not impacted by age or habitual digital device use. A faster blink rate was associated with greater tear volume but not symptoms. Improved tear function was found with age suggesting that the ocular surface continues to develop through childhood.

Blink Rate Measured In Situ Decreases While Reading From Printed Text or Digital Devices, Regardless of Task Duration, Difficulty, or Viewing Distance.

Purpose: To compare blinking measured in situ during various tasks and examine relationships with ocular surface symptoms. The day-to-day repeatability of the blink rate and interblink interval was assessed. Methods: Twenty-four students (28.6 ± 6.3 years; 8 male and 16 female) completed six reading tasks (printed text, laptop, TV, smartphone, smartphone at 50% brightness, smartphone with complex text), and two nonreading tasks (conversation, walking) in a randomized cross-over study. Ocular surface symptoms and clinical signs were assessed. The blink rate and interblink interval were measured using a wearable eye tracking headset. Blink parameters were compared across tasks and time (linear mixed model and post hoc comparisons with Bonferroni correction). Associations between blinking, symptoms, ocular surface, and clinical signs were assessed (Spearman's correlation). The smartphone reading task was completed twice to determine the coefficient of repeatability. Results: The blink rate was lower (mean 10.7 ± 9.7 blinks/min) and the interblink interval longer (mean 9.6 ± 8.7 seconds) during all reading tasks compared with conversation (mean 32.4 ± 12.4 blinks/min; 1.5 ± 0.6 seconds) and walking (mean 31.3 ± 15.5 blinks/min; 1.9 ± 1.3s) (P < 0.001). There were no significant differences in blink parameters between any of the reading tasks or between conversation and walking. Changes in blinking occurred within 1 minute of starting the task. No associations were evident between blink rate or interblink interval and ocular surface symptoms or signs. The coefficient of repeatability was ±12.4 blinks/min for blink rate and ±18.8 seconds for interblink interval. Conclusions: Spontaneous blinking can be measured reliably in situ. The blink rate was decreased and the interblink interval increased during reading compared with conversation and walking. Changes in blinking were immediate, sustained, and not associated with ocular surface symptoms or signs.

Smartphone Use and Effects on Tear Film, Blinking and Binocular Vision.

Purpose: Smartphone use is now ubiquitous and is associated with a range of ocular and visual symptoms. However, little is known about the etiology of the symptoms which accompany smartphone use and the relative contribution of accommodation/vergence versus that of the ocular surface and of blinking. This study examined the effects of 60 min reading on a smartphone on ocular symptoms, binocular vision, tear function, blinking and working distance.Methods: Twelve young adults (18-23 years; 9F:3M) with normal vision and without dry eye, or major accommodative/binocular vision disorders, completed this pilot study. Participants read a novel on a smartphone for 60 min and the following were measured before and after the reading task: eye strain and ocular surface symptoms, non-invasive tear break-up time (NIBUT), lipid layer appearance, tear meniscus height, horizontal fixation disparity, binocular accommodative facility. Spontaneous blink rate and amplitude were counted every 10 min, and viewing distance was measured at the same timepoints. Pre- and post-task comparisons were made using Wilcoxon signed-rank test and changes during the task were assessed using Friedman test. Associations were examined using Spearman's correlation.Results: Eyestrain symptoms and ocular surface symptoms increased after smartphone use, specifically comfort, tiredness and sleepiness items (p ≤ .02). Binocular accommodative facility decreased from a median of 11.3 (IQR 6.6) cycles/min pre-task to 7.8 (2.5) cycles/min post-task (p = .01), but there was no significant change in fixation disparity or working distance. There were no changes in NIBUT, lipid layer or tear meniscus height. Number of incomplete blinks per minute increased from a median of 6 blinks at 1 min to 15 at 60 min (p = .0049). Total blink rate (complete plus incomplete blinks) gradually increased over time, but this trend was not significant (p = .08). A greater increase in incomplete blinks over 60 min of reading was associated with worsening of the overall ocular surface symptoms score (ρ = -0.65, p = .02) and of the tiredness item (ρ = 0.70, p = .01).Conclusions: Extended use of smartphones appears to have important implications for ocular surface health and binocular function.

The ocular surface in children: A review of current knowledge and meta-analysis of tear film stability and tear secretion in children.

PURPOSE: A review of ocular surface and meta-analysis of tear stability (tear break up time, TBUT) and tear secretion (Schirmer test) values in healthy children was conducted. METHODS: Articles published between 1996 and 2017 indexed on MEDLINE, PubMed, Embase, Scopus and Google Scholar were retrieved using defined search terms. Statistical analysis (including sensitivity analysis and meta-regression) was performed. RESULTS: 23 studies were summarised (5,291 participants; neonates (0-29 days), infants (1 month - 1 year) or children (1-18 years) and a meta-analysis conducted using 15 eligible studies (1,077 participants). The combined mean TBUT in children was 14.64 seconds (s) (95% CI, 11.64, 17.64) and 21.76 s (95% CI, 20.43, 23.09) for sodium fluorescein TBUT and non-invasive TBUT respectively (NIBUT). The combined mean NIBUT was 32.5 s (95% CI, 31.78-33.22) in neonates. The combined mean Schirmer I with and without anesthesia were 16.26 mm/5 min (95% CI, 13.17, 19.36) and 29.30 mm/5 min (95% CI, 27.65, 30.96) in children and 9.36 mm/5 min (95% CI, 6.54, 12.18) and 17.63 mm/5 min (95% CI, 12.03, 23.23) in neonates. Meta-regression showed a significantly lower TBUT in children from studies conducted in Asia (p = 0.004). CONCLUSION: There is paucity of data on ocular surface variables in healthy children, making it difficult to draw valid comparisons with adult values.