Clinical performance and Willingness To Pay for soft toric contact lenses in low and moderate astigmats.

PURPOSE: To determine clinical performance and the 'Willingness To Pay' for toric vs. spherical soft contact lenses in an astigmatic population. METHODS: In the clinical study, subjects with binocular low to moderate astigmatism (-0.75DC to -1.50DC) wore pairs of soft toric (Biofinity toric) and spherical (Biofinity) contact lenses in random sequence. Visual acuity (high and low contrast, monocular and binocular), subjective comfort and subjective vision were recorded. In the economics study, first subjects who had participated in the clinical study were presented with a series of randomised economic scenarios in order to determine their Willingness To Pay a premium (i.e. an increase) for toric lenses. Then, a similar set of scenarios were presented to a much larger group of online respondents and again, Willingness To Pay was established. RESULTS: For the four measures of visual acuity, the Biofinity toric lens out-performed the Biofinity spherical lens by 0.6 to 1.1 lines.. Subjective vision performance was statistically significantly better with the toric lens for the distance task only. Comfort scores were not significantly different. Similar findings for Willingness To Pay were established for the clinical subjects and for the online respondents. The Willingness To Pay premium (additional fee) for a monthly supply of toric lenses (over spherical lenses) was between £13 and £16, if a toric lens provides better vision and similar comfort, as shown in the clinical study. CONCLUSION: Consumers are willing to pay a monthly premium of around 50% to benefit from the typical experience of better vision and similar comfort for toric vs. spherical lenses. The level of additional cost for toric lenses compared to their spherical equivalents is less than this in the market, so eye care professionals should consider that toric lenses are delivering a greater clinical return than anticipated by wearers for the relatively small increase in price.

Using face masks with spectacles versus contact lenses.

PURPOSE: To test the hypothesis that various subjective ocular and task-related parameters associated with wearing a face mask would be better in neophyte contact lens (CL) wear compared to habitual spectacle (Sp) wear. METHODS: Thirty participants were randomised to continue in Sp (n = 15) or wear somofilcon A daily disposable CL (n = 15) ('group'). A surgical face mask (Type II R) was worn for at least one hour per day on four or more days per week. After two weeks, participants completed the Quality of Life Impact of Refractive Correction Questionnaire (QIRC), a two-part face mask usability questionnaire and graded ocular-related symptoms using 0-100 visual analogue scales. RESULTS: There was no difference between groups for overall QIRC score but some individual question scores reflected better quality of life in the CL: 'outdoor activities', 'keep fit' and 'able to do things' (all p < 0.05). Differences in favour of the CL were seen for the following in the face mask usability questionnaire: 'breathing', 'heat', 'comfort on ears', 'overall comfort', 'walking', 'driving', 'reading', 'computer use', 'exercising' and 'socialising' (all p < 0.05). Significant differences were also seen for the 0-100 VAS symptoms probing vision quality in favour of the CL: glare, distance and near vision, fogging, restricted field of view and peripheral blur. CONCLUSION: This work supports anecdotal reports that CL are a better vision correction option than Sp when used in conjunction with a face mask. Participants reported a range of benefits to the CL/face mask combination for vision-related symptoms, breathing and heat-related symptoms and a number of day-to-day activities including walking, driving and exercising. All of the benefits relating to the CL are likely to result in improved adherence to face mask use. Overall, the findings of this work suggest that where possible, CL should be the preferred vision correction option for people using face masks.

The association of comfort and vision in soft toric contact lens wear.

PURPOSE: This work set out to investigate if there was an association between subjective comfort and both subjective and measured vision during the use of contemporary daily disposable soft toric contact lenses. METHODS: Thirty-eight habitual soft contact lens wearers wore each of three daily disposable toric lenses for one week in a prospective, crossover, randomised, single-masked study. The following clinical measures were recorded at dispensing and follow-up visits: biomicroscopy scores, lens fitting (including rotation and rotational stability), high and low contrast visual acuity, subjective vision quality and subjective ocular surface comfort. Subjective scores were collected using 0-10 numerical grading scales. Comfort scores were analysed using a linear regression model with age, sex, visit, phase of crossover ('phase'), lens type, lens rotation, lens rotational stability, visual acuity, cylinder power and subjective vision quality as factors of interest and then refined using backward stepwise regression. RESULTS: Thirty six participants (31.1 ± 13.5 years) completed the study. Comfort scores were found to be associated with subjective vision quality (F = 127.0 ; p < 0.0001), phase (F = 7.2; p = 0.001) and lens type (F = 4.9; p = 0.009). Greater comfort scores were observed with greater subjective vision quality scores. Visual acuity was not statistically significant in the model. CONCLUSION: This work suggests that symptoms of ocular discomfort may be more intense if there is also perceived visual compromise in daily disposable soft toric lenses. There was a stronger positive correlation between comfort and subjective vision quality compared with comfort and measured visual acuity.

Daily disposable contact lenses versus spectacles in teenagers.

PURPOSE: To compare clinical and subjective quality-of-life (QoL) data for teenagers wearing daily disposable contact lenses or spectacles. METHODS: This open-label study randomized subjects (aged 13 to 19 years) with no previous contact lens wear experience to nelfilcon A (DAILIES AquaComfort Plus) contact lenses or spectacles for 6 months. A full clinical workup, as well as subjective QoL measures using the Pediatric Refractive Error Profile and Quality of Life Impact of Refractive Correction questionnaires, was conducted at baseline and at week 4 and months 3 and 6, with an additional study visit at week 2 for subjects randomized to wear contact lenses. RESULTS: A total of 110 teenagers were enrolled in the study; 13 discontinued before study completion, 10 (17.5%) from the contact lens group and 3 (5.7%) from the spectacle group (p = 0.04). Visual acuity was good for both groups at all study visits. Biomicroscopy assessments were similar at baseline for both groups. Significant differences in Pediatric Refractive Error Profile responses were noted between vision correction groups across visits for appearance (p < 0.001), satisfaction (p < 0.001), activities (p < 0.001), peer perception (p = 0.003), and overall score (p < 0.001). For Quality of Life Impact of Refractive Correction, the contact lens group gave more favorable responses than the spectacle group (p = 0.02). After 6 months of wearing contact lenses, teenagers had a more positive attitude toward comfort, vision, and safety with contact lenses. No serious adverse events were reported during the study. CONCLUSIONS: The daily disposable lenses used in this study are suitable for vision correction for teenagers, offering improvements in QoL measures during the first month of wear, including appearance, satisfaction, activities, and peer perceptions, without negatively impacting vision or eye health. Teenagers were able to handle contact lenses with the same amount of confidence as spectacles.