Guthrie S, Luensmann D, Woods J, Vega J, Orsborn G. Comfort and vision correlations in daily disposable multifocal lenses BCLA Virtual Clinical Conference & Exhibition, 2021 [ Show Abstract ][ PDF ]

Purpose: To evaluate the subjective responses to two daily disposable multifocal contact lenses (MFCLs), stenfilcon A (stenA-MF) and delefilcon A (delA-MF), and to see if there is a correlation between preferences based on vision and comfort.

Method: Habitual MFCL wearers participated in a prospective, randomized, subject-masked, bilateral crossover study at five sites. Subjects wore the study MFCLs for 2-weeks each and then responded to preference questions comparing the study lenses for comfort and vision for near, intermediate, distance, digital device use and overall at all distances. A 5-point Likert scale (Strong/slight preference for each lens or no preference) was used.

Results: For the 58 eligible subjects (50F:8M; mean 54.4±7.3 years), preferences were as follows (#stenA-MF:#delA-MF, p-value): subjects favoured stenA-MF for overall comfort (26:9, p=0.03), intermediate vision (25:8, p=0.03), overall vision (34:10, p=0.04) and vision for digital device use (27:10, p=0.03). Preferences were equivocal for near vision (29:14, p=0.06) and distance vision (13:19, p=0.51). Correlation analysis found that the lens preference based on overall comfort was significantly correlated (all p<0.05) with lens preference based on vision at near (rs=0.61), intermediate (rs=0.48), overall (rs=0.65) and for digital device use (rs=0.66). Lens preference based on overall vision was also correlated with lens preference based on vision at near (rs=0.85), intermediate (rs=0.71), and for digital device use (rs=0.87). Lens preference based on vision with digital device use correlated with lens preference based on vision at near (rs=0.85), and intermediate distance (rs=0.69).

Conclusions: Subjects preferred stenA-MF for a range of comfort and distance measures. Preferences for overall comfort and overall vision were both significantly correlated to the same three preferences of near, intermediate and digital device vision, illustrating how comfort and vision are intricately related when evaluating MFCLs and supporting how poor vision could potentially impact comfort.

Luensmann D, Schulze M, Woods J, Lazon de la Jara P, Vega J, Orsborn G. Fitting success with stenfilcon A daily disposable multifocal lenses
BCLA Virtual Clinical Conference & Exhibition, 2021 [ Show Abstract ][ PDF ]

Purpose: Multifocal contact lens (MFCL) fitting sometimes raises concerns about the number of fitting attempts required to determine the optimal lens prescription. This study compared the fit process and success rates of stenfilcon A (stenA) MFCL with delefilcon A (delA) MFCL when fitted to existing MFCL wearers in a randomized order.

Method: Successful MFCL wearers with <1.00DC of astigmatism were recruited at five clinical sites in the US. The first trial lenses were determined from current subjective refraction and the respective fitting guides. Prescription changes were reviewed at this first fit visit and also when participants returned for an optimization visit after wearing the lenses for 3-7 days. Multiple lens powers could be trialed at each visit, all were recorded.

Results: Fifty-eight subjects (50F:8M), mean age 54.4±7.3 years [42 to 70 years] were included in the analysis. The spherical-equivalent refraction was OD -1.10±2.7D [-6.50D to +3.75D] with near add +2.00±0.4D [+1.00D to +2.50D]. StenA-MFCL was successfully fit with the first pair of trial lenses in 83% (48) participants, while 10% (6) needed one additional lens and 7% (4) needed an extra two lenses to reach their final power. Regarding count of eyes, 12% (14) needed power optimizations. DelA-MFCL was successfully fit with the first pair of trial lenses in 66% (38) participants, while 17% (10) needed one additional lens, 10% (6) needed two extra lenses and 7% (4) needed three extra lenses to reach their final lens power. Regarding count of eyes, 25% (30) needed power optimizations.

Conclusions: Habitual MFCL wearers were successfully fitted with both MF lens types when following the respective fitting guides. There was a higher success rate with the first lens pair for stenA-MFCL (>8/10 patients) compared to delA-MFCL (<7/10 patients), and no more than one additional fitting lens (per eye) was needed when fitting stenA-MFCL.

Schulze M, Luensmann D, Woods J, Vega J, Orsborn G.. Comfort and vision with two daily disposable multifocal lenses when worn by habitual multifocal contact lens wearers BCLA Virtual Clinical Conference & Exhibition, 2021 [ Show Abstract ][ PDF ]

Purpose: Practitioners can be reluctant to switch successful multifocal soft contact lens (MF) wearers to different materials or replacement frequencies, fearing the new MF will be less accepted. Subjective responses are highly valued in MF fitting and this study investigated subjective responses from habitual MF (hab-MF) wearers after a refit into daily disposable MF; stenfilcon A (stenA-MF) and delefilcon A (delA-MF).

Method: After optimising the lens powers, subjects wore hab-MF and both study-MFs for 2-weeks each. Study-MF brands were masked and randomised. Throughout the study, subjects answered 13 experience questions per lens type, and 6 preference questions (comfort and vision for distance, intermediate, near, digital-device use, overall vision) to compare between hab-MF and each study MF, and also between study MFs.

Results: Fifty-eight subjects (50F:8M), mean age 54.4±7.3 years were included. Mean spherical-equivalent OD refraction: -1.10±2.7D [range -6.50D to +3.75D], mean near add +2.00±0.4D. 44% habitually wore daily disposable MF yet all were naïve to the study-MFs. Hab-MF wear resulted in positive responses for all experience questions (p<0.05); for stenA-MF 12 answers were positive (p<0.05), 1 was equivocal (p=0.90); for delA-MF 6 were positive (p<0.05), 7 were equivocal (p>0.05). Preferences between stenA-MF and hab-MF showed no differences (p>0.05). Subjects preferred hab-MF over delA-MF for intermediate vision (p=0.03) but no other preference (p>0.05). Comparing between study MFs, the preference for stenA-MF was stronger than delA-MF for comfort (p=0.03), intermediate vision (p=0.03), digital-device use (p=0.03) and overall vision (p=0.02) with no difference for distance or near vision (p>0.05).

Conclusions: This study showed that even when habitual MF wearers are already successful, refitting with a new design does not necessarily lead to compromised performance; stenA-MF performed comparably to hab-MF, and for some metrics better than delA-MF. These results should give practitioners confidence to recommend newer materials and different replacement frequencies when managing their existing MF wearers.

Woods J, Luensmann D, Schulze M, Vega J, Orsborn G. Subjective lens experience when refit with daily disposable multifocal contact lenses BCLA Virtual Clinical Conference & Exhibition, 2021 [ Show Abstract ][ PDF ]

Purpose: Practitioners can be reluctant to switch successful multifocal soft contact lens (MF) wearers to different materials or replacement frequencies, fearing the new MF will be less accepted. Subjective responses are highly valued in MF fitting and this study investigated subjective responses from habitual MF (hab-MF) wearers after a refit into daily disposable MF; stenfilcon A (stenA-MF) and delefilcon A (delA-MF).

Method: After optimising the lens powers, subjects wore hab-MF and both study-MFs for 2-weeks each. Study-MF brands were masked and randomised. Throughout the study, subjects answered 13 experience questions per lens type, and 6 preference questions (comfort and vision for distance, intermediate, near, digital-device use, overall vision) to compare between hab-MF and each study MF, and also between study MFs.

Results: Fifty-eight subjects (50F:8M), mean age 54.4±7.3 years were included. Mean spherical-equivalent OD refraction: -1.10±2.7D [range -6.50D to +3.75D], mean near add +2.00±0.4D. 44% habitually wore daily disposable MF yet all were naïve to the study-MFs. Hab-MF wear resulted in positive responses for all experience questions (p<0.05); for stenA-MF 12 answers were positive (p<0.05), 1 was equivocal (p=0.90); for delA-MF 6 were positive (p<0.05), 7 were equivocal (p>0.05). Preferences between stenA-MF and hab-MF showed no differences (p>0.05). Subjects preferred hab-MF over delA-MF for intermediate vision (p=0.03) but no other preference (p>0.05). Comparing between study MFs, the preference for stenA-MF was stronger than delA-MF for comfort (p=0.03), intermediate vision (p=0.03), digital-device use (p=0.03) and overall vision (p=0.02) with no difference for distance or near vision (p>0.05).

Conclusions: This study showed that even when habitual MF wearers are already successful, refitting with a new design does not necessarily lead to compromised performance; stenA-MF performed comparably to hab-MF, and for some metrics better than delA-MF. These results should give practitioners confidence to recommend newer materials and different replacement frequencies when managing their existing MF wearers.