Early symptomatic presbyopes - what correction modality works best?

Purpose: To compare the performance of a low-addition silicone hydrogel multifocal soft lens with other soft lens correction options in a group of habitual soft lens wearers of distance correction who are symptomatic of early presbyopia.

Method: This clinical study was designed as a prospective, double-masked, randomized, crossover, dispensing trial consisting of four 1-week phases, one for each of the correction modalities: a low-addition silicone hydrogel multifocal soft lens, monovision, habitual correction, and optimized distance visual correction. The prescriptions of all modalities were finalized at a single fitting visit, and the lenses were worn according to a randomized schedule. All lenses were made from lotrafilcon B material. A series of objective vision tests were conducted: high- and low-contrast LogMAR under high- and low-room lighting conditions, stereopsis, and critical print size. A number of other data collection methods used were novel: some data were collected under controlled laboratory-based conditions and others under real-world conditions, some of which were completed on a BlackBerry hand-held communication device.

Results: All participants were able to be fit with all four correction modalities. Objective vision tests showed no statistical difference between the lens modalities except in the case of low-contrast near LogMAR acuity under low-lighting levels where monovision (+0.29 ± 0.10) performed better than the multifocal (+0.33 ± 0.11, P=0.027) and the habitual (+0.37 ± 0.12, P<0.001) modalities. Subjective ratings indicated a statistically better performance provided by the multifocal correction compared with monovision, particularly for the vision associated with driving tasks such as driving during the daytime (93.3 ± 8.8 vs. 84.2 ± 23.7, P=0.05), at nighttime (88.8 ± 11.7 vs. 74.9 ± 23.6, P=0.001), any associated haloes or glare (92.0 ± 10.6 vs. 78.0 ± 22.8, P=0.003), and observing road signs (90.1 ± 11.8 vs. 79.4 ± 20.2, P=0.027). Preference for the multifocal compared with monovision was also reported when watching television (95.0 ± 6.4 vs. 82.6 ± 20.1, P=0.001) and when changing focus from distance to near (87.0 ± 13.4 vs. 66.1 ± 32.2, P<0.001).

Conclusions: For this group of early presbyopes, the AIR OPTIX AQUA MULTIFOCAL-Low Add provided a successful option for visual correction, which was supported by the results of subjective ratings, many of which were made during or immediately after performing such activities as reading, using a computer, watching television, and driving. These results suggest that making a prediction of success or not based on consulting room acuity tests alone is probably unwise.