File(s) under permanent embargo
Utility of short-term evaluation of presbyopic contact lens performance
journal contribution
posted on 2009-05-01, 00:00 authored by E Papas, T Decenzo-Verbeten, D Fonn, B Holden, P Kollbaum, P Situ, J Tan, Craig WoodsObjectives: To establish if evaluations of multifocal contact lens performance conducted at dispensing are representative of behavior after a moderate adaptation period.
Methods: Eighty-eight presbyopic subjects, across four clinical sites, wore each of four multifocal soft contact lenses (ACUVUE BIFOCAL, Focus Progressives, Proclear Multifocal, and SofLens Multifocal) for 4 days of daily wear. Comprehensive performance assessments were conducted at dispensing and after 4 days wear and included the following objective metrics: LogMAR acuity (contrast, 90% and 10%; illumination, 250 and 10 cd/m2; distance, 6 m, 100 cm, and 40 cm), stereopsis (RANDOT), reading critical print size and maximum speed and range of clear vision at near. Subjective assessments were made, with 100-point numerical rating scales, of comfort, ghosting (distance, near), visual quality (distance, intermediate, and near), and the appearance of haloes. At two sites, subjects (n = 39) also rated visual fluctuation (distance, intermediate, and near), facial recognition, and overall satisfaction.
Results: Among the objective variables, significant differences (paired t test, P<0.05) between dispensing and 4 days were found only for range of clear vision at near (2.9 ± 2.0 cm; mean difference ± standard deviation) and high contrast near acuity in low illumination (-0.013 ± 0.011 LogMAR). With the exception of insertion comfort, all subjective variables showed significant decrements over the same period. Overall satisfaction declined by an average of 10.9 ± 5.1 points.
Conclusions: Early assessment is relatively unrepresentative of performance later on during multifocal contact lens wear. Acuity based measures of vision remain substantially unchanged over the medium term, apparently because these metrics are insensitive indicators of performance compared with subjective alternatives.
Methods: Eighty-eight presbyopic subjects, across four clinical sites, wore each of four multifocal soft contact lenses (ACUVUE BIFOCAL, Focus Progressives, Proclear Multifocal, and SofLens Multifocal) for 4 days of daily wear. Comprehensive performance assessments were conducted at dispensing and after 4 days wear and included the following objective metrics: LogMAR acuity (contrast, 90% and 10%; illumination, 250 and 10 cd/m2; distance, 6 m, 100 cm, and 40 cm), stereopsis (RANDOT), reading critical print size and maximum speed and range of clear vision at near. Subjective assessments were made, with 100-point numerical rating scales, of comfort, ghosting (distance, near), visual quality (distance, intermediate, and near), and the appearance of haloes. At two sites, subjects (n = 39) also rated visual fluctuation (distance, intermediate, and near), facial recognition, and overall satisfaction.
Results: Among the objective variables, significant differences (paired t test, P<0.05) between dispensing and 4 days were found only for range of clear vision at near (2.9 ± 2.0 cm; mean difference ± standard deviation) and high contrast near acuity in low illumination (-0.013 ± 0.011 LogMAR). With the exception of insertion comfort, all subjective variables showed significant decrements over the same period. Overall satisfaction declined by an average of 10.9 ± 5.1 points.
Conclusions: Early assessment is relatively unrepresentative of performance later on during multifocal contact lens wear. Acuity based measures of vision remain substantially unchanged over the medium term, apparently because these metrics are insensitive indicators of performance compared with subjective alternatives.
