Contact Lens Adaption in Neophytes
- PMID: 33771956
- PMCID: PMC8007068
- DOI: 10.1097/OPX.0000000000001662
Contact Lens Adaption in Neophytes
Abstract
Significance: Clinicians commonly either recommend patients begin contact lens (CL) wear full time or suggest that patients should gradually increase their wear times during the first few days of wear. This study found no differences between these two wear schedules, suggesting that patient preference may be the best schedule.
Purpose: The purpose of this study was to determine if there are any clinical differences in neophyte, 2-week, reusable soft CL wearers who were randomized to either a full-time or a gradually increasing wear time schedule.
Methods: This was an investigator-masked, three-visit, randomized, clinical trial. Participants were randomized to wear their CLs full time starting on the first day or gradually starting with 2 hours of wear on the first day and increasing wear by 2 hours each day until 8 hours or more of wear per day was achieved. Symptoms (Ocular Surface Disease Index and visual analog scale) and ocular surface signs (tear breakup time, extent of corneal staining, and Schirmer test I) were evaluated at each visit.
Results: A total of 25 participants were randomized, with 21 participants completing at least 1 week of follow-up. Completed participants had a mean ± standard deviation age of 23.5 ± 3.0 years, and 48% were female. No significant between-group differences were found when comparing the full-time and gradual wear time schedule groups at 2 weeks (all, P > .32): Ocular Surface Disease Index (10.8 ± 8.5 vs. 16.3 ± 18.8), visual analog scale (89.0 ± 9.7 vs. 81.8 ± 18.7), tear breakup time (11.7 ± 7.0 vs. 9.8 ± 2.7), extent of corneal staining (0.0 ± 0.1 vs. 0.3 ± 0.5), or Schirmer test I (15.9 ± 8.8 vs. 21.2 ± 12.5).
Conclusions: No between-group differences were found for any metric evaluated, which suggests that the best wear schedule may be the one that best suits the neophyte CL wearer's lifestyle.
Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02148263.
Copyright © 2021 American Academy of Optometry.
Conflict of interest statement
Conflict of Interest Disclosure: None of the authors have a conflict of interest directly related to this work. This study was supported by NIH/NEI K08EY023264, University of Alabama at Birmingham, and The Ohio State University. The authors have received financial and/or equipment research support from Art Optical Contact Lenses Inc. (ADP), Alcon (ADP, QXF), CooperVision (ADP), EyeGate Pharmaceuticals Inc. (ADP), EpiTech (ADP), Euclid Systems (ADP, KM, QXF), National Eye Institute (ADP, JJW), Optikal Care Inc. (ADP), ScienceBased Health (ADP), and PentaVision (ADP) in the past 3 years.
Figures
References
-
- Sweeney DF. Have Silicone Hydrogel Lenses Eliminated Hypoxia? Eye Contact Lens 2013;39:53–60. - PubMed
-
- Sulley A, Young G, Hunt C, et al. Retention Rates in New Contact Lens Wearers. Eye Contact Lens 2018;44(Suppl. 1):S273–S82. - PubMed
-
- Wolffsohn JS, Dhirajlal H, Vianya-Estopa M, et al. Fast Versus Gradual Adaptation of Soft Daily Disposable Contact Lenses in Neophyte Wearers. Cont Lens Anterior Eye 2020;43:268–73. - PubMed
-
- Stapleton F, Alves M, Bunya VY, et al. TFOS DEWS II Epidemiology Report. Ocul Surf 2017;15:334–65. - PubMed
Publication types
MeSH terms
Associated data
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Other Literature Sources
Medical
