Nancy Keir1, Craig A Woods, Kathryn Dumbleton, Lyndon Jones. 1. Centre for Contact Lens Research, School of Optometry, University of Waterloo, 200 University Ave. West, Waterloo, ON N2L3G1, Canada. njmacdou@uwaterloo.ca
Abstract
PURPOSE: To assess the clinical and subjective performance of a one-step hydrogen peroxide (H2O2) lens care system compared to a multi-purpose disinfecting system (MPDS) when used with silicone hydrogel (SiH) lenses. METHODS: This was an eight-week, contralateral (lens type) clinical trial with a randomized, cross-over (care system) design. The H2O2 system was Clear Care ((AO Sept Plus) CIBA VISION) and the MPDS was OPTI-FREE RepleniSH (Alcon) and the SiH materials were lotrafilcon B (Air Optix; CIBA VISION) and senofilcon A (Acuvue OASYS, Johnson & Johnson Vision Care). Investigators and subjects were masked to lens care and lens type, respectively. Clinical variables and ocular health assessments were conducted at a baseline, two-week and four-week visit for each cross-over phase. Comfort, dryness and vision were rated on 0-100 scales. Wearing times and comfortable wearing times were also recorded. RESULTS:Twenty-six subjects were enrolled: nine male, 17 female, mean age (+/-standard deviation) 31+/-12 years (range 17-59 years) and 24 subjects completed the study. Clinical variables showed no difference between solutions (all p > 0.05), however one subject exhibited solution-induced corneal staining with both lens materials and the MPDS. There was no difference between solutions in subjective overall ratings of comfort, dryness or vision (p > 0.05). The H2O2 resulted in longer reported comfortable wearing times than the MPDS (10.93 +/- 1.71 vs 9.84 +/- 1.47 h; repeated measures ANOVA, p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: While both lens care systems performed well with the SiH lenses used, the H2O2 resulted in a longer reported comfortable wearing time then the MPDS. 2010 British Contact Lens Association. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: To assess the clinical and subjective performance of a one-step hydrogen peroxide (H2O2) lens care system compared to a multi-purpose disinfecting system (MPDS) when used with silicone hydrogel (SiH) lenses. METHODS: This was an eight-week, contralateral (lens type) clinical trial with a randomized, cross-over (care system) design. The H2O2 system was Clear Care ((AO Sept Plus) CIBA VISION) and the MPDS was OPTI-FREE RepleniSH (Alcon) and the SiH materials were lotrafilcon B (Air Optix; CIBA VISION) and senofilcon A (Acuvue OASYS, Johnson & Johnson Vision Care). Investigators and subjects were masked to lens care and lens type, respectively. Clinical variables and ocular health assessments were conducted at a baseline, two-week and four-week visit for each cross-over phase. Comfort, dryness and vision were rated on 0-100 scales. Wearing times and comfortable wearing times were also recorded. RESULTS: Twenty-six subjects were enrolled: nine male, 17 female, mean age (+/-standard deviation) 31+/-12 years (range 17-59 years) and 24 subjects completed the study. Clinical variables showed no difference between solutions (all p > 0.05), however one subject exhibited solution-induced corneal staining with both lens materials and the MPDS. There was no difference between solutions in subjective overall ratings of comfort, dryness or vision (p > 0.05). The H2O2 resulted in longer reported comfortable wearing times than the MPDS (10.93 +/- 1.71 vs 9.84 +/- 1.47 h; repeated measures ANOVA, p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: While both lens care systems performed well with the SiH lenses used, the H2O2 resulted in a longer reported comfortable wearing time then the MPDS. 2010 British Contact Lens Association. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Authors: Nery García-Porta; Laura Rico-del-Viejo; Helena Ferreira-Neves; Sofia C Peixoto-de-Matos; Antonio Queirós; José M González-Méijome Journal: Biomed Res Int Date: 2015-03-31 Impact factor: 3.411
Authors: Nery García-Porta; Laura Rico-Del-Viejo; Alba Martin-Gil; Gonzalo Carracedo; Jesus Pintor; José Manuel González-Méijome Journal: Biomed Res Int Date: 2016-08-31 Impact factor: 3.411