PURPOSE: To report demographics, wearing patterns, and symptoms from soft contact lens (SCL) wearers with significant SCL-related dryness symptoms with and without significant ocular signs of dryness. METHODS: In a multicenter, prospective observational clinical trial, symptomatic SCL wearers reported significant SCL-related dryness via self-administered questionnaire of frequency and intensity of dryness after a dry eye (DE) examination. DE etiology was assigned post hoc by an expert panel, and those with and without significant DE-related signs were analyzed by univariate logistic regression. Possible DE etiologies were aqueous tear deficiency, SCL-induced tear instability, meibomian gland dysfunction, or "other." Wearers without signs that qualified for any DE etiology were designated as No DE Signs (NDES). RESULTS: Of the 226 SCL symptomatic wearers examined, 23% were without signs, 30% had aqueous tear deficiency, 25% had SCL-induced tear instability, 14% had meibomian gland dysfunction, and 8% had "other" diagnoses. The NDES wearers had significantly longer pre-lens break-up time (9.8 vs. 6.6 s, p < 0.0001), better lens wetting (3.4 vs. 2.4 0 to 4 scale, p < 0.0001), lower levels of film deposits on lenses (0.45 vs. 0.92, 0 to 4 scale, p < 0.0001), and of most slit lamp signs. The NDES wearers were significantly more likely to be male (36% vs.19%, p = 0.013), were less likely to have deteriorating comfort during the day (81% vs. 97%, p = 0.001), reported longer average hours of comfortable wear (11 ± 3 vs. 9 ± 4 h, p = 0.014), had older contact lenses (18 ± 14 vs. 13 ± 12 days, p = 0.029), and greater intensity of photophobia early and late in the day (p = 0.043 and 0.021). CONCLUSIONS: Symptoms of dryness in SCL wearers stem from a variety of underlying causes. However, nearly one-quarter of these symptomatic SCL wearers appear to be free of signs of dryness. The effective management of CL-related dryness requires a comprehensive range of clinical assessments and the use of a diverse range of management strategies.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: To report demographics, wearing patterns, and symptoms from soft contact lens (SCL) wearers with significant SCL-related dryness symptoms with and without significant ocular signs of dryness. METHODS: In a multicenter, prospective observational clinical trial, symptomatic SCL wearers reported significant SCL-related dryness via self-administered questionnaire of frequency and intensity of dryness after a dry eye (DE) examination. DE etiology was assigned post hoc by an expert panel, and those with and without significant DE-related signs were analyzed by univariate logistic regression. Possible DE etiologies were aqueous tear deficiency, SCL-induced tear instability, meibomian gland dysfunction, or "other." Wearers without signs that qualified for any DE etiology were designated as No DE Signs (NDES). RESULTS: Of the 226 SCL symptomatic wearers examined, 23% were without signs, 30% had aqueous tear deficiency, 25% had SCL-induced tear instability, 14% had meibomian gland dysfunction, and 8% had "other" diagnoses. The NDES wearers had significantly longer pre-lens break-up time (9.8 vs. 6.6 s, p < 0.0001), better lens wetting (3.4 vs. 2.4 0 to 4 scale, p < 0.0001), lower levels of film deposits on lenses (0.45 vs. 0.92, 0 to 4 scale, p < 0.0001), and of most slit lamp signs. The NDES wearers were significantly more likely to be male (36% vs.19%, p = 0.013), were less likely to have deteriorating comfort during the day (81% vs. 97%, p = 0.001), reported longer average hours of comfortable wear (11 ± 3 vs. 9 ± 4 h, p = 0.014), had older contact lenses (18 ± 14 vs. 13 ± 12 days, p = 0.029), and greater intensity of photophobia early and late in the day (p = 0.043 and 0.021). CONCLUSIONS: Symptoms of dryness in SCL wearers stem from a variety of underlying causes. However, nearly one-quarter of these symptomatic SCL wearers appear to be free of signs of dryness. The effective management of CL-related dryness requires a comprehensive range of clinical assessments and the use of a diverse range of management strategies.
Authors: Jason J Nichols; Christopher W Lievens; Marc R Bloomenstein; Haixia Liu; Peter Simmons; Joseph Vehige Journal: Optom Vis Sci Date: 2016-08 Impact factor: 1.973
Authors: Caroline A Blackie; Christy A Coleman; Kelly K Nichols; Lyndon Jones; Peter Q Chen; Ron Melton; David L Kading; Leslie E O'Dell; Sruthi Srinivasan Journal: Clin Ophthalmol Date: 2018-01-17