Contact lens impact on quality of life in keratoconus patients:rigid gas permeable versus soft silicone-hydrogel keratoconus lenses

<b>AIM:</b>To determine the impact of rigid gas permeable (RGP) and silicone-hydrogel keratoconus lenses on the quality of life (QoL) in keratoconus (KCN) patients using the self-reported results from the Contact Lens Impact on Quality of Life (CLIQ) Questionnaire.<b>METHODS:</b>From January 2013 to April 2013, 27 consecutive KCN patients who wore RGP contact lenses (conflexair100 UV KE Zeiss-Wöhlk) or soft silicone-hydrogel contact lenses (SHCLs) for KCN (KeraSoft IC- Bausch&Lomb or Hydrocone Toris K–Swiss lens) completed the CLIQ questionnaire.<b>RESULTS:</b>The mean age of 27 patients was 29.6±8.0y. Fifteen patients were RGP user. The groups were comparable with respect to the mean patient age, sex, and mean K values (<i>P</i>=0.1, <i>P</i>=0.8 and <i>P</i>=0.1, respectively). The mean CLIQperson measure was 42.8±5.5 in RGP group and 39.6±5.5 in SHCLs for KCN group (<i>P</i>=0.06). CLIQperson measure was positively correlated with steep K value (<i>r</i>=0.301, <i>P</i>=0.04). When eyes were stratified by visual acuity with contact lenses, the mean CLIQperson measure was 42.01±5.6 in eyes with a visual acuity of 20/20-20/25 (<i>n</i>=44) and 38.4±5.26 in eyes with a visual acuity of 20/32 or less (<i>n</i>=10; <i>P</i>=0.097).<b>CONCLUSION:</b>RGP lenses and SHCLs for KCN have similar impact on QoL

Clinical Performance of Samfilcon A Contact Lenses in Intensive Digital Device Users: A Multicenter, Prospective Clinical Study

Introduction To evaluate patient satisfaction with samfilcon A contact lenses (CLs) in intensive digital device users with myopia and to compare patient satisfaction with samfilcon A lenses to prior experience with senofilcon A or lotrafilcon B CLs. Methods This was a comparative, prospective, national study conducted at 14 centers in Turkey. Subjects were adults aged 18 and 45 years with myopia (range -0.25 D to -6.00 D) who spend a minimum of 3 hours viewing digital devices (e.g., computer, smartphone). A subgroup of patients were habitual lens wearers (senofilcon A or lotrafilcon B lens wear for at least 6 months prior to enrollment). The primary assessment was patient satisfaction with samfilcon A lenses (0-100 Likert scale). Secondary assessments included patient satisfaction with samfilcon A lenses compared to patients' habitual lenses, investigator satisfaction with samfilcon A lenses and investigator-evaluated slit lamp examination findings. Results Samfilcon A lenses were given high overall ratings from both patients and investigators, with a low incidence of ocular symptoms. Overall, patients were highly satisfied with samfilcon A lenses for comfort, vision and overall performance, and stated that they would consider wearing these lenses in the future. Among habitual senofilcon A or lotrafilcon B lens wearers, samfilcon A lenses were rated significantly better than the habitual lenses in regard to comfort, vision and overall performance. Investigator assessments were also highly favorable, both at initial fit and after 4 weeks of follow-up, with no significant findings noted on slit lamp examination. Conclusion Samfilcon A lenses were rated highly by investigators in regard to fit, handling and slit lamp findings, and by novice and habitual lens wearers in regard to comfort, vision and overall performance. These results support the use of samfilcon A lenses among digital device users who seek day-long comfort and good visual acuity