Search

Purpose: To collect tear fluid biomarkers from contact lenses (CLs) and determine the impact of CL wear duration., Methods: Rabbits were fitted with commercial etafilcon A CLs, which were collected after 1 min, 4 and 8 h (n = 4/time point). Tear fluid proteins and cytokines were extracted from the CLs and quantified. An exploratory comparison was performed between CLs and Schirmer Strips (SS) for a 1 min duration., Results: The concentration of MUC5AC was significantly higher after 4 h of CL wear. The expression of all investigated cytokines (IL-1α, IL-1β, IL-8, IL-17A, IL-21, Leptin, MIP-1β, MMP-9, NCAM-1, and TNF-α) was detectable after 1 min of CL wear, and over time, all showed significant variations throughout the 8-h CL wear period. Notably, IL-1α significantly increased by 8 h of CL wear, while MMP-9 decreased. Albumin and lysozyme did not show significant variations with CL wear. Differences between CLs and SS after 1 min were statistically significant for albumin, Leptin, TNF-α, IL-1α, IL-1β, and IL-8., Conclusions: The duration of CL wear significantly affects the collection of some tear fluid biomarkers. Albumin, MUC5AC, and cytokines may have individual and synergistic diagnostic or prognostic potential. CLs and SS were similar for lysozyme and MUC5AC but differed in the collection of albumin and some cytokines. CLs are a viable tear fluid collection method for biomarker analyses and can be immediately added as a routine clinical test by being FDA-approved medical devices., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest N. Boychev, None; V. Yeung, None; M. Yang, None; L.N. Kanu, None; A.E. Ross, None; L. Kuang, None; L. Chen, None; J.B. Ciolino, None., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: A survey in 2015 identified a high level of eye care practitioner concern about myopia with a reported moderately high level of activity, but the vast majority still prescribed single vision interventions to young myopes. This research aimed to update these findings 4 years later., Methods: A self-administrated, internet-based questionnaire was distributed in eight languages, through professional bodies to eye care practitioners globally. The questions examined: awareness of increasing myopia prevalence, perceived efficacy of available strategies and adoption levels of such strategies, and reasons for not adopting specific strategies., Results: Of the 1336 respondents, concern was highest (9.0 ± 1.6; p < 0.001) in Asia and lowest (7.6 ± 2.2; p < 0.001) in Australasia. Practitioners from Asia also considered their clinical practice of myopia control to be the most active (7.7 ± 2.3; p < 0.001), the North American practitioners being the least active (6.3 ± 2.9; p < 0.001). Orthokeratology was perceived to be the most effective method of myopia control, followed by pharmaceutical approaches and approved myopia control soft contact lenses (p < 0.001). Although significant intra-regional differences existed, overall, most practitioners did not consider single-vision distance under-correction to be an effective strategy for attenuating myopia progression (79.6 %), but prescribed single vision spectacles or contact lenses as the primary mode of correction for myopic patients (63.6 ± 21.8 %). The main justifications for their reluctance to prescribe alternatives to single vision refractive corrections were increased cost (20.6 %) and inadequate information (17.6 %)., Conclusions: While practitioner concern about myopia and the reported level of activity have increased over the last 4 years, the vast majority of eye care clinicians still prescribe single vision interventions to young myopes. With recent global consensus evidence-based guidelines having been published, it is hoped that this will inform the practice of myopia management in future., (Copyright © 2019 British Contact Lens Association. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: To investigate how initial HEMA and silicone-hydrogel (SiHy) contact lens fit on insertion, which informs prescribing decisions, reflect end of day fit., Methods: Thirty participants (aged 22.9±4.9 years) were fitted contralaterally with HEMA and SiHy contact lenses. Corneal topography and tear break-up time were assessed pre-lens wear. Centration, lag, post-blink movement during up-gaze and push-up recovery speed were recorded after 5,10,20min and 8h of contact lens wear by a digital slit-lamp biomicroscope camera, along with reported comfort. Lens fit metrics were analysed using bespoke software., Results: Comfort and centration were similar with the HEMA and SiHy lenses (p>0.05), but comfort decreased with time (p<0.01) whereas centration remained stable (F=0.036, p=0.991). Movement-on-blink and lag were greater with the HEMA than the SiHy lens (p<0.01), but movement-on-blink decreased with time after insertion (F=22.423, p<0.001) whereas lag remained stable (F=1.967, p=0.129). Push-up recovery speed was similar with the HEMA and the SiHy lens 5-20min after insertion (p>0.05), but was slower with SiHy after 8h wear (p=0.016). Lens movement on blink and push-up recovery speed was predictive of the movement after 8h of wear after 10-20min SiHy wear, but after 5 to 20min of HEMA lens wear., Conclusions: A HEMA or SiHy contact lens with poor movement on blink/push-up after at least 10min after insertion should be rejected., (Copyright © 2015 British Contact Lens Association. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)