No description available.

No description available.

Yes / All neophyte contact lens wearers require training on how to handle contact lenses. Currently, almost no published information exists describing the most common approaches used by those involved in such training in soft contact lens wearers. This study aimed to gather information on the approaches taken by those conducting this training worldwide. An online survey was created in English and translated to Spanish and distributed internationally via social media, conference attendees, and professional contacts. The anonymous survey included information on workplace setting of respondents, information about the typical approaches used for application and removal of soft contact lenses, length of the appointment, and success rate with their approach. Survey responses were received between May 2021 and April 2022. A total of 511 individuals completed the survey and responses were received from 31 countries with 48.7% from the UK. The most common approach taught for application was to have the patient hold the upper eyelashes (84.7%) and to hold the lower eyelid with the same hand as the lens (89.4%). Lenses were applied directly to the cornea by 57.7% of the respondents. The most common approach taught for lens removal was to drag the lens inferiorly from the cornea prior to removal (49.3%). Most respondents did not use videos to aid the teaching appointment (62.0%); however, they felt that their approach was successful in most cases (90). Application and removal training sessions lasted a median of 30 min and contact lenses were typically dispensed after the instructor witnessing successful application and removal three times. Various methods are adopted globally for training of application and removal of soft contact lenses, with many advising a patient-specific approach is required for success. The results of this survey provide novel insights into soft contact lens handling training in clinical practice. / British & Irish University and College Contact Lens Educators (BUCCLE) receives sponsorship from CooperVision, Alcon, Bausch + Lomb and Johnson and Johnson. No specific grant was received for this study, and no sponsors had any input or involvement within this project. Nery Garcia-Porta is supported financially by a Maria Zambrano contract at USC under the grants call for the requalification of the Spanish university system 2021–2023, funded by the European Union—Next Generation EU.

Human tear film is an accessible biospecimen rich with useful biological information. As tear protein biomarkers for both ocular and systemic diseases have been identified in tears, efforts are being made to create point-of-care tests useful for clinical diagnoses. However, there are significant obstacles to tear diagnostics, including inadequate sampling methods and biomarkers with insufficient sensitivity and specificity. Furthermore, tear film diagnostics are particularly challenging for dry eye disease (DED) patients, where low tear volume makes sampling more difficult and the multifactorial nature of DED makes identifying the exact pathological subtype very complex. As soft contact lenses (SCLs) are designed for optimal ocular surface interaction and concentrate proteins on the eye regardless of tear volume, we hypothesized that we could improve tear sampling methods for research and diagnostic purposes. We further hypothesized that we could identify new and existing and DED biomarkers using SCL tear film sampling. To begin, we demonstrate SCL sampling in vitro and then compare SCLs to other current tear sampling methods in vivo. Objectively, we observe that SCLs do not show signs of ocular surface irritation, regardless of previous SCL use. We also see that SCLs sample similar types and amounts of proteins relative to other methods. Subjective assessments of tear sampling methods are also made by subjects. Our results indicate that training and experience in tear sampling are key components which may significantly impact subject experience as well as the tear type collected. Next, we optimized our tear sampling method by comparing different SCLs materials in search of an ideal lens. Our data show that certain combinations of SCL materials and mass spectrometry (MS) sample preparation methods can lead to significant polymer contamination in MS. Furthermore, we observe individual protein binding specificity based on SCL chemistry. Our experiments reveal etafilcon A and verofilcon A lenses as the optimal SCL materials for tear film sampling. Finally, a pilot study in DED candidates using SCL sampling confirms the presence of previously reported biomarkers in DED subjects as well as identifies new biomarkers for future validation studies. We also correlate clinical metrics to biochemical findings and identify correlations between tear film homeostasis and pathologic phenotypes. Ultimately, these studies demonstrate SCL sampling is an advantageous alternative to current tear film sampling methods, useful for biomarker discovery, and potentially, clinical diagnostics.

No / Following aberroscopy, aspheric front surface soft contact lenses (SCLs) were custom-made to correct spherical refractive error and ocular spherical aberration (SA) of 18 myopic and five hypermetropic subjects (age, 20.5 . 5 yr). On-eye residual aberrations, logMAR visual acuity, and contrast sensitivity were compared with the best-correcting spectacle lens, an equally powered standard SCL, and an SCL designed to be aberration free in air. Custom-made and spherical SCLs reduced SA ( p . 0.001; p . 0.05) but did not change total root-meansquare (rms) wave-front aberration (WFA). Aberration-free SCLs increased SA ( p . 0.05), coma ( p . 0.05), and total rms WFA. Visual acuity remained unchanged with any of the SCL types compared with the spectacle lens correction. Contrast sensitivity at 6 cycles/degree improved with the custom-made SCLs ( p . 0.05). Increased coma with aspheric lens designs and uncorrected astigmatism limit the small possible visual benefit from correcting ocular SA with SCLs.

Yes / Objectives: To investigate the performance of a novel flat pack toric daily disposable contact lens compared with traditionally packaged toric lenses in a randomized, crossover study. Environmental attitudes to contact lens wear were also explored. Methods: Habitual contact lens wearers were recruited to wear a hioxifilcon A (Miru 1 day Flat Pack Toric, Menicon, Nagoya, Japan) test lens and a control lens: either nelfilcon A (Dailies AquaComfort Plus, Alcon, Geneva, Switzerland) or etafilcon A (1-Day Acuvue Moist, Johnson & Johnson, New Brunswick, NJ). Objective lens performance was assessed at fitting, and participants wore lenses in a randomized order for three consecutive days. Subjective measures of lens performance (comfort, vision, and handling) were then assessed by a questionnaire, with further questions on overall lens preference and environmental perceptions. Results: Objective measures of lens fit were similar for the test and control lenses, except for distance VA which was better with the control lenses (P<0.05; difference of two logMAR letters). End of day comfort was greater with the test lens, but this did not reach significance. Both lenses demonstrated similar scores for overall satisfaction. 87.5% of participants indicated the environmental impact of contact lenses to be important/extremely important to them, with 100% of participants identifying the flat pack packaging as having a smaller environmental impact. Conclusion: Overall, the lenses used in the study performed to similar levels. Environmental credentials are important to contact lens wearers, which may contribute to overall lens preference.

No description available.