Kısa gözyaşı kırılma zamanı olan hastalarda etafilcon A ve nesofilcon A’nın oküler konfor seviyeleri açısından kıyaslanması: prospektif karşılaştırmalı çalışma

Amaç: Meibomian bez disfonksiyonu (MBD) ve alerjik konjonktivit ile birlikte kısa noninvaziv gözyaşı kırılma zamanı (NIBUT) olan hastalarda iki farklı hidrojel günlük tek kullanımlık kontakt lensin (HyDDCL) oküler konfor seviyelerinin karşılaştırılması. Gereç ve Yöntem: Kontakt lens kullanımı öyküsü olmayan ve NIBUT'si kısa olan 50 hasta alerjik konjonktivit (grup 1) ve MBD (grup 2) bulgularına göre iki gruba alındı. Tüm hastalar sırasıyla hem etafilcon A hem de nesofilcon A kullandı. Hastalara her bir lens için OSDI (Ocular Surface Disease Index) ve CLDEQ-8 (Contact Lens Dry Eye Questionnaire-8) testleri yapıldı ve ortalama puanlar karşılaştırıldı. Ayrıca tüm hastaların her bir lensin kullanımına devam edilmesi ile ilgili kararları sorgulandı. Bulgular: OSDI ve CLDEQ-8 testlerinden elde edilen toplam puanların ortalaması nesofilcon A için istatistiksel olarak anlamlı derece daha düşüktü. Nesofilcon A için OSDI'nin tüm alt ölçeklerinin ve CLDEQ-8 testindeki kuruluk, rahatsızlık, bulanık görme ve gözlerin kapanması alt ölçeklerinin ortalama puanları daha düşüktü. Otuz altı (%72) hasta kullanıma devam etmek üzere nesofilcon A'yı tercih ederken kalan 10 (%20) hasta devam etmek için etafilcon A'yı tercih etti. Dört hasta ise (%8) her iki lensten de memnun kalmadı. Sonuç: HyDDCL'lerin hidrofilik yapısı ve düşük modulüsleri nedeniyle, etafilcon A ve nesofilcon A için memnuniyet oranı çalışma grubunda (%92) oldukça yüksek bulunmuştur. Bu nedenle oküler yüzey hastalıklarının eşlik ettiği durumlarda HyDDCL'ler uygun bir seçenek olabilir. Daha yüksek su içeriğine sahip hidrojel materyal varlığında oküler konfor seviyeleri çok daha iyi olmaktadır

Nesofilcon A versus etafilcon A on the ocular comfort levels in patients with short non-invasive break-up time: A prospective comparative study

Aim: The aim of the study was to compare the two different hydrogel daily disposable contact lenses (HyDDCLs) satisfaction levels in patients with meibomian gland disfunction (MGD) and allergic conjunctivitis accompanied with short noninvasive tear break-up time (NIBUT). Material and Methods: Fifty patients who had no history of contact lens and had short NIBUT were included to the study into two groups: allergic conjunctivitis findings (group 1) and MGD findings (group 2). All patients used both etafilcon A and nesofilcon A, respectively. The OSDI (Ocular Surface Disease Index) and CLDEQ-8 (Contact Lens Dry Eye Questionnaire- 8) tests were performed by the patients for each lens and the mean scores were compared. In addition, the decisions of all patients regarding the continued use of each lens were questioned. Results: The mean of total scores of OSDI and CLDEQ-8 were statistically lower in nesofilcon A, significantly. The mean scores of the all OSDI subscales and the CLDEQ-8 subscales of dryness, discomfort, blurred vision and closing eyes were lower in nesofilcon A. Four patients (8%) were not satisfied by any of the lenses. 36 (72%) patients preferred nesofilcon A and remaining 10 (20%) patients preferred etafilcon A to continue. Conclusion: Due to the hydrophilic structure and low modulus of the HyDDCLs, the satisfaction rate was found to be higher in the study group (92%). HyDDCLs could be a suitable option in cases where ocular surface diseases are accompanied. Hydrogel material with higher water content offers better comfort levels at the end of the day.

PDF

___

1. Hom, M.M., A.L. Nguyen and L. Bielory, Allergic conjunctivitis and dry eye syndrome. Annals of allergy, asthma & immunology : official publication of the American College of Allergy, Asthma, & Immunology, 2012. 108 (3): p. 163-6.
2. Garcia-Posadas, L., L. Contreras-Ruiz, L. Soriano-Romani, D.A. Dartt and Y. Diebold, Conjunctival Goblet Cell Function: Effect of Contact Lens Wear and Cytokines. Eye Contact Lens, 2016. 42 (2): p. 83-90.
3. Gomes, J.A.P., D.T. Azar, C. Baudouin, N. Efron, M. Hirayama, J. Horwath-Winter, et al., TFOS DEWS II iatrogenic report. Ocul Surf, 2017. 15 (3): p. 511-38.
4. Tagliaferri, A., T.E. Love and L.B. Szczotka-Flynn, Risk factors for contact lens-induced papillary conjunctivitis associated with silicone hydrogel contact lens wear. Eye & contact lens, 2014. 40 (3): p. 117-22.
5. Efron, N., P.B. Morgan, C.A. Woods and T.I.C.L.P.S. Consortium, An international survey of daily disposable contact lens prescribing. Clinical and Experimental Optometry, 2013. 96 (1): p. 58-64.
6. Igarashi, T., M. Kobayashi, C. Yaguchi, C. Fujimoto, H. Suzuki and H. Takahashi, Efficacy of Rebamipide Instillation for Contact Lens Discomfort With Dry Eye. Eye & contact lens, 2018. 44 Suppl 2 (2): p. S137-S142.
7. Varikooty, J., M.M. Schulze, K. Dumbleton, N. Keir, C.A. Woods, D. Fonn, et al., Clinical performance of three silicone hydrogel daily disposable lenses. Optom Vis Sci, 2015. 92 (3): p. 301-11.
8. Dumbleton, K., Noninflammatory silicone hydrogel contact lens complications. Eye Contact Lens, 2003. 29(1 Suppl): p. S186-9; discussion S190-1, S192-4.
9. Bron, A.J., C.S. de Paiva, S.K. Chauhan, S. Bonini, E.E. Gabison, S. Jain, et al., TFOS DEWS II pathophysiology report. Ocul Surf, 2017. 15 (3): p. 438-510.
10. Chen, L., L. Pi, J. Fang, X. Chen, N. Ke and Q. Liu, High incidence of dry eye in young children with allergic conjunctivitis in Southwest China. Acta Ophthalmol, 2016. 94 (8): p. e727-e30.
11. Bielory, L., L. Delgado, C.H. Katelaris, A. Leonardi, N. Rosario and P. Vichyanoud, ICON: Diagnosis and Management of Allergic Conjunctivitis. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol, 2019.
12. Wolffsohn, J.S., R. Arita, R. Chalmers, A. Djalilian, M. Dogru, K. Dumbleton, et al., TFOS DEWS II Diagnostic Methodology report. Ocul Surf, 2017. 15 (3): p. 539-74.
13. Quittner, A.L., S. Sweeny, M. Watrous, P. Munzenberger, K. Bearss, A.G. Nitza, et al., Translation and Linguistic Validation of a Disease-Specific Quality of Life Measure for Cystic Fibrosis. Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 2000. 25 (6): p. 403-14.
14. Schiffman, R.M., M.D. Christianson, G. Jacobsen, J.D. Hirsch and B.L. Reis, Reliability and Validity of the Ocular Surface Disease Index. Archives of Ophthalmology, 2000. 118 (5): p. 615-21. 15. Stapleton, F., M. Alves, V.Y. Bunya, I. Jalbert, K. Lekhanont, F. Malet, et al., TFOS DEWS II Epidemiology Report. Ocul Surf, 2017. 15 (3): p. 334-65.
16. Mathers, W.D. and M. Billborough, Meibomian gland function and giant papillary conjunctivitis. Am J Ophthalmol, 1992. 114 (2): p. 188-92.
17. Knop, E., N. Knop, T. Millar, H. Obata and D.A. Sullivan, The international workshop on meibomian gland dysfunction: report of the subcommittee on anatomy, physiology, and pathophysiology of the meibomian gland. Investigative ophthalmology & visual science, 2011. 52 (4): p. 1938-78.
18. Molina, K., A.D. Graham, T. Yeh, M. Lerma, W. Li, V. Tse, et al., Not All Dry Eye in Contact Lens Wear Is Contact Lens-Induced. Eye Contact Lens, 2019.
19. Kojima, T., Contact Lens-Associated Dry Eye Disease: Recent Advances Worldwide and in Japan. Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science, 2018. 59 (14): p. DES102-DES108.
20. Tagliaferri, A., T.E. Love and L.B. Szczotka-Flynn, Risk factors for contact lens-induced papillary conjunctivitis associated with silicone hydrogel contact lens wear. Eye Contact Lens, 2014. 40 (3): p. 117-22.
21. Alghamdi, W.M., M. Markoulli, B.A. Holden and E.B. Papas, Impact of duration of contact lens wear on the structure and function of the meibomian glands. Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists), 2016. 36 (2): p. 120-31.
22. Saliman, N.H., P.B. Morgan, A.S. MacDonald and C. Maldonado-Codina, Subclinical Inflammation of the Ocular Surface in Soft Contact Lens Wear. Cornea, 2019.
23. Chao, C., F. Stapleton, M.D.P. Willcox, B. Golebiowski and K. Richdale, Preinflammatory Signs in Established Reusable and Disposable Contact Lens Wearers. Optom Vis Sci, 2017. 94 (11): p. 1003-8.
24. Peterson, R.C., J.S. Wolffsohn, J. Nick, L. Winterton and J. Lally, Clinical performance of daily disposable soft contact lenses using sustained release technology. Cont Lens Anterior Eye, 2006. 29 (3): p. 127-34.
25. Dumbleton, K., Adverse events with silicone hydrogel continuous wear. Cont Lens Anterior Eye, 2002. 25 (3): p. 137-46.
26. Chalmers, R.L., S.B. Hickson-Curran, L. Keay, W.J. Gleason and R. Albright, Rates of adverse events with hydrogel and silicone hydrogel daily disposable lenses in a large postmarket surveillance registry: the TEMPO Registry. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci, 2015. 56 (1): p. 654-63.
27. Ngai, V., J. Medley, L. Jones, J. Forrest and J. Teiehroeb, Friction of contact lenses: silicone hydrogel versus conventional hydrogel, in Tribology and Interface Engineering Series. 2005, Elsevier. p. 371-9.
28. Schafer, J., R. Steffen, T. Vaz and W. Reindel, Comparing on eye dehydration and corneal staining of three daily disposable contact lenses in a low humidity environment. Contact Lens and Anterior Eye, 2012. 35: p. e12.
29. Schafer, J., R. Steffen, W. Reindel and J. Chinn, Evaluation of surface water characteristics of novel daily disposable contact lens materials, using refractive index shifts after wear. Clin Ophthalmol, 2015. 9: p. 1973-9.
30. Schafer, J., R. Steffen, T. Vaz and W. Reindel, Comparing on eye dehydration and corneal staining of two high water hydrogel contact lenses in a low humidity environment. Optom Vis Sci, 2011. 88: p. e.
31. Saxon, J., M.J. Rah and W.T. Reindel, Satisfaction of astigmatic patients with toric nesofilcon A contact lenses. Clin Optom (Auckl), 2019. 11: p. 1-10.