Lid Wiper Epitheliopathy in Soft Contact Lens Wearers
Journal Articles
Overview
Research
Identity
Additional Document Info
View All
Overview
abstract
ABSTRACTPurposeTo evaluate lid wiper epitheliopathy (LWE) in soft contact lens (SCL) wearers on initial presentation and after using various SCL and solution combinations.MethodsLWE was assessed in 253 habitual SCL wearers who attended a screening visit at one of three study sites. LWE was assessed using lissamine green and sodium fluorescein dyes (Korb scale); a final LWE grade was calculated as the averaged LWE grade of the two dyes. Eligible habitual wearers continued into the four study periods, during which they wore one of three SCL types (etafilcon A, galyfilcon A, or senofilcon A) while using each of four care solutions for 10 to 14 days in randomized order. Statistical analyses were performed using linear mixed models, testing for differences in LWE for subject characteristics and between three multipurpose (MPS) test solutions (BioTrue, OPTI-FREE PureMoist, RevitaLens OcuTec) compared to a hydrogen peroxide (Clear Care) control solution.ResultsLWE was present in 85% of habitual SCL wearers. LWE was not different for age (p = 0.28), sex (p = 0.99), race (p = 0.34), and comfort (p = 0.38) and not correlated with refractive error (r = 0.07). LWE was lower in habitual senofilcon A wearers (least-squares (LS) mean ± SE = 0.82 ± 0.19) compared to wearers of lotrafilcon B (1.34 ± 0.20; p < 0.02), comfilcon A (1.41 ± 0.21; p < 0.01), and other (1.18 ± 0.16; p < 0.03). Two hundred three participants completed all four study solutions with their assigned lens type; LWE was not different between the MPSs compared to the peroxide control solution across lens materials, except for less LWE for BioTrue (0.88 ± 0.17) versus Clear Care for participants wearing galyfilcon A (1.11 ± 0.18; p < 0.01).ConclusionsOn initial presentation, LWE was present in 85% of habitual wearers and found to be independent of age, sex, race, comfort, and refractive error but dependent on habitual SCL type. There were no clinically meaningful differences in LWE between the MPSs and hydrogen peroxide solution for the three lens types studied.
