- Email: [email protected]
Optifree puremoist contact lens disinfecting solution vs blister pack: objective and subjective evaluation
e26
Abstracts / Contact Lens & Anterior Eye 35S (2012) e1–e32
rospectively. All studies followed a similar protocol. SICS and CIE incidences were reported as first-event occurrence per 100 participant-months. Analysed cases were used for one month and number colony forming units of GNB counted after culture. Antibacterial cases were used with Synergi, polypropylene with CRL, Biotrue and AQuify. Rates were compared using Fisher’s exact test with Bonferroni adjustment for multiple comparisons. Statistical significance was set at p < 0.05. Results: Percentage rates for SICS/CIE/GNBCC for each LCP were AOSP: 0.9/0/–, Synergi: 0.9/0/1.4, CRL: 5.1/0/11.8, Biotrue: 29.0/1.8/15.9, AQuify: 21.9/4.0/28.8. The oxidative LCPs (AOSP/Synergi) were significantly lower than PHMB containing LCPs for SICS (0.9% vs 25.6%, p < 0.001), CIEs (0% vs 2.8%, p = 0.01) and GNBCC (1.4% vs 21.9%, p < 0.001). Oxidative LCPs were significantly lower than the alexidine containing LCP for SICS (5.1%, p = 0.04) and GNBCC (Synergi only) (11.8%, p = 0.02) but not CIEs (0%, p > 0.05). The alexidine LCP was significantly lower than PHMB LCPs for SICS (p < 0.001) but not CIEs (p > 0.05) or GNBCC (p > 0.05). Conclusions: When used with balafilcon A, oxidative LCPs have lower rates of SICS. Efficacy against GNBCC might reduce CIE incidence. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.clae.2012.08.080 78 Can contact lens wearers improve comfort by changing contact lens products? Daniel Tilia ∗ , Percy Lazon de la Jara, Nikki Peng, Rachael Peterson, Brien Holden, Eric Papas Brien Holden Vision Institute, Sydney, Australia E-mail address: [email protected] (D. Tilia)
∗
Purpose: To determine whether changes to the prescribed contact lens/care system are subjectively discernible to wearers. Method: Twenty-four symptomatic and 13 non-symptomatic contact lens wearers were enrolled in a prospective, single-masked, cross-over, randomised clinical trial. At baseline, quality of life (QOL) was assessed with the multidimensional BHVI QOL Scale. Subjects wore both of two lens/care system combinations for eight days each in random order. Combination 1 was Galyfilcon A (J&J) with AQuify (CIBA) and combination 2 was Balafilcon A (B + L) with OPTI-FREE RepleniSH (Alcon). These were chosen on the basis of prior performance studies conducted at Brien Holden Vision Institute, where they were rated as having significantly different group comfort responses. Ocular comfort and dryness were assessed using a numeric grading scale (1–10) at insertion and after 2 and 8 hours of wear on days 2, 4 and 6 while ocular symptoms were rated after 8 hours of wear. Results: The QOL Scale detected a significantly higher frequency of disturbing visual and ocular symptoms in the symptomatic group (p = 0.013). Symptomatic subjects rated Combination 1 significantly higher than Combination 2 for ocular comfort at insertion (8.6 ± 1.0 vs 7.9 ± 1.5, p = 0.028) and both ocular comfort (7.5 ± 1.6 vs 7.0 ± 1.6, p = 0.045) and ocular dryness (7.7 ± 1.3 vs 7.1 ± 1.5, p = 0.01) after 8 hours of wear, with less frequent symptoms of ocular dryness (p < 0.01) and lens awareness (p < 0.01). No significant differences in ocular comfort, dryness or symptoms between combinations were found in non-symptomatic subjects. Conclusions: The intensity and frequency of ocular symptoms during contact lens wear can be modulated but only in subjects who are initially symptomatic. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.clae.2012.08.081
79 Optifree puremoist contact lens disinfecting solution vs blister pack: objective and subjective evaluation Balamurali V. Vasudevan 1,∗ , Sara Gaib 1 , Scott Schatz 2 1
Midwestern University, Glendale, United States Nova Southeastern University College of Arts and Sciences, Fort Lauderdale, United States ∗ E-mail address: [email protected] (B.V. Vasudevan) 2
Purpose: To study both objectively and subjectively the effect of Optifree Puremoist contact lens disinfecting solution on the ocular surface in the presence of either a hydrogel or a silicone hydrogel soft contact lens. Method: Eleven subjects (22 eyes) were examined for this study over 2 visits. Subjects were fit (randomised) with either a hydrogel lens or silicone hydrogel lens in either eye. The lenses either were pre-soaked in Puremoist or were obtained from the blister pack (randomised). Initial measurement of corneal topography and aberrations were obtained immediately after the lenses were inserted and 8 hrs later as a follow up. Subjective feedback on discomfort, burning, dryness and irritation on a scale of 1–5 was also obtained. Results: Paired t-tests revealed no significant differences in the root mean square (RMS) of higher order corneal aberrations between initial fit and follow up for Purevision lenses soaked in Puremoist (t = 1.46, p = 0.17), Purevision lenses from the blister pack (t = 1.78, p = 0.10), Proclear lenses soaked in Puremoist (t = 0.78, p = 0.45), and Proclear lenses from the blister pack (t = 1.31, p = 0.22). There were no significant differences between Proclear and Purevision lenses obtained from the blister pack (t = 1.44, p = 0.18) or soaked in Puremoist (t = 1.07, p = 0.30). In addition, there was no significant difference in the subjective rating between for any of the combinations. Conclusions: Both objectively and subjectively, there was no difference between Puremoist and the blister pack solution when comparing the initial assessment at lens application and after 8 hrs of contact lens wear. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.clae.2012.08.082 80 Evaluation of multipurpose solutions for in vitro biocidal efficacy against the ISO specified organisms and various microbial isolates including antibiotic resistant strains Patricia A. Walsh ∗ , David C. David, Denise Callahan, Susan Norton Bausch & Lomb, Inc, Rochester, USA E-mail address: Patricia a [email protected] (P.A. Walsh)
∗
Purpose: To evaluate several Multipurpose Solutions (MPS) against the organism strains referenced in ISO Standard14729 and microbial strains of Stenotrophomonas maltophilia, quinoloneresistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Klebsiella pneumoniae, methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA), Escherichia coli, Achromobacter xylosoxidans, Listeria monocytogenes, Bacillus cereus and Ralstonia pickettii. Method: Testing was performed according to methods described in ISO Standard 14729 to evaluate the biocidal efficacy of several MPS against the ISO strains and an array of non-standard microbial isolates. Isolates were prepared by using approximately 5 × 105 colony forming units (CFU)/mL as the challenge inoculum for separate tests of each solution. Testing was completed on three separate lots for each solution evaluated.
Abstracts / Contact Lens & Anterior Eye 35S (2012) e1–e32
rospectively. All studies followed a similar protocol. SICS and CIE incidences were reported as first-event occurrence per 100 participant-months. Analysed cases were used for one month and number colony forming units of GNB counted after culture. Antibacterial cases were used with Synergi, polypropylene with CRL, Biotrue and AQuify. Rates were compared using Fisher’s exact test with Bonferroni adjustment for multiple comparisons. Statistical significance was set at p < 0.05. Results: Percentage rates for SICS/CIE/GNBCC for each LCP were AOSP: 0.9/0/–, Synergi: 0.9/0/1.4, CRL: 5.1/0/11.8, Biotrue: 29.0/1.8/15.9, AQuify: 21.9/4.0/28.8. The oxidative LCPs (AOSP/Synergi) were significantly lower than PHMB containing LCPs for SICS (0.9% vs 25.6%, p < 0.001), CIEs (0% vs 2.8%, p = 0.01) and GNBCC (1.4% vs 21.9%, p < 0.001). Oxidative LCPs were significantly lower than the alexidine containing LCP for SICS (5.1%, p = 0.04) and GNBCC (Synergi only) (11.8%, p = 0.02) but not CIEs (0%, p > 0.05). The alexidine LCP was significantly lower than PHMB LCPs for SICS (p < 0.001) but not CIEs (p > 0.05) or GNBCC (p > 0.05). Conclusions: When used with balafilcon A, oxidative LCPs have lower rates of SICS. Efficacy against GNBCC might reduce CIE incidence. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.clae.2012.08.080 78 Can contact lens wearers improve comfort by changing contact lens products? Daniel Tilia ∗ , Percy Lazon de la Jara, Nikki Peng, Rachael Peterson, Brien Holden, Eric Papas Brien Holden Vision Institute, Sydney, Australia E-mail address: [email protected] (D. Tilia)
∗
Purpose: To determine whether changes to the prescribed contact lens/care system are subjectively discernible to wearers. Method: Twenty-four symptomatic and 13 non-symptomatic contact lens wearers were enrolled in a prospective, single-masked, cross-over, randomised clinical trial. At baseline, quality of life (QOL) was assessed with the multidimensional BHVI QOL Scale. Subjects wore both of two lens/care system combinations for eight days each in random order. Combination 1 was Galyfilcon A (J&J) with AQuify (CIBA) and combination 2 was Balafilcon A (B + L) with OPTI-FREE RepleniSH (Alcon). These were chosen on the basis of prior performance studies conducted at Brien Holden Vision Institute, where they were rated as having significantly different group comfort responses. Ocular comfort and dryness were assessed using a numeric grading scale (1–10) at insertion and after 2 and 8 hours of wear on days 2, 4 and 6 while ocular symptoms were rated after 8 hours of wear. Results: The QOL Scale detected a significantly higher frequency of disturbing visual and ocular symptoms in the symptomatic group (p = 0.013). Symptomatic subjects rated Combination 1 significantly higher than Combination 2 for ocular comfort at insertion (8.6 ± 1.0 vs 7.9 ± 1.5, p = 0.028) and both ocular comfort (7.5 ± 1.6 vs 7.0 ± 1.6, p = 0.045) and ocular dryness (7.7 ± 1.3 vs 7.1 ± 1.5, p = 0.01) after 8 hours of wear, with less frequent symptoms of ocular dryness (p < 0.01) and lens awareness (p < 0.01). No significant differences in ocular comfort, dryness or symptoms between combinations were found in non-symptomatic subjects. Conclusions: The intensity and frequency of ocular symptoms during contact lens wear can be modulated but only in subjects who are initially symptomatic. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.clae.2012.08.081
79 Optifree puremoist contact lens disinfecting solution vs blister pack: objective and subjective evaluation Balamurali V. Vasudevan 1,∗ , Sara Gaib 1 , Scott Schatz 2 1
Midwestern University, Glendale, United States Nova Southeastern University College of Arts and Sciences, Fort Lauderdale, United States ∗ E-mail address: [email protected] (B.V. Vasudevan) 2
Purpose: To study both objectively and subjectively the effect of Optifree Puremoist contact lens disinfecting solution on the ocular surface in the presence of either a hydrogel or a silicone hydrogel soft contact lens. Method: Eleven subjects (22 eyes) were examined for this study over 2 visits. Subjects were fit (randomised) with either a hydrogel lens or silicone hydrogel lens in either eye. The lenses either were pre-soaked in Puremoist or were obtained from the blister pack (randomised). Initial measurement of corneal topography and aberrations were obtained immediately after the lenses were inserted and 8 hrs later as a follow up. Subjective feedback on discomfort, burning, dryness and irritation on a scale of 1–5 was also obtained. Results: Paired t-tests revealed no significant differences in the root mean square (RMS) of higher order corneal aberrations between initial fit and follow up for Purevision lenses soaked in Puremoist (t = 1.46, p = 0.17), Purevision lenses from the blister pack (t = 1.78, p = 0.10), Proclear lenses soaked in Puremoist (t = 0.78, p = 0.45), and Proclear lenses from the blister pack (t = 1.31, p = 0.22). There were no significant differences between Proclear and Purevision lenses obtained from the blister pack (t = 1.44, p = 0.18) or soaked in Puremoist (t = 1.07, p = 0.30). In addition, there was no significant difference in the subjective rating between for any of the combinations. Conclusions: Both objectively and subjectively, there was no difference between Puremoist and the blister pack solution when comparing the initial assessment at lens application and after 8 hrs of contact lens wear. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.clae.2012.08.082 80 Evaluation of multipurpose solutions for in vitro biocidal efficacy against the ISO specified organisms and various microbial isolates including antibiotic resistant strains Patricia A. Walsh ∗ , David C. David, Denise Callahan, Susan Norton Bausch & Lomb, Inc, Rochester, USA E-mail address: Patricia a [email protected] (P.A. Walsh)
∗
Purpose: To evaluate several Multipurpose Solutions (MPS) against the organism strains referenced in ISO Standard14729 and microbial strains of Stenotrophomonas maltophilia, quinoloneresistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Klebsiella pneumoniae, methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA), Escherichia coli, Achromobacter xylosoxidans, Listeria monocytogenes, Bacillus cereus and Ralstonia pickettii. Method: Testing was performed according to methods described in ISO Standard 14729 to evaluate the biocidal efficacy of several MPS against the ISO strains and an array of non-standard microbial isolates. Isolates were prepared by using approximately 5 × 105 colony forming units (CFU)/mL as the challenge inoculum for separate tests of each solution. Testing was completed on three separate lots for each solution evaluated.