UV transmission for sunglasses and contact lenses is lower compared with samples tested 10 years ago. All samples of glasses, goggles and visors tested provided adequate protection in the UV range according to published arbitrary limits of acceptability. Most contact lenses did not provide significant UV protection in the UVA range.
Nine brands of contact lens marketed as "UV protective" were tested for ultraviolet (UV) transmission in order to assess potential suitability for psoralen-sensitised patients. UV-transmission characteristics of hydrated lenses was tested with a Bentham monochromator spectro-radiometer system. All lenses showed minimal transmission loss in the visible band. The performance of the nine lenses was uniform for ultraviolet B radiation with negligible transmission, but showed variation in transmission for ultraviolet A radiation. None of the lenses complied with UV-transmission criteria used previously to assess UV-blocking spectacles. Only two lenses had UV-blocking characteristics which came close to the arbitrary criteria used. The performance of ordinary soft and hard lenses was very similar, with negligible blocking of UV radiation. None of the nine contact lenses marketed as "UV protective" excluded sufficient UVA to comply with criteria in current use to assess UV protection in spectacles for psoralen-sensitised patients. However, the improved UV-blocking characteristics of contact lenses identified in this paper compared to previous studies suggests that such a contact lens will soon become available. Meanwhile, contact lens-wearing systemically sensitised PUVA patients should continue to wear approved spectacles for eye protection whilst photosensitised with psoralen.
PurposeTo evaluate the performance of delefilcon A water gradient and narafilcon A silicone hydrogel daily dispos-able contact lenses (CLs) in symptomatic soft CL wearers.
MethodsThis multicenter, open-label, crossover study randomized 121 soft CL wearers with symptoms of CL dis-comfort to delefilcon A or narafilcon A for 2 weeks, followed by the alternate lens for 2 weeks. Subjects rated end-of-day (EOD) comfort, EOD dryness, and quality of vision, and investigators rated fit, surface deposits, and surface wettability.
ResultsAfter 2 weeks, all subjective measures were better for delefilcon A than for narafilcon A, including EOD comfort (8.3 ± 1.9 vs. 6.6 ± 2.2), EOD dryness (8.0 ± 2.2 vs. 5.8 ± 2.6), and quality of vision (8.9 ± 1.4 vs. 7.9 ± 1.7), all p<.0001. Average daily wear time (DWT; 13.0 ± 2.8 vs. 12.3 ± 2.6 hr) and average comfort-able DWT (11.6 ± 3.9 vs. 9.3 ± 3.8 hr) were longer for delefilcon A lenses (p<.0001). The proportions of right and left lenses without front surface deposits were twofold higher for delefilcon A than for narafilcon A, and surface wettability was significantly higher for delefilcon A than for narafilcon A p<.0001).
ConclusionIn this population of symptomatic CL wearers, delefilcon A lenses showed superior subjective ratings for comfort, dryness, quality of vision, DWT, and comfortable DWT and better investigator-rated lens sur-face attributes including fewer surface deposits and superior wettability than did narafilcon A lenses after 2 weeks of wear.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.