Binocular resolution and stereoacuity improve from spectacles to RGP contact lenses in bilateral keratoconus, whereas only stereoacuity improves from spectacles to RGP contact lenses in unilateral keratoconus. The magnitude of improvement in visual performance is greater for the binocular compared with the unilateral keratoconus cohort.

Purpose To determine whether Mel4-coated antimicrobial contact lenses (MACLs) can reduce the incidence of corneal infiltrative events (CIEs) during extended wear. Methods A prospective, randomized, double-masked, single-center, contralateral, extended contact lens wear clinical trial was conducted with 176 subjects. Each participant was randomly assigned to wear a MACL in one eye and an uncoated control contact lens in the contralateral eye or an extended-wear biweekly disposable modality for 3 months. The main outcome measures were the incidence of CIEs per 100 eye-months, identification of the microbial types colonizing the contact lenses or eyes at the time of the CIEs, and their susceptibility to Mel4. Results Nine participants (5.1%) experienced unilateral CIEs; six participants had contact lens acute red eye, and three participants had infiltrative keratitis. The incidence rate for CIEs (0.4 events per 100 participant months; 1.7%) in the Mel4-coated lenses (test) was 69% less than that of the control lenses (1.3 events per 100 participant months; 3.4%; P = 0.29). All Gram-negative bacteria isolated from lenses and lids of participants with CIEs ( Citrobacter diversus , Acinetobacter haemolyticus , and Acinetobacter lwoffii ) were susceptible to Mel4 peptide; minimum inhibitory concentrations ranged from 15.6 to 62.5 µg/mL. Reduction of adhesion of these bacteria by Mel4-coated lenses ranged from 2.1 to 2.2 log 10 colony-forming units/lens. Conclusions MACLs had the capacity to reduce CIEs by at least 50% compared with uncoated control lenses during extended wear over 3 months; however, due to the relatively low rates of CIEs, the reduction was not statistically different compared with control lenses. Translational Relevance This study provides evidence that antimicrobial contact lenses have the potential to reduce the incidence of corneal infiltrative events during extended wear.

Contact lens wear is generally safe and provides excellent vision. However, contact lens wear is often associated with the risk of developing ocular surface infection and inflammation, and in severe cases, the infection can result in loss of vision. Antimicrobial peptide-coated contact lenses have been made to help reduce the incidence of infection and inflammation. This paper reviews the research progress from conception, through the laboratory and preclinical tests to the latest information on clinical testing of an antimicrobial contact lens. We provide insights into the pathways followed and pitfalls that have been encountered. The journey has not always been linear or smooth, but has resulted in some of the first published clinical testing of antimicrobial peptide-coated contact lenses in humans. We hope this may help lead to the development and commercialisation of antimicrobial contact lenses in the future.

No abstract

A clinical study of antimicrobial contact lenses containing the cationic peptide Mel4 was conducted. The few adverse events that occurred with this lens occurred on or after 13 nights of wear. The current study examined whether the Mel4 contact lenses lost activity during wear and the mechanism of this loss. Participants wore contact lenses for up to 13 nights. Lenses were tested for their ability to reduce the adhesion of Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Staphylococcus aureus. The amount of protein and lipid extracted from lenses was measured. The ability of trypsin to affect the antimicrobial activity of Mel4-coated contact lenses was measured. Mel4-coated contact lenses lost their antimicrobial activity at six nights of wear for both bacteria. The amount of lipids (13 ± 11 vs. 21 ± 14 μg/lens at 13 nights wear) and proteins (8 ± 4 vs. 10 ± 3 mg/lens at 13 nights of wear) extracted from lenses was not different between Mel4-coated and uncoated lenses, and was not different after three nights when antimicrobial activity was maintained and thirteen nights when they had lost activity (lipid: 25 ± 17 vs. 13 ± 11, p = 0.2; protein: 8 ± 1 vs. 8 ± 4 mg/lens, p = 0.4). Trypsin digestion eliminated the antimicrobial activity of Mel4-coated lenses. In summary, Mel4-coated contact lenses lost antibacterial activity at six nights of wear, and the most likely reason was proteolytic digestion of the peptide. Future studies will design and test proteolytically stable peptide mimics as coatings for contact lenses.