Randomised controlled trial of HOYA one-day multifocal contact lenses: The HOMCL trial.

Bruce Jw Evans, Robert Yammouni, Fabrizio Zeri, Silvia Tavazzi, Giulia Carlotta Rizzo, Bo Lauenborg, Rasmus Hagenau, Amanda Wittendorf, Manuela Eckert Andersen, Dimple Shah, Natalia Vlasak
Author Information
  1. Bruce Jw Evans: Institute of Optometry, 56-62 Newington Causeway, London, SE1 6DS, UK.
  2. Robert Yammouni: Institute of Optometry, 56-62 Newington Causeway, London, SE1 6DS, UK.
  3. Fabrizio Zeri: Department of Materials Science, University of Milano-Bicocca, Via Roberto Cozzi, 55, 20125, Milan, Italy.
  4. Silvia Tavazzi: Department of Materials Science, University of Milano-Bicocca, Via Roberto Cozzi, 55, 20125, Milan, Italy.
  5. Giulia Carlotta Rizzo: Department of Materials Science, University of Milano-Bicocca, Via Roberto Cozzi, 55, 20125, Milan, Italy.
  6. Bo Lauenborg: Kontaktlinse Instituttet, Ferdinand Sallings Stræde 6-18, 8000, Århus C, Denmark.
  7. Rasmus Hagenau: Kontaktlinse Instituttet, Ferdinand Sallings Stræde 6-18, 8000, Århus C, Denmark.
  8. Amanda Wittendorf: Kontaktlinse Instituttet, Ferdinand Sallings Stræde 6-18, 8000, Århus C, Denmark.
  9. Manuela Eckert Andersen: Kontaktlinse Instituttet, Ferdinand Sallings Stræde 6-18, 8000, Århus C, Denmark.
  10. Dimple Shah: HOYA Vision Care, Radarweg 29, 1043 NX, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
  11. Natalia Vlasak: HOYA Vision Care, Radarweg 29, 1043 NX, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.

Abstract

Trial design: Double-masked crossover RCT (Research Registry: #8136) comparison of a new HOYA one-day disposable multifocal contact lens (HOMCL) with Alcon DAILIES TOTAL1® Multifocal (ADT1).
Methods: Sixty presbyopic participants from three countries attended for baseline measurements and fitting of both lens types and then for a fortnight completed daily diaries of symptoms with habitual optical correction, and VF-14 questionnaire. Participants collected either HOMCL or ADT1, when the vision was measured again, and they wore this product for a fortnight, completing daily diaries and VF-14. Participants then collected the other type and had vision and symptoms recorded in the same way.
Results: There were no serious adverse events. Primary outcomes were no significant differences between the lens types in willingness to purchase nor stated preference; no significant differences in the daily symptom ratings of comfort; statistically significant findings with the daily symptom ratings and VF-14 of better near vision with HOMCL and better distance vision with ADT1. Secondary outcomes were better high contrast distance visual acuity with ADT1 (<1 line), better low contrast distance visual acuity with ADT1; faster Wilkins rate of reading test with HOMCL; no significant differences in near visual acuity, wearing time, or number of lenses required during fitting process. Exploratory analyses were better handling scores with ADT1; and some, but not all of the dry eye data indicating better acceptance of HOMCL by patients with relatively dry eyes. For all measures, there were some participants who preferred/performed better with each lens type.
Conclusions: The differences between the performance of the two products were small. There was a trend in some clinical measurements and the daily diary data and VF-14 questionnaire, for HOMCL to outperform ADT1 for near vision and vice versa for distance vision.

References

  1. Eye Contact Lens. 2019 Nov;45(6):382-389 [PMID: 31008825]
  2. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt. 1996 Nov;16(6):491-7 [PMID: 8944196]
  3. Clin Exp Optom. 2015 Sep;98(5):451-8 [PMID: 26390908]
  4. Optom Vis Sci. 2015 Feb;92(2):175-82 [PMID: 25525891]
  5. Strabismus. 2015;23(2):51-65 [PMID: 26158471]
  6. Transl Vis Sci Technol. 2021 Sep 1;10(11):5 [PMID: 34473222]
  7. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt. 2023 Jul;43(4):629-639 [PMID: 36999924]
  8. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2011 Nov 21;52(12):8919-26 [PMID: 22025576]
  9. Eye Contact Lens. 2009 Sep;35(5):221-6 [PMID: 19675462]
  10. Eye Contact Lens. 2009 May;35(3):144-8 [PMID: 19421021]
  11. Health Technol Assess. 2023 Oct;27(20):1-58 [PMID: 37982521]
  12. Clin Exp Optom. 2020 Jan;103(1):21-30 [PMID: 31734940]
  13. PLoS Biol. 2015 Apr 22;13(4):e1002128 [PMID: 25901488]
  14. Diagnostics (Basel). 2023 Dec 12;13(24): [PMID: 38132226]
  15. Clin Ophthalmol. 2023 Oct 30;17:3235-3241 [PMID: 37927572]
  16. Lancet Reg Health Southeast Asia. 2023 May;12:100198 [PMID: 37163147]
  17. Eur Heart J. 2012 Jun;33(11):1318-24 [PMID: 22564354]
  18. J Ophthalmol. 2020 Mar 27;2020:8067657 [PMID: 32318285]
  19. Eur J Epidemiol. 2021 Nov;36(11):1103-1109 [PMID: 34792692]
  20. Heart. 2020 Jan;106(2):99-104 [PMID: 31672779]
  21. J Optom. 2020 Jan - Mar;13(1):15-28 [PMID: 30772211]
  22. J R Soc Med. 2017 May;110(5):208-218 [PMID: 28504072]
  23. Optom Vis Sci. 2012 May;89(5):E760-9 [PMID: 22488268]
  24. J Clin Epidemiol. 2009 May;62(5):464-75 [PMID: 19348971]
  25. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt. 2001 Jan;21(1):17-29 [PMID: 11220037]
  26. J Nurs Res. 2014 Sep;22(3):216-20 [PMID: 25111115]
  27. Trials. 2020 Feb 6;21(1):145 [PMID: 32029000]
  28. Br J Ophthalmol. 2005 Oct;89(10):1278-81 [PMID: 16170116]
  29. Perspect Clin Res. 2022 Apr-Jun;13(2):114-117 [PMID: 35573452]
  30. Br J Ophthalmol. 1999 May;83(5):519-23 [PMID: 10216047]
  31. Cont Lens Anterior Eye. 2016 Oct;39(5):322-30 [PMID: 27237964]
  32. Strabismus. 2010 Jun;18(2):67-71 [PMID: 20521882]
  33. Cont Lens Anterior Eye. 2007 Jul;30(3):174-82 [PMID: 17293157]
  34. Clin Exp Optom. 2017 Mar;100(2):107-127 [PMID: 27800638]
  35. Arch Dis Child. 2018 Nov;103(11):1067-1075 [PMID: 29794107]
  36. Eye Contact Lens. 2018 Sep;44 Suppl 1:S131-S137 [PMID: 28060146]
  37. Wellcome Open Res. 2019 Dec 18;4:207 [PMID: 32420455]
  38. J Patient Rep Outcomes. 2024 Feb 8;8(1):16 [PMID: 38329635]
  39. Eye (Lond). 2001 Dec;15(Pt 6):739-44 [PMID: 11826994]
  40. Cont Lens Anterior Eye. 2024 Apr;47(2):102105 [PMID: 38216392]
  41. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt. 1997 Nov;17(6):492-8 [PMID: 9666923]
  42. Eye Contact Lens. 2017 Nov;43(6):340-345 [PMID: 27243350]
  43. Clin Microbiol Infect. 2022 May;28(5):640-648 [PMID: 34763055]
  44. Clin Exp Optom. 2011 Mar;94(2):193-9 [PMID: 21175821]
  45. Cont Lens Anterior Eye. 2021 Feb;44(1):14-17 [PMID: 32873461]
  46. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt. 2014 Jan;34(1):8-29 [PMID: 24205890]
  47. Cont Lens Anterior Eye. 2024 Jun;47(3):102137 [PMID: 38485618]
  48. Implement Sci. 2014 Aug 28;9:96 [PMID: 25163664]
  49. Optom Vis Sci. 2013 Mar;90(3):228-35 [PMID: 23376896]
  50. J Clin Epidemiol. 2009 May;62(5):499-505 [PMID: 19348976]
  51. Psychol Med. 1988 Nov;18(4):1007-19 [PMID: 3078045]
  52. Ophthalmic Epidemiol. 2007 Jul-Aug;14(4):198-204 [PMID: 17896298]
  53. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt. 1998 Mar;18(2):182-6 [PMID: 9692040]
  54. Dialogues Clin Neurosci. 2011;13(2):217-24 [PMID: 21842619]
  55. Clin Sci (Lond). 2022 Aug 12;136(15):1139-1156 [PMID: 35822444]
  56. Br J Sports Med. 2022 Jun;56(12):683-691 [PMID: 35193854]
  57. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt. 2004 May;24(3):181-5 [PMID: 15130166]
  58. Arch Ophthalmol. 2007 Nov;125(11):1471-7 [PMID: 17998508]
  59. Behav Res Methods. 2008 Aug;40(3):699-704 [PMID: 18697664]
  60. Optom Vis Sci. 2006 May;83(5):266-73 [PMID: 16699438]
  61. Cont Lens Anterior Eye. 2018 Aug;41(4):335-341 [PMID: 29426803]
  62. J Gen Intern Med. 2024 Oct;39(13):2522-2530 [PMID: 38954320]
  63. BMJ Open. 2024 Aug 24;14(8):e089587 [PMID: 39181565]
  64. Cont Lens Anterior Eye. 2012 Oct;35(5):196-8 [PMID: 22831805]
  65. Clin Trials. 2020 Dec;17(6):723-728 [PMID: 32838556]
  66. Br J Ophthalmol. 2008 Jul;92(7):912-5 [PMID: 18556424]
  67. Hum Reprod. 2022 Nov 24;37(12):2735-2742 [PMID: 36287636]
  68. BMJ. 2019 Jul 31;366:l4378 [PMID: 31366597]
  69. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt. 2016 Nov;36(6):643-648 [PMID: 27790772]
  70. Optom Vis Sci. 2006 Aug;83(8):611-5 [PMID: 16909087]
  71. Cont Lens Anterior Eye. 2024 Aug;47(4):102156 [PMID: 38641525]
  72. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt. 2019 Jan;39(1):37-45 [PMID: 30628741]
  73. Optom Vis Sci. 2009 Jul;86(7):875-82 [PMID: 19543136]

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0HOMCLADT1bettervisiondailylensVF-14significantdifferencesdistancenearvisualacuityHOYAone-daymultifocalcontactparticipantsmeasurementsfittingtypesfortnightdiariessymptomsquestionnaireParticipantscollectedtypeoutcomessymptomratingscontrastdrydatatrialTrialdesign:Double-maskedcrossoverRCTResearchRegistry:#8136comparisonnewdisposableAlconDAILIESTOTAL1®MultifocalMethods:SixtypresbyopicthreecountriesattendedbaselinecompletedhabitualopticalcorrectioneithermeasuredworeproductcompletingrecordedwayResults:seriousadverseeventsPrimarywillingnesspurchasestatedpreferencecomfortstatisticallyfindingsSecondaryhigh<1linelowfasterWilkinsratereadingtestwearingtimenumberlensesrequiredprocessExploratoryanalyseshandlingscoreseyeindicatingacceptancepatientsrelativelyeyesmeasurespreferred/performedConclusions:performancetwoproductssmalltrendclinicaldiaryoutperformviceversaRandomisedcontrolledlenses:

Similar Articles

Cited By