Lens care multipurpose solutions (MPSs) can have varying effects on contact lens (CL) surface properties and the corneal epithelium.
The aim of this study was to investigate the short-term effects of newer MPS on CL comfort and dryness, prelens tear-film stability, and ocular-surface health. In vitro study was also performed to assess the effect of MPSs on CL surface properties.
Acuvue 2 CLs were soaked in control solution, Clear Care (CC), or test solutions: PureMoist, Biotrue, RevitaLens (RL), or saline solution (SS). Over four visits, subjects were exposed to control solution in one eye and to test solution in the contralateral eye for 2 hours using presoaked CLs. Contact lens comfort and dryness, ocular-surface health assessment, prelens noninvasive tear breakup time, and corneal epithelial permeability measured with fluorometry were assessed. Captive-sessile bubble technique evaluated CL wettability and viscous drag in vitro.
At 10 minutes, mean comfort ± SD with PureMoist (76 ± 22) was lower than CC (86 ± 15, P = .02), Biotrue (92 ± 9, P < .005), RL (90 ± 13, P < .005), and SS (90 ± 14, P < .005). No other difference in comfort or dryness was noted. RevitaLens was associated with greater corneal epithelial permeability than CC (P = .020) and increased corneal staining compared with all MPSs (P < .005 for all). RevitaLens was also associated with longer prelens noninvasive tear breakup than CC (P < .005). In vitro results agreed with clinical findings of tear-film stability as RL reduced viscous drag. Contact lens surface wettability was enhanced by all MPSs in comparison to SS.
Differences of MPSs on the ocular surface were found in vivo and in vitro. RL caused the greatest corneal epithelium disruption but also associated with higher tear-film stability. The effect of MPSs on CL surface properties in vitro seems to reflect how MPSs altered prelens tear stability.
Supplemental digital content is available in the text.
1Clinical Research Center, School of Optometry, University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, California
2Vision Science Graduate Program, University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, California *email@example.com
Supplemental Digital Content: Appendix Table A1, the baseline values of the subjects in the study, is available at http://links.lww.com/OPX/A306. Appendix Table A2, results from the in vivo portion of the study with the multipurpose solutions (Clear Care, PureMoist, Biotrue, RevitaLens, or saline solution [SS]), is available at http://links.lww.com/OPX/A307. Each trial represents a control-test solution pairs (e.g., Clear Care vs. PureMoist); the order of the trial for each subject was based on a randomization table. Appendix Table A3, results from the in vitro portion of the study examining the influence of the multipurpose solutions on the contact lens surface in terms of surface tension, advancing water contact angle, adhesion tension, and expansion rate, is available at http://links.lww.com/OPX/A308. Surface tension and adhesion tension were measured in terms of millinewton per meter. Appendix Table A4, results from the in vitro portion of the study examining how multipurpose solutions and model tear electrolyte solution affect protein uptake, which was measured as microgram per lens, is available at http://links.lww.com/OPX/A309.
Submitted: February 13, 2017
Accepted: June 10, 2017
Funding/Support: Roberta Smith Research Fund (MCL); Clinical Research Center Unrestricted Fund (MCL).
Conflict of Interest Disclosure: None of the authors have reported a conflict of interest.
Author Contributions: Conceptualization: BK-W, TS, MCL; Data Curation: BK-W, WL, TS, MCL; Formal Analysis: BK-W, WL, TS, YZ, MCL; Investigation: BK-W, TY, WL, TS, YZ, MCL; Methodology: BK-W, TY, WL, TS, YZ, MCL; Project Administration: BK-W, TY, MCL; Resources: MCL; Supervision: BK-W, MCL; Visualization: BK-W, WL, TS, MCL; Writing – Original Draft: BK-W, TY, TS, YZ, MCL; Writing – Review & Editing: BK-W, WL, TS, YZ, MCL.