Albumin deposition on contact lenses could be detrimental to contact lens (CL) wear because this may increase the risk of bacterial binding and reduce comfort. Lysozyme deposition on selected lens materials would reduce albumin deposition on lenses.
This study aims to determine if lysozyme deposition on CLs could act as a barrier against subsequent albumin adsorption, using an in vitro model.
Six hydrogel CL materials (etafilcon A, polymacon, nelfilcon A, omafilcon A, ocufilcon B, and nesofilcon A) were evaluated. Four CLs of each type were soaked in lysozyme solution for 16 hours at 37°C. Lysozyme-coated lenses were then placed in vials with 1.5 mL of artificial tear solution containing 125I-labeled albumin for 16 hours at 37°C with shaking. Four uncoated lenses of each type were used as controls. Lenses soaked in radiolabeled albumin were rinsed in a phosphate-buffered saline solution, and radioactive counts were measured directly on lenses using a gamma counter. Albumin uptake on lenses was measured using a calibration curve by plotting radioactive counts versus protein concentration.
Results are reported as mean ± SD. Lysozyme-coated etafilcon A lenses exhibited lower levels of deposited albumin than uncoated etafilcon A lenses (58 ± 12 vs. 84 ± 5 ng/lens; P < .05). There were no differences in albumin adsorption between control (uncoated) and lysozyme-coated polymacon (105 ± 10 vs. 110 ± 34 ng/lens), nelfilcon A (51 ± 7 vs. 42 ± 20 ng/lens), omafilcon A (90 ± 20 vs. 80 ± 38 ng/lens), ocufilcon B (87 ± 20 vs. 115 ± 50 ng/lens), and nesofilcon A (170 ± 29 vs. 161 ± 10 ng/lens) lens materials (P > .05). Uncoated nesofilcon A lenses deposited the highest amount of albumin when compared with other uncoated lenses (P < .05).
This study demonstrates that lysozyme deposited onto etafilcon A resists the deposition of albumin, which may potentially be beneficial to CL wearers.
1Centre for Contact Lens Research (CCLR), School of Optometry and Vision Science, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada
2Johnson and Johnson Vision Care, Inc., Jacksonville, Florida *firstname.lastname@example.org
Submitted: February 28, 2017
Accepted: August 15, 2017
Funding/Support: Members of the CCLR have received research support or lectureship honoraria from the following companies: Advanced Vision Research, Alcon, Allergan, Contamac, CooperVision, Essilor, GL Chemtec, Inflamax Research, J&J Vision Care, Nature’s Way, Novartis, Ocular Dynamics, Oculus, Safilens, Santen, Shire, TearLab, TearScience.
Conflict of Interest Disclosure: LWJ is a consultant and/or serves on an advisory board for Alcon, CooperVision, J&J Vision Care, and Novartis. None of the authors have reported a conflict of interest related to the subject matter of this research.
Author Contrib utions: Conceptualization, Data Curation, Formal Analysis, Methodology, Writing – Original Draft, Writing – Review & Editing: NBO; Conceptualization, Data Curation, Writing – Review & Editing: LNS; Conceptualization, Data Curation, Formal Analysis, Writing – Review & Editing: MH; Conceptualization, Funding Acquisition, Writing – Review & Editing: ZF, CCB, LWJ.