Connecting Contact Lenses and Digital Technology
Study Overview
Status
Status
Conditions
Conditions
Intervention / Treatment
Intervention / Treatment
Detailed Description
Study Type
Study Type
Enrollment (Actual)
Enrollment
Phase
Phase
- Not Applicable
Contacts and Locations
Study Locations
-
-
New York
-
New York, New York, United States, 10036
- SUNY College of Optometry
-
-
Participation Criteria
Eligibility Criteria
Eligibility Criteria
Ages Eligible for Study
Accepts Healthy Volunteers
Genders Eligible for Study
Description
Inclusion Criteria:
- 18 to 35 years of age
- Spectacle prescription of -0.75 to -6.00 D sphere with no more than 0.75 diopters of refractive cylinder
- Current single-vision soft contact lens wearer
- Monocular acuity of 20/25 or better in each eye (Snellen)
- Self-reported minimum of 6 hours a day on digital devices
- Self-reported complaint of eyestrain on digital devices
- No ocular pathology and/or history of eye surgery
- No history of strabismus or strabismus surgery
- No gas permeable lens wear for at least 3 months
- Subjects may not be optometrists, opticians or optometry students
Exclusion Criteria:
- Corneal staining, blepharitis and/or Meibomian Gland Dysfunction (MGD) worse than Grade 2 using the Efron Grading Scale
- Negative Relative Accommodation (NRA) less than +1.50 D
- Exophoria at near > 6 prism diopters10
- Vertical phoria > 1 prism diopter
- Presence of tropia
- Response of 3 or higher on question 2b of the Contact Lens Dry Eye Questionnaire- 8 (CLDEQ-8)
- Unacceptable contact lens fit (i.e. substantially decentered, excessive movement)
Study Plan
How is the study designed?
Design Details
- Primary Purpose: TREATMENT
- Allocation: RANDOMIZED
- Interventional Model: CROSSOVER
- Masking: DOUBLE
Number of Arms
Arms and Interventions
Participant Group / ArmParticipant Group / Arm |
Intervention / TreatmentIntervention / Treatment |
|---|---|
|
OTHER: Test followed by control
Subjects will be randomized in a 1:1 ratio based on a randomization schedule according to sequentially assigned subject numbers to the test daily disposable soft contact lenses at the first visit.
Subjects will crossover to the control daily disposable soft contact lenses at the second visit.
|
Worn daily for 7 +/- 2 days
Worn daily for 7 +/- 2 days
|
|
OTHER: Control followed by test
Subjects will be randomized in a 1:1 ratio based on a randomization schedule according to sequentially assigned subject numbers to the control daily disposable soft contact lenses at the first visit.
Subjects will crossover to the test daily disposable soft contact lenses at the second visit.
|
Worn daily for 7 +/- 2 days
Worn daily for 7 +/- 2 days
|
What is the study measuring?
Primary Outcome Measures
Primary Outcome Measures
Outcome Measure |
Measure Description |
Time Frame |
|---|---|---|
|
Subjective Symptom Improvement
Time Frame: Baseline and after 1 week of wearing each lens.
|
The primary outcome measure was change in average score on a ten question Visual Comfort Survey using a Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) from baseline to day 7 in multifocal contact lenses and single vision contact lenses.
The Visual Analogue Scale ranges from 0-100 (100 being the worst symptoms) for each of the ten questions.
The maximum total score is 1000, the minimum total score is 0 (no symptoms).
|
Baseline and after 1 week of wearing each lens.
|
Secondary Outcome Measures
Secondary Outcome Measures
Outcome Measure |
Measure Description |
Time Frame |
|---|---|---|
|
Lens Preference
Time Frame: 2 weeks
|
Based on two alternative forced choice method
|
2 weeks
|
|
Lag of Accommodation in Study Lenses
Time Frame: 1 week
|
Accommodative response was measured by having subjects switch the right lens to a spherical lens in the appropriate power.
This was done for all subjects regardless of which lens they were randomized to, to maintain masking.
Subjects wore an infrared filter over the right eye for occlusion and to ensure that they were fixating with the left eye (which was still wearing the lens they were randomized to).
This filter allowed for measurements to be taken with the WAM-5500 open field autorefractor in front of the right eye.
This method assumes a symmetrical accommodative response between eyes.
Since accommodative response was measured monocularly, this eliminated any convergent accommodation, but this was consistent between lenses and test distances.
Five measurements were taken at each test distance (distance, 40cm and 25cm).
The 5 readings obtained were used to calculate mean spherical equivalent value at each test distance and compared to expected accommodative value to determine lag.
|
1 week
|
|
Convergence Insufficiency Symptom Survey (CISS)
Time Frame: 1 week
|
Difference in CISS score after one week of multifocal contact lens use vs single vision contact lens use.
Minimum score (least symptoms)= 0. Maximum score (worst symptoms) = 60.
|
1 week
|
|
Contact Lens Dry Eye Questionnaire- 8 Survey (CLDEQ-8)
Time Frame: 1 week
|
CLDEQ-8 score after one week of multifocal contact lenses vs single vision contact lenses.
Minimum value (least symptoms) = 0. Maximum Score= 37 (worst symptoms).
|
1 week
|
|
Near Phoria at 40cm in Multifocal Contact Lens vs Single Vision Contact Lens
Time Frame: 1 week
|
Measured via Modified Thorington
|
1 week
|
Collaborators and Investigators
Sponsor
Sponsor
Collaborators
Collaborators
Investigators
Investigators
- Principal Investigator: Danielle Iacono, OD, SUNY Optometry
Publications and helpful links
General Publications
- Ember, Sydney. Brands Woo Millennials With a Wink, an Emoji or Whatever It Takes. New York Times 28 September 2015: B1.
- Rueff, Erin. Contact Lens Induced Dry Eye And Binocular Vision Disorders: A Study Of Similar Symptoms. (2014): Networked Digital Library of Theses & Dissertations. Oct. 2015.
- Cooper, Jeffrey S., et al. Care of the patient with accommodative and vergence dysfunction. American Optometric Association. USA (1998): 5-10.
- Rouse MW, Borsting EJ, Mitchell GL, Scheiman M, Cotter SA, Cooper J, Kulp MT, London R, Wensveen J; Convergence Insufficiency Treatment Trial Group. Validity and reliability of the revised convergence insufficiency symptom survey in adults. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt. 2004 Sep;24(5):384-90. doi: 10.1111/j.1475-1313.2004.00202.x.
- Chalmers RL, Begley CG, Moody K, Hickson-Curran SB. Contact Lens Dry Eye Questionnaire-8 (CLDEQ-8) and opinion of contact lens performance. Optom Vis Sci. 2012 Oct;89(10):1435-42. doi: 10.1097/OPX.0b013e318269c90d.
- Jaschinski W. The proximity-fixation-disparity curve and the preferred viewing distance at a visual display as an indicator of near vision fatigue. Optom Vis Sci. 2002 Mar;79(3):158-69. doi: 10.1097/00006324-200203000-00010.
- Richdale K, Mitchell GL, Zadnik K. Comparison of multifocal and monovision soft contact lens corrections in patients with low-astigmatic presbyopia. Optom Vis Sci. 2006 May;83(5):266-73. doi: 10.1097/01.opx.0000216098.62165.34.
- Fedtke C, Bakaraju RC, Ehrmann K, Chung J, Thomas V, Holden BA. Visual performance of single vision and multifocal contact lenses in non-presbyopic myopic eyes. Cont Lens Anterior Eye. 2016 Feb;39(1):38-46. doi: 10.1016/j.clae.2015.07.005. Epub 2015 Jul 27.
- Efron, Nathan. Clinical application of grading scales for contact lens complications. Optician 213.5604 (1997): 26-34.
- Morgan MW. The clinical aspects of accommodation and convergence. Am J Optom 1944; 21:301-13.
- Hayes JR, Sheedy JE, Stelmack JA, Heaney CA. Computer use, symptoms, and quality of life. Optom Vis Sci. 2007 Aug;84(8):738-44. doi: 10.1097/OPX.0b013e31812f7546.
Study record dates
Study Major Dates
Study Start
Study Start
Primary Completion (ACTUAL)
Primary Completion
Study Completion (ACTUAL)
Study Completion
Study Registration Dates
First Submitted
First Submitted
First Submitted That Met QC Criteria
First Submitted That Met QC Criteria
First Posted (ESTIMATE)
First Posted
Study Record Updates
Last Update Posted (ACTUAL)
Last Update Posted
Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria
Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria
Last Verified
Last Verified
More Information
Terms related to this study
Additional Relevant MeSH Terms
Other Study ID Numbers
Other Study ID Numbers
- 923606
Plan for Individual participant data (IPD)
Plan to Share Individual Participant Data (IPD)?
This information was retrieved directly from the website clinicaltrials.gov without any changes. If you have any requests to change, remove or update your study details, please contact register@clinicaltrials.gov. As soon as a change is implemented on clinicaltrials.gov, this will be updated automatically on our website as well.