Blue-Light Filtering Spectacle Lenses: Optical and Clinical Performances

Tsz Wing Leung, Roger Wing-Hong Li, Chea-Su Kee, Tsz Wing Leung, Roger Wing-Hong Li, Chea-Su Kee

Abstract

Purposes: To evaluate the optical performance of blue-light filtering spectacle lenses and investigate whether a reduction in blue light transmission affects visual performance and sleep quality.

Methods: Experiment 1: The relative changes in phototoxicity, scotopic sensitivity, and melatonin suppression of five blue-light filtering plano spectacle lenses were calculated based on their spectral transmittances measured by a spectrophotometer. Experiment 2: A pseudo-randomized controlled study was conducted to evaluate the clinical performance of two blue-light filtering spectacle lenses (BF: blue-filtering anti-reflection coating; BT: brown-tinted) with a regular clear lens (AR) serving as a control. A total of eighty computer users were recruited from two age cohorts (young adults: 18-30 yrs, middle-aged adults: 40-55 yrs). Contrast sensitivity under standard and glare conditions, and colour discrimination were measured using standard clinical tests. After one month of lens wear, subjective ratings of lens performance were collected by questionnaire.

Results: All tested blue-light filtering spectacle lenses theoretically reduced the calculated phototoxicity by 10.6% to 23.6%. Although use of the blue-light filters also decreased scotopic sensitivity by 2.4% to 9.6%, and melatonin suppression by 5.8% to 15.0%, over 70% of the participants could not detect these optical changes. Our clinical tests revealed no significant decrease in contrast sensitivity either with (95% confidence intervals [CI]: AR-BT [-0.05, 0.05]; AR-BF [-0.05, 0.06]; BT-BF [-0.06, 0.06]) or without glare (95% CI: AR-BT [-0.01, 0.03]; AR-BF [-0.01, 0.03]; BT-BF [-0.02, 0.02]) and colour discrimination (95% CI: AR-BT [-9.07, 1.02]; AR-BF [-7.06, 4.46]; BT-BF [-3.12, 8.57]).

Conclusion: Blue-light filtering spectacle lenses can partially filter high-energy short-wavelength light without substantially degrading visual performance and sleep quality. These lenses may serve as a supplementary option for protecting the retina from potential blue-light hazard.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02821403.

Conflict of interest statement

Financial support for research: Salary for a research assistant, blue-light filtering spectacle lenses. Employment: The research assistant was employed by Hong Kong PolyU; None of the authors/ research personal was employed by the company. Consultancy: Part of the funding was charged as consulting fee Stocks, shares or ownership of company: None. Patents: None. Products in development: None. Marketed products: None. Royalties: None. We confirm that this does not alter our adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.

Figures

Fig 1. The flowchart for this pseudo-randomized…
Fig 1. The flowchart for this pseudo-randomized controlled clinical trial.
Fig 2
Fig 2
The spectral transmittance (a), front surface reflectance (b), phototoxicity (c), scotopic sensitivity (d), and melatonin suppression (e) as a function of wavelength for the five blue-light filtering spectacle lenses. The standard action spectrum curves for the blue-light hazard, scotopic luminous efficiency and circadian efficiency are displayed as dashed lines. The data are summarized in the table at the bottom right.
Fig 3. Log contrast sensitivity scores (mean…
Fig 3. Log contrast sensitivity scores (mean ±SE) in normal (left) and glare conditions (right) when wearing different tinted lenses in young and middle-aged adults.
AR, white bars. BF, blue bars. BT, yellow bars. There was a significant difference in contrast sensitivity under the no-glare condition between the two age groups: *** p

Fig 4. Total error scores (mean ±SE)…

Fig 4. Total error scores (mean ±SE) when wearing different tinted lenses in young and…

Fig 4. Total error scores (mean ±SE) when wearing different tinted lenses in young and middle-aged adults.
AR, white bars. BF, blue bars. BT, yellow bars. There was a significant difference in total error scores between the two age groups: *** p

Fig 5. Participants’ preference of lens type…

Fig 5. Participants’ preference of lens type in young and middle-aged adults.

AR, white bars.…

Fig 5. Participants’ preference of lens type in young and middle-aged adults.
AR, white bars. BF, blue bars. BT, yellow bars.

Fig 6. The proportions of participants showing…

Fig 6. The proportions of participants showing “improvement”, “no change” and “decline” in lens performance…

Fig 6. The proportions of participants showing “improvement”, “no change” and “decline” in lens performance when wearing BF (left) and BT (right) lenses.
The arrows indicate questionnaire items showing significantly diverse responses for each item (One-sample Chi-square test, all p<0.05). The colours of the arrows denote the response that contributed most to the Chi-square test (i.e., highest mini-X2). For example, upward black arrows indicate that the diverse responses revealed in Chi-square tests were due to high proportions of “no change”; downward green and red arrows indicate that the diverse responses were due to low proportions of “improvement” and “decline”, respectively.
Similar articles
Cited by
References
    1. Noell WK, Walker VS, Kang BS, Berman S. Retinal damage by light in rats. Invest Ophthalmol. 1966;5(5):450–73. - PubMed
    1. Ham WT Jr., Ruffolo JJ Jr., Mueller HA, Guerry D 3rd. The nature of retinal radiation damage: dependence on wavelength, power level and exposure time. Vision research. 1980;20(12):1105–11. - PubMed
    1. Ham WT Jr., Ruffolo JJ Jr., Mueller HA, Clarke AM, Moon ME. Histologic analysis of photochemical lesions produced in rhesus retina by short-wave-length light. Investigative ophthalmology & visual science. 1978;17(10):1029–35. - PubMed
    1. Ham WT Jr., Mueller HA, Sliney DH. Retinal sensitivity to damage from short wavelength light. Nature. 1976;260(5547):153–5. - PubMed
    1. Ham WT Jr., Mueller HA, Ruffolo JJ Jr., Clarke AM. Sensitivity of the retina to radiation damage as a function of wavelength. Photochem Photobiol. 1979;29(4):735–43. - PubMed
Show all 55 references
MeSH terms
Associated data
Grant support
This work was supported by Swiss lens laboratory Ltd. http://www.swisscoat.com. The second part of this study (clinical trial) was supported by Swiss lens laboratory Ltd. The sponsor provided the blue-light filtering spectacle lenses for the clinical trial and funding for hiring a research assistant. Funder (for the second part of the study): Swiss lens laboratory Ltd. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
[x]
Cite
Copy Download .nbib
Format: AMA APA MLA NLM
Fig 4. Total error scores (mean ±SE)…
Fig 4. Total error scores (mean ±SE) when wearing different tinted lenses in young and middle-aged adults.
AR, white bars. BF, blue bars. BT, yellow bars. There was a significant difference in total error scores between the two age groups: *** p

Fig 5. Participants’ preference of lens type…

Fig 5. Participants’ preference of lens type in young and middle-aged adults.

AR, white bars.…

Fig 5. Participants’ preference of lens type in young and middle-aged adults.
AR, white bars. BF, blue bars. BT, yellow bars.

Fig 6. The proportions of participants showing…

Fig 6. The proportions of participants showing “improvement”, “no change” and “decline” in lens performance…

Fig 6. The proportions of participants showing “improvement”, “no change” and “decline” in lens performance when wearing BF (left) and BT (right) lenses.
The arrows indicate questionnaire items showing significantly diverse responses for each item (One-sample Chi-square test, all p<0.05). The colours of the arrows denote the response that contributed most to the Chi-square test (i.e., highest mini-X2). For example, upward black arrows indicate that the diverse responses revealed in Chi-square tests were due to high proportions of “no change”; downward green and red arrows indicate that the diverse responses were due to low proportions of “improvement” and “decline”, respectively.
Fig 5. Participants’ preference of lens type…
Fig 5. Participants’ preference of lens type in young and middle-aged adults.
AR, white bars. BF, blue bars. BT, yellow bars.
Fig 6. The proportions of participants showing…
Fig 6. The proportions of participants showing “improvement”, “no change” and “decline” in lens performance when wearing BF (left) and BT (right) lenses.
The arrows indicate questionnaire items showing significantly diverse responses for each item (One-sample Chi-square test, all p<0.05). The colours of the arrows denote the response that contributed most to the Chi-square test (i.e., highest mini-X2). For example, upward black arrows indicate that the diverse responses revealed in Chi-square tests were due to high proportions of “no change”; downward green and red arrows indicate that the diverse responses were due to low proportions of “improvement” and “decline”, respectively.

References

    1. Noell WK, Walker VS, Kang BS, Berman S. Retinal damage by light in rats. Invest Ophthalmol. 1966;5(5):450–73.
    1. Ham WT Jr., Ruffolo JJ Jr., Mueller HA, Guerry D 3rd. The nature of retinal radiation damage: dependence on wavelength, power level and exposure time. Vision research. 1980;20(12):1105–11.
    1. Ham WT Jr., Ruffolo JJ Jr., Mueller HA, Clarke AM, Moon ME. Histologic analysis of photochemical lesions produced in rhesus retina by short-wave-length light. Investigative ophthalmology & visual science. 1978;17(10):1029–35.
    1. Ham WT Jr., Mueller HA, Sliney DH. Retinal sensitivity to damage from short wavelength light. Nature. 1976;260(5547):153–5.
    1. Ham WT Jr., Mueller HA, Ruffolo JJ Jr., Clarke AM. Sensitivity of the retina to radiation damage as a function of wavelength. Photochem Photobiol. 1979;29(4):735–43.
    1. Schutt F, Bergmann M, Holz FG, Kopitz J. Isolation of intact lysosomes from human RPE cells and effects of A2-E on the integrity of the lysosomal and other cellular membranes. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2002;240(12):983–8. 10.1007/s00417-002-0558-8
    1. Sparrow JR, Vollmer-Snarr HR, Zhou J, Jang YP, Jockusch S, Itagaki Y, et al. A2E-epoxides damage DNA in retinal pigment epithelial cells. Vitamin E and other antioxidants inhibit A2E-epoxide formation. J Biol Chem. 2003;278(20):18207–13. 10.1074/jbc.M300457200
    1. Sparrow JR, Cai B. Blue light-induced apoptosis of A2E-containing RPE: involvement of caspase-3 and protection by Bcl-2. Investigative ophthalmology & visual science. 2001;42(6):1356–62.
    1. Sparrow JR, Nakanishi K, Parish CA. The lipofuscin fluorophore A2E mediates blue light-induced damage to retinal pigmented epithelial cells. Investigative ophthalmology & visual science. 2000;41(7):1981–9.
    1. Fletcher AE, Bentham GC, Agnew M, Young IS, Augood C, Chakravarthy U, et al. Sunlight exposure, antioxidants, and age-related macular degeneration. Archives of ophthalmology. 2008;126(10):1396–403. 10.1001/archopht.126.10.1396
    1. Tomany SC, Cruickshanks KJ, Klein R, Klein BE, Knudtson MD. Sunlight and the 10-year incidence of age-related maculopathy: the Beaver Dam Eye Study. Archives of ophthalmology. 2004;122(5):750–7. 10.1001/archopht.122.5.750
    1. Cruickshanks KJ, Klein R, Klein BE, Nondahl DM. Sunlight and the 5-year incidence of early age-related maculopathy: the beaver dam eye study. Archives of ophthalmology. 2001;119(2):246–50.
    1. Pascolini D, Mariotti SP. Global estimates of visual impairment: 2010. The British journal of ophthalmology. 2012;96(5):614–8. 10.1136/bjophthalmol-2011-300539
    1. McCarty CA, Mukesh BN, Fu CL, Mitchell P, Wang JJ, Taylor HR. Risk factors for age-related maculopathy: the Visual Impairment Project. Archives of ophthalmology. 2001;119(10):1455–62.
    1. Delcourt C, Carriere I, Ponton-Sanchez A, Fourrey S, Lacroux A, Papoz L, et al. Light exposure and the risk of age-related macular degeneration: the Pathologies Oculaires Liees a l'Age (POLA) study. Archives of ophthalmology. 2001;119(10):1463–8.
    1. Klein BE, Howard KP, Iyengar SK, Sivakumaran TA, Meyers KJ, Cruickshanks KJ, et al. Sunlight exposure, pigmentation, and incident age-related macular degeneration. Investigative ophthalmology & visual science. 2014;55(9):5855–61. PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPMC4165367.
    1. O'Hagan JB, Khazova M, Price LL. Low-energy light bulbs, computers, tablets and the blue light hazard. Eye. 2016;30(2):230–3. PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPMC4763136. 10.1038/eye.2015.261
    1. Davison JA, Patel AS. Light normalizing intraocular lenses. Int Ophthalmol Clin. 2005;45(1):55–106.
    1. Downie LE, Busija L, Keller PR. Blue‐light filtering intraocular lenses (IOLs) for protecting macular health. The Cochrane Library; 2015.
    1. Kiser AK, Deschler EK, Dagnelie G. Visual function and performance with blue-light blocking filters in age-related macular degeneration. Clinical & experimental ophthalmology. 2008;36(6):514–20.
    1. Griswold MS, Stark WS. Scotopic spectral sensitivity of phakic and aphakic observers extending into the near ultraviolet. Vision research. 1992;32(9):1739–43.
    1. Sparrow JR, Miller AS, Zhou J. Blue light-absorbing intraocular lens and retinal pigment epithelium protection in vitro. Journal of cataract and refractive surgery. 2004;30(4):873–8. 10.1016/j.jcrs.2004.01.031
    1. Davison JA, Patel AS, Cunha JP, Schwiegerling J, Muftuoglu O. Recent studies provide an updated clinical perspective on blue light-filtering IOLs. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2011;249(7):957–68. PubMed Central PMCID: PMC3124647. 10.1007/s00417-011-1697-6
    1. Falkner-Radler CI, Benesch T, Binder S. Blue light-filter intraocular lenses in vitrectomy combined with cataract surgery: results of a randomized controlled clinical trial. American journal of ophthalmology. 2008;145(3):499–503. 10.1016/j.ajo.2007.10.021
    1. Greenstein VC, Chiosi F, Baker P, Seiple W, Holopigian K, Braunstein RE, et al. Scotopic sensitivity and color vision with a blue-light-absorbing intraocular lens. Journal of cataract and refractive surgery. 2007;33(4):667–72. PubMed Central PMCID: PMC1913934. 10.1016/j.jcrs.2006.12.012
    1. Hayashi K, Hayashi H. Visual function in patients with yellow tinted intraocular lenses compared with vision in patients with non-tinted intraocular lenses. The British journal of ophthalmology. 2006;90(8):1019–23. PubMed Central PMCID: PMC1857188. 10.1136/bjo.2006.090712
    1. Kara-Junior N, Espindola RF, Gomes BA, Ventura B, Smadja D, Santhiago MR. Effects of blue light-filtering intraocular lenses on the macula, contrast sensitivity, and color vision after a long-term follow-up. Journal of cataract and refractive surgery. 2011;37(12):2115–9. 10.1016/j.jcrs.2011.06.024
    1. Landers J, Tan TH, Yuen J, Liu H. Comparison of visual function following implantation of Acrysof Natural intraocular lenses with conventional intraocular lenses. Clinical & experimental ophthalmology. 2007;35(2):152–9.
    1. Landers JA, Tamblyn D, Perriam D. Effect of a blue-light-blocking intraocular lens on the quality of sleep. Journal of cataract and refractive surgery. 2009;35(1):83–8. 10.1016/j.jcrs.2008.10.015
    1. Leibovitch I, Lai T, Porter N, Pietris G, Newland H, Selva D. Visual outcomes with the yellow intraocular lens. Acta Ophthalmol Scand. 2006;84(1):95–9. 10.1111/j.1600-0420.2005.00607.x
    1. Mainster MA, Turner PL. Blue-blocking IOLs decrease photoreception without providing significant photoprotection. Surv Ophthalmol. 2010;55(3):272–89. 10.1016/j.survophthal.2009.07.006
    1. Viola AU, James LM, Schlangen LJ, Dijk DJ. Blue-enriched white light in the workplace improves self-reported alertness, performance and sleep quality. Scand J Work Environ Health. 2008;34(4):297–306.
    1. Mainster MA. Intraocular lenses should block UV radiation and violet but not blue light. Archives of ophthalmology. 2005;123(4):550–5. 10.1001/archopht.123.4.550
    1. International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection. ICNIRP Guidelines on limits of exposure to incoherent visible and infrared radiation. Health Physics. 2013;105(1):74–96.
    1. Hunt RWG. The reproduction of colour. 6 ed. Chichester, England: Hoboken, NJ; 2004.
    1. DIN. Optical radiation physics and illuminating engineering—Part 100: Non-visual effects of ocular light on human beings—quantities, symbols and action Spectra. DIN V 5031–100:2009–06. Berlin: Beuth Verlag GmbH; 2009.
    1. ISO. Ophthalmic optics—Uncut finished spectacle lenses—Part 3: Transmittance specifications and test methods. ISO 8980–3:2013. Switzerland: IOS standard; 2013.
    1. Jackson GR, Owsley C. Scotopic sensitivity during adulthood. Vision research. 2000;40(18):2467–73.
    1. Kinnear PR, Sahraie A. New Farnsworth-Munsell 100 hue test norms of normal observers for each year of age 5–22 and for age decades 30–70. The British journal of ophthalmology. 2002;86(12):1408–11. PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPMC1771429.
    1. Owsley C, Sekuler R, Siemsen D. Contrast sensitivity throughout adulthood. Vision research. 1983;23(7):689–99.
    1. Grosvenor T. Subjective refraction In: Grosvenor S, editor. Primary care optometry. St. Louis, Mo: Butterworth-Heinemann/Elsevier; 2007. p. 209–23.
    1. Grosvenor T. Management of anomalies of refraction and binocular vision In: Grosvenor S, editor. Primary care optometry. St. Louis, Mo: Butterworth-Heinemann/Elsevier; 2007. p. 251–73.
    1. Dougherty BE, Flom RE, Bullimore MA. An evaluation of the Mars Letter Contrast Sensitivity Test. Optometry and vision science: official publication of the American Academy of Optometry. 2005;82(11):970–5.
    1. Arditi A. Improving the design of the letter contrast sensitivity test. Investigative ophthalmology & visual science. 2005;46(6):2225–9.
    1. Farnsworth D, Color M. The Farnsworth-Munsell 100-hue test for the examination of color discrimination: Munsell Color Company; 1957.
    1. Lix LM, Keselman JC, Keselman H. Consequences of assumption violations revisited: A quantitative review of alternatives to the one-way analysis of variance F test. Review of educational research. 1996;66(4):579–619.
    1. Faul F, Erdfelder E, Lang AG, Buchner A. G*Power 3: a flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behav Res Methods. 2007;39(2):175–91.
    1. Cohen J. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. 2nd edn. Hillsdale, New Jersey: L. Erlbaum; 1988.
    1. Hammond BR. Attenuating Photostress and Glare Disability in Pseudophakic Patients through the Addition of a Short-Wave Absorbing Filter. J Ophthalmol. 2015;2015:607635 PubMed Central PMCID: PMC4370187. 10.1155/2015/607635
    1. Cuthbertson FM, Peirson SN, Wulff K, Foster RG, Downes SM. Blue light-filtering intraocular lenses: review of potential benefits and side effects. Journal of cataract and refractive surgery. 2009;35(7):1281–97. 10.1016/j.jcrs.2009.04.017
    1. Smith W, Assink J, Klein R, Mitchell P, Klaver CC, Klein BE, et al. Risk factors for age-related macular degeneration: Pooled findings from three continents. Ophthalmology. 2001;108(4):697–704.
    1. Klein R, Klein BE, Jensen SC, Cruickshanks KJ. The relationship of ocular factors to the incidence and progression of age-related maculopathy. Archives of ophthalmology. 1998;116(4):506–13.
    1. Mainster MA, Sparrow JR. How much blue light should an IOL transmit? The British journal of ophthalmology. 2003;87(12):1523–9. PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPMC1920564.
    1. Muftuoglu O, Karel F, Duman R. Effect of a yellow intraocular lens on scotopic vision, glare disability, and blue color perception. Journal of cataract and refractive surgery. 2007;33(4):658–66. 10.1016/j.jcrs.2006.12.018
    1. Vuori ML, Mantyjarvi M. Colour vision and retinal nerve fibre layer photography in patients with an Acrysof Natural intraocular lens. Acta Ophthalmol Scand. 2006;84(1):92–4. 10.1111/j.1600-0420.2005.00579.x

Source: PubMed

3
購読する