Search

Introduction: To evaluate patient satisfaction with samfilcon A contact lenses (CLs) in intensive digital device users with myopia and to compare patient satisfaction with samfilcon A lenses to prior experience with senofilcon A or lotrafilcon B CLs. Methods: This was a comparative, prospective, national study conducted at 14 centers in Turkey. Subjects were adults aged 18 and 45 years with myopia (range −0.25 D to −6.00 D) who spend a minimum of 3 hours viewing digital devices (e.g., computer, smartphone). A subgroup of patients were habitual lens wearers (senofilcon A or lotrafilcon B lens wear for at least 6 months prior to enrollment). The primary assessment was patient satisfaction with samfilcon A lenses (0–100 Likert scale). Secondary assessments included patient satisfaction with samfilcon A lenses compared to patients' habitual lenses, investigator satisfaction with samfilcon A lenses and investigator-evaluated slit lamp examination findings. Results: Samfilcon A lenses were given high overall ratings from both patients and investigators, with a low incidence of ocular symptoms. Overall, patients were highly satisfied with samfilcon A lenses for comfort, vision and overall performance, and stated that they would consider wearing these lenses in the future. Among habitual senofilcon A or lotrafilcon B lens wearers, samfilcon A lenses were rated significantly better than the habitual lenses in regard to comfort, vision and overall performance. Investigator assessments were also highly favorable, both at initial fit and after 4 weeks of follow-up, with no significant findings noted on slit lamp examination. Conclusion: Samfilcon A lenses were rated highly by investigators in regard to fit, handling and slit lamp findings, and by novice and habitual lens wearers in regard to comfort, vision and overall performance. These results support the use of samfilcon A lenses among digital device users who seek day-long comfort and good visual acuity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Correction to: Ophthalmol Ther https://doi.org/10.1007/s40123-021-00389-4 Figure 3 in the original version of this article has been replaced, the figure should have appeared as shown below. The original article can be found online at https://doi.org/10.1007/s40123-021-00389-4. [Extracted from the article]