Multi-centre evaluation of two daily disposable contact lenses.

Purpose: To evaluate the clinical performance of two daily disposable contact lenses: 1-DAY ACUVUE (1DA) (etafilcon A, Johnson & Johnson Vision Care) and FOCUS DAILIES with AquaComfort (FD) (nelfilcon A, CIBA Vision, Inc.), which contains a quickly released moisture enhancing agent, polyvinyl alcohol (PVA).

Methods: This was a 1-week, daily wear, subject-masked, bilateral, parallel group study with subjects randomly assigned to one of two daily disposable soft contact lenses. Subjects were existing soft contact lens wearers in the age range 18-39 years with a spherical refraction between -0.50 and -6.00 D. Subjects were assessed at baseline and after 1 week. Assessments included both subjective (symptoms, wearing time, vision) and objective (lens fit and ocular health) outcomes.

Results: Twenty clinical sites enrolled 282 subjects (74% female) of whom 276 (98%) successfully completed the study. Significantly more 1DA wearers reported higher mean comfort scores than with FD (3.95 versus 3.41, respectively, P<0.0001). End-of-day comfort means were also significantly higher with the 1DA group compared to the FD group (3.3 versus 3.0, P=0.03). The 1DA group reported significantly longer mean overall wearing time (1DA was worn on average 0.66+/-0.30 h longer than FD, P=0.03) and longer mean comfortable wearing time (1DA was worn on average 1.73+/-0.35 h longer than FD, P<0.0001). The 1DA lens generally showed significantly better on-eye fitting in terms of movement in primary (P<0.0001) and upgaze (P<0.0001) and ease of removal from the eye (92% versus 63%, P<0.0001) compared to FD. There was significantly less corneal staining observed with the 1DA wearing eyes compared with the FD wearing eyes (23% versus 45%, respectively, P<0.0001). Finally, there was a weak correlation between corneal staining and comfort for FD (r=0.27, P=0.002, n=136), but not for 1DA (r=-0.11, P=0.18, n=140).

Conclusion: Subjective and objective clinical performance differences between two commonly used daily disposable lenses highlight that, although both lenses may be considered as clinically acceptable, these lenses should not be regarded as interchangeable.