Karen Walsh, Amir M Moezzi, Sarah Guthrie, Jill Woods, Jose Vega
{"title":"Clinical Performance and Wearer Experience with Two Contemporary Daily Disposable Silicone Hydrogel Lenses.","authors":"Karen Walsh, Amir M Moezzi, Sarah Guthrie, Jill Woods, Jose Vega","doi":"10.2147/OPTO.S628296","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To compare the clinical performance and wearer experience of two contemporary spherical daily disposable silicone hydrogel lenses, somofilcon A and verofilcon A.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In this prospective, double-masked, bilateral, randomized, crossover study, habitual contact lens wearers were recruited at a single site. Participants wore somofilcon A or verofilcon A lenses bilaterally on a daily disposable basis for one week, then crossed over to the alternate lens. The primary endpoint was participant-reported handling (insertion and removal) at the 1-week follow-up. Secondary outcomes included lens fit, surface wettability and deposits, non-invasive tear break-up time (NITBUT), visual acuity, subjective comfort, satisfaction, preference, diary ratings, and slit-lamp ocular health.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of 51 participants screened, 47 completed the study. Handling ratings were high for both lenses, with no differences for insertion. Removal handling was slightly higher for somofilcon A on Day 1 (9.2 ± 1.2 vs 8.6 ± 2.1; p = 0.02), though not clinically meaningful. Verofilcon A showed marginally better centration at dispensing and 1 week, and somofilcon A demonstrated slightly better visual acuity at 1 week and lower deposition at dispensing; however, all differences were small and not clinically meaningful. No significant between-lens differences were observed for movement, fit, NITBUT, wettability, comfort, dryness, vision clarity, satisfaction, or preference (all p > 0.05).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Both lenses showed high and comparable clinical and subjective performance over one week. While minor statistical differences were observed, none were clinically meaningful, indicating similar performance across handling, fit, vision, tear stability, and wearer-reported outcomes.</p><p><strong>Trial registration: </strong>ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04305912.</p>","PeriodicalId":43701,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Optometry","volume":"18 ","pages":"628296"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2026-09-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13657689/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Optometry","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2147/OPTO.S628296","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2026/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"OPHTHALMOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Objective: To compare the clinical performance and wearer experience of two contemporary spherical daily disposable silicone hydrogel lenses, somofilcon A and verofilcon A.
Methods: In this prospective, double-masked, bilateral, randomized, crossover study, habitual contact lens wearers were recruited at a single site. Participants wore somofilcon A or verofilcon A lenses bilaterally on a daily disposable basis for one week, then crossed over to the alternate lens. The primary endpoint was participant-reported handling (insertion and removal) at the 1-week follow-up. Secondary outcomes included lens fit, surface wettability and deposits, non-invasive tear break-up time (NITBUT), visual acuity, subjective comfort, satisfaction, preference, diary ratings, and slit-lamp ocular health.
Results: Of 51 participants screened, 47 completed the study. Handling ratings were high for both lenses, with no differences for insertion. Removal handling was slightly higher for somofilcon A on Day 1 (9.2 ± 1.2 vs 8.6 ± 2.1; p = 0.02), though not clinically meaningful. Verofilcon A showed marginally better centration at dispensing and 1 week, and somofilcon A demonstrated slightly better visual acuity at 1 week and lower deposition at dispensing; however, all differences were small and not clinically meaningful. No significant between-lens differences were observed for movement, fit, NITBUT, wettability, comfort, dryness, vision clarity, satisfaction, or preference (all p > 0.05).
Conclusion: Both lenses showed high and comparable clinical and subjective performance over one week. While minor statistical differences were observed, none were clinically meaningful, indicating similar performance across handling, fit, vision, tear stability, and wearer-reported outcomes.
期刊介绍:
Clinical Optometry is an international, peer-reviewed, open access journal focusing on clinical optometry. All aspects of patient care are addressed within the journal as well as the practice of optometry including economic and business analyses. Basic and clinical research papers are published that cover all aspects of optics, refraction and its application to the theory and practice of optometry. Specific topics covered in the journal include: Theoretical and applied optics, Delivery of patient care in optometry practice, Refraction and correction of errors, Screening and preventative aspects of eye disease, Extended clinical roles for optometrists including shared care and provision of medications, Teaching and training optometrists, International aspects of optometry, Business practice, Patient adherence, quality of life, satisfaction, Health economic evaluations.