Clinical Performance and Wearer Experience with Two Contemporary Daily Disposable Silicone Hydrogel Lenses.

IF 2.4 Q3 OPHTHALMOLOGY
Clinical Optometry Pub Date : 2026-09-26 eCollection Date: 2026-01-01 DOI:10.2147/OPTO.S628296
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.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04305912.

临床表现和佩戴者的经验与两个当代一次性硅水凝胶镜片。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Clinical Optometry
Clinical Optometry OPHTHALMOLOGY-
CiteScore
3.00
自引率
5.90%
发文量
29
审稿时长
16 weeks
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.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书