Contact Lens Spectrum


May 2018

Document #270

(p. 9) Editor’s Perspective – The Moral Obligation of Influences
By Jason J. Nichols, OD, MPH, PhD

  1. Meffert JJ. Key opinion leaders: where they come from and how that affects the drugs you prescribe. Dermatol Ther. 2009 May-Jun;22:262-268.

(p. 10) Refractive Focus – When Simple Is Best
By Kate Gifford, PhD, BAppSc(Optom)Hons

  1. Maharana PK, Sharma N, Das S, et al. Salzmann’s nodular degeneration. Ocul Surf. 2016 Jan;14:20-30.

(p. 17) Contact Lens Care & Compliance – Educating Millenials
By Andrew D. Pucker, OD, PhD

  1. Collins MJ, Carney LG. Patient compliance and its influence on contact lens wearing problems. Am J Optom Physiol Opt. 1986 Dec;63:952-956.
  2. Roberts DH, Newman LR, Schwartzstein RM. Twelve tips for facilitating Millennials’ learning. Med Teach. 2012;34(4):274-278.
  3. Erlam G, Smythe L, Wright-St Clair V. Action research and millennials: Improving pedagogical approaches to encourage critical thinking. Nurse Educ Today. 2018 Feb;61:140-145.
  4. Hansen MR, Okuda DT. Multiple Sclerosis in the Contemporary Age: Understanding the Millennial Patient with Multiple Sclerosis to Create Next-Generation Care. Neurol Clin. 2018 Feb;36:219-230.
  5. Jiang J, Zeng L, Kue J, Li H, Shi Y, Chen C. Effective teaching behaviors in the emergency department: A qualitative study with Millennial nursing students in Shanghai. Nurse Educ Today. 2018 Feb;61:220-224.

(p. 43) Treatment Plan – Waking a Sleeping Giant
By William L. Miller, OD, MS, PhD

  1. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. What Everyone Should Know about Zostavax. Available at . Accessed on Apr. 19, 2018.
  2. Zaal MJ, Völker-Dieben HJ, D’Amaro J. Prognostic value of Hutchinson’s sign in acute herpes zoster ophthalmicus. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2003 Mar;241:187-191.
  3. Liesegang, TJ. Corneal complications from herpes zoster ophthalmicus. Ophthalmology. 1985 Mar;92:316-324.
  4. Cobo M, Foulks GN, Liesegang T, et al. Observations on the natural history of herpes zoster ophthalmicus. Curr Eye Res. 1987 Jan;6:195-199.
  5. Marsh RJ, Cooper M. Double-masked trial of topical acyclovir and steroids in the treatment of herpes zoster ocular inflammation. Br J Ophthalmol. 1991 Sep;75:542-546.
  6. Decroix J, Partsch H, Gonzalez R, et al. Factors influencing pain outcome in herpes zoster: an observational study with valaciclovir. Valaciclovir International Zoster Assessment Group (VIZA). J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2000 Jan;14:23-33.
  7. Pavan-Langston, D. Herpes Zoster. Antivirals and pain management. Ophthalmology. 2008 Feb;115:S13-S20.

(p. 44) Reader and Industry Forum – “Doc, I Think I’m Allergic to These New Lenses…”
By Lydon Jones, PhD, FCOptom

  1. Arbes SJ Jr., Gergen PJ, Elliott L, Zeldin DC. Prevalences of positive skin test responses to 10 common allergens in the US population: results from the third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2005 Aug;116:377-383.
  2. Zug KA, McGinley-Smith D, Warshaw EM, et al. Contact allergy in children referred for patch testing: North American Contact Dermatitis Group data, 2001-2004. Arch Dermatol. 2008 Oct;144:1329-1336.
  3. Platts-Mills TA, Erwin E, Heymann P, Woodfolk J. Is the hygiene hypothesis still a viable explanation for the increased prevalence of asthma? Allergy. 2005;60(Suppl 79):25-31.
  4. Anandan C, Nurmatov U, van Schayck OC, Sheikh A. Is the prevalence of asthma declining? Systematic review of epidemiological studies. Allergy. 2010 Feb;65:152-167.
  5. Hall BJ, Jones LW, Dixon B. Silicone allergies and the eye: fact or fiction? Eye Contact Lens. 2014 Jan;40:51-57.
  6. Murphy K, Weaver C. Janeway’s Immunobiology. Garland Science. 2016 Mar 24.
  7. Iwasaki A, Medzhitov R. Regulation of adaptive immunity by the innate immune system. Science. 2014 Jan 15;327:291-295.
  8. Wolf LE, Lappe M, Peterson RD, Ezrailson EG. Human immune response to polydimethylsiloxane (silicone): screening studies in a breast implant population. FASEB J. 1993 Oct;7:1265-1268.
  9. Bekerecioglu M, Onat AM, Tercan M, et al. The association between silicone implants and both antibodies and autoimmune diseases. Clin Rheumatol. 2008 Feb;27:147-150.
  10. White KL Jr., Klykken PC. The non-specific binding of immunoglobulins to silicone implant materials: the lack of a detectable silicone specific antibody. Immunol Invest. 1998 Jul-Sep;27:221-235.
  11. Klykken P, Colas A, Thomas X. Antisilicone antibodies are biologically unlikely. Clin Rheumatol. 2008 Aug;27:1077-1078.
  12. Oliver DW, Walker MS, Walters AE, Chatrath P, Lamberty BG. Anti-silicone antibodies and silicone containing breast implants. Br J Plast Surg. 2000 Jul;53:410-414.
  13. Levy Y, Rotman-Pikielny P, Ehrenfeld M, Shoenfield Y. Silicone breast implantation-induced scleroderma: description of four patients and a critical review of the literature. Lupus. 2009 Nov;18:1226-1232.
  14. Hunsaker DH, Martin PJ. Allergic reaction to solid silicone implant in medial thyroplasty. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 1995 Dec;113:782-784.
  15. Rubio A, Ponvert C, Goulet O, Scheinmann P, de Blic J. Allergic and nonallergic hypersensitivity reactions to silicone: a report of one case. Allergy. 2009 Oct;64:1555.
  16. Cantisani C, Cigna E, Grieco T, et al. Allergic contact dermatitis to synthetic rubber following breast augmentation. Eur Ann Allergy Clin Immunol. 2007 Jun;39:185-188.
  17. Kossovsky N, Heggers JP, Robson MC. Experimental demonstration of the immunogenicity of silicone-protein complexes. J Biomed Mater Res. 1987 Sep;21:1125-1133.
  18. Abelson M, Leonardi A, Smith L. The mechanisms, diagnosis and treatment of allergy. Rev Ophthalmol. 2002 Apr;9:74-84.
  19. Abelson MB, Schaefer K. Conjunctivitis of allergic origin: immunologic mechanisms and current approaches to therapy. Surv Ophthalmol. 1993 Jul-Aug;38 Suppl:115-132.
  20. Friedlaender MH. Conjunctivitis of allergic origin: clinical presentation and differential diagnosis. Surv Ophthalmol. 1993 Jul-Aug;38 Suppl:105-114.
  21. Donshik PC, Ehlers WH, Ballow M. Giant papillary conjunctivitis. Immunol Allergy Clin North Am. 2008 Feb;28:83-103.
  22. Koh L. Differentiating ocular allergy. Optometry Times. 2017 Jan 24. Available at . Acessed on Apr. 9, 2018.
  23. Guillon M. Are silicone hydrogel contact lenses more comfortable than hydrogel contact lenses? Eye Contact Lens. 2013 Jan;39:86-92.
  24. Jones L, Brennan NA, González-Méijome J, et al. The TFOS International Workshop on Contact Lens Discomfort: report of the contact lens materials, design, and care subcommittee. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2013 Oct 18;54:TFOS37-TFOS70.
  25. Stapleton F, Tan J. Impact of Contact Lens Material, Design, and Fitting on Discomfort. Eye Contact Lens. 2017 Jan;43:32-39.
  26. Dumbleton K, Keir N, Moezzi A, Feng Y, Jones L, Fonn D. Objective and subjective responses in patients refitted to daily-wear silicone hydrogel contact lenses. Optom Vis Sci. 2006 Oct;83:758-768.
  27. Riley C, Young G, Chalmers R. Prevalence of ocular surface symptoms, signs, and uncomfortable hours of wear in contact lens wearers: the effect of refitting with daily-wear silicone hydrogel lenses (senofilcon a). Eye Contact Lens. 2006 Dec;32:281-286.
  28. Dillehay SM, Miller MB. Performance of Lotrafilcon B silicone hydrogel contact lenses in experienced low-Dk/t daily lens wearers. Eye Contact Lens. 2007 Nov;33:272-277.
  29. Young G, Riley CM, Chalmers RL, Hunt C. Hydrogel lens comfort in challenging environments and the effect of refitting with silicone hydrogel lenses. Optom Vis Sci. 2007 Apr;84:302-308.
  30. Dumbleton KA, Woods CA, Jones LW, Fonn D. Comfort and adaptation to silicone hydrogel lenses for daily wear. Eye Contact Lens. 2008 Jul;34:215-223.
  31. Ousler GW 3rd, Anderson RT, Osborn KE. The effect of senofilcon A contact lenses compared to habitual contact lenses on ocular discomfort during exposure to a controlled adverse environment. Curr Med Res Opin. 2008 Feb;24:335-341.
  32. Young G, Chalmers RL, Napier L, Hunt C, Kern J. Characterizing contact lens-related dryness symptoms in a cross-section of UK soft lens wearers. Cont Lens Anterior Eye. 2011 Apr;34:64-70.
  33. Shah D, Richardson P, Vega J. Fitting MyDay into practice. Optician. 2013 Sep 9:12-15.
  34. Skotnitsky CC, Naduvilath TJ, Sweeney DF, Sankaridurg PR. Two presentations of contact lens-induced papillary conjunctivitis (CLPC) in hydrogel lens wear: local and general. Optom Vis Sci. 2006 Jan;83:27-36.
  35. Szczotka-Flynn L, Diaz M. Risk of corneal inflammatory events with silicone hydrogel and low dk hydrogel extended contact lens wear: a meta-analysis. Optom Vis Sci. 2007 Apr;84:247-256.
  36. Radford CF, Minassian D, Dart JK, Stapleton F, Verma S. Risk factors for nonulcerative contact lens complications in an ophthalmic accident and emergency department: a case-control study. Ophthalmology. 2009 Mar 11;116:385-392.
  37. Chalmers RL, Keay L, Long B, Bergenske P, Giles T, Bullimore MA. Risk factors for contact lens complications in US clinical practices. Optom Vis Sci. 2010 Oct;87:725-735.
  38. Chalmers RL, Wagner H, Mitchell GL, et al. Age and other risk factors for corneal infiltrative and inflammatory events in young soft contact lens wearers from the Contact Lens Assessment in Youth (CLAY) study. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2011 Aug 24;52:6690-6696.
  39. Chalmers RL, Keay L, McNally J, Kern J. Multicenter case-control study of the role of lens materials and care products on the development of corneal infiltrates. Optom Vis Sci. 2012 Mar;89:316-325.
  40. Szczotka-Flynn L, Chalmers R. Incidence and epidemiologic associations of corneal infiltrates with silicone hydrogel contact lenses. Eye Contact Lens. 2013 Jan;39:49-52.
  41. Dumbleton K. Adverse events with silicone hydrogel continuous wear. Cont Lens Anterior Eye. 2002 Sep;25:137-146.
  42. Skotnitsky C, Sankaridurg PR, Sweeney DF, Holden BA. General and local contact lens induced papillary conjunctivitis (CLPC). Clin Exp Optom. 2002 May;85:193-197.
  43. Donshik P, Long B, Dillehay SM, et al. Inflammatory and mechanical complications associated with 3 years of up to 30 nights of continuous wear of lotrafilcon A silicone hydrogel lenses. Eye Contact Lens. 2007 Jul;33:191-195.
  44. Sorbara L, Jones L, Williams-Lyn D. Contact lens induced papillary conjunctivitis with silicone hydrogel lenses. Cont Lens Anterior Eye. 2009 Apr;32:93-96.
  45. Lin MC, Yeh TN. Mechanical complications induced by silicone hydrogel contact lenses. Eye Contact Lens. 2013 Jan;39:115-124.
  46. Willcox M, Sankaridurg PR, Zhu H, et al. Inflammation and infection and the effects of the closed eye. In Silicone hydrogels: Continuous wear contact lenses, Sweeney D, ed. pp. 90 – 125. Butterworth-Heinemann, 2004.
  47. Stapleton F, Stretton S, Papas E, Skotnitsky C, Sweeney DF. Silicone hydrogel contact lenses and the ocular surface. Ocul Surf. 2006 Jan;4:24-43.
  48. Covey M, Sweeney DF, Terry R, Sankaridurg PR, Holden BA. Hypoxic effects on the anterior eye of high-Dk soft contact lens wearers are negligible. Optom Vis Sci. 2001 Feb;78:95-99.
  49. Sweeney D, du Toit R, Keay L, et al. Clinical performance of silicone hydrogel lenses. In Silicone hydrogels: Continuous wear contact lenses, D. Sweeney, ed. pp. 164-216. Butterworth-Heinemann, 2004.
  50. Sweeney DF. The Max Schapero Memorial Award Lecture 2004: contact lenses on and in the cornea, what the eye needs. Optom Vis Sci. 2006 Mar;83:133-142.
  51. Morgan PB, Woods C, Tranoudis I, et al. International Contact Lens Prescribing in 2016. Contact Lens Spectrum; 2017 Jan;32:30-35.
  52. Jones L, Subbaraman LN, Rogers R, Dumbleton K. Surface treatment, wetting and modulus of silicone hydrogels. Optician. 2006 Sep;232:28-34.
  53. Horst CR, Brodland B, Jones LW, Brodland GW. Measuring the modulus of silicone hydrogel contact lenses. Optom Vis Sci. 2012 Oct;89:1468-1476.
  54. Tighe BJ. A decade of silicone hydrogel development: surface properties, mechanical properties, and ocular compatibility. Eye Contact Lens. 2013;39:4-12.
  55. Dumbleton K. Noninflammatory silicone hydrogel contact lens complications. Eye Contact Lens. 2003 Jan;29:S186-S189; discussion S190-S181, S192-S184.
  56. Lorentz H, Rogers R, Jones L. The impact of lipid on contact angle wettability. Optom Vis Sci. 2007 Oct;84:946-953.
  57. Read ML, Morgan PB, Kelly JM, Maldonado-Codina C. Dynamic contact angle analysis of silicone hydrogel contact lenses. J Biomater Appl. 2011 Jul;26:85-99.
  58. Menzies KL, Jones LW. Sessile drop contact angle analysis of hydrogel and silicone hydrogel daily disposable and frequent replacement contact lenses. Contact Lens Anterior Eye. 2012 Dec 1;35:e12-e13.
  59. Lira M, Silva R. Effect of Lens Care Systems on Silicone Hydrogel Contact Lens Hydrophobicity. Eye Contact Lens. 2017 Mar;43:89-94.
  60. Keir N, Jones L. Wettability and silicone hydrogel lenses: a review. Eye Contact Lens. 2013 Jan;39:100-108.
  61. Truong TN, Graham AD, Lin MC. Factors in contact lens symptoms: evidence from a multistudy database. Optom Vis Sci. 2014 Feb;91:133-141.
  62. Carney FP, Nash WL, Sentell KB. The adsorption of major tear film lipids in vitro to various silicone hydrogels over time. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2008 Jan;49:120-124.
  63. Pucker AD, Thangavelu M, Nichols JJ. In vitro lipid deposition on hydrogel and silicone hydrogel contact lenses. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2010 Dec;51:6334-6340.
  64. Walther H, Lorentz H, Kay L, Heynen M, Jones L. The effect of in vitro lipid concentration on lipid deposition on silicone hydrogel and conventional hydrogel contact lens materials. Contact Lens Anterior Eye. 2011 Dec 1;34:S21.
  65. Lorentz H, Heynen M, Trieu D, Hagedom SJ, Jones L. The impact of tear film components on in vitro lipid uptake. Optom Vis Sci. 2012 Jun;89:856-867.
  66. Walther H, Subbaraman L, Jones LW. In Vitro Cholesterol Deposition on Daily Disposable Contact Lens Materials. Optom Vis Sci. 2016 Jan;93:36-41.
  67. Senchyna M, Jones L, Louie D, May C, Forbes I, Glasier MA. Quantitative and conformational characterization of lysozyme deposited on balafilcon and etafilcon contact lens materials. Curr Eye Res. 2004 Jan;28:25-36.
  68. Subbaraman LN, Glasier MA, Senchyna M, Sheardown H, Jones L. Kinetics of in vitro lysozyme deposition on silicone hydrogel, PMMA, and FDA groups I, II, and IV contact lens materials. Curr Eye Res. 2006 Oct;31:787-796.
  69. Suwala M, Glasier MA, Subbaraman LN, Jones L. Quantity and conformation of lysozyme deposited on conventional and silicone hydrogel contact lens materials using an in vitro model. Eye Contact Lens. 2007 May;33:138-143.
  70. Luensmann D, Jones L. Protein deposition on contact lenses: the past, the present, and the future. Cont Lens Anterior Eye. 2012 Apr;35:53-64.
  71. Nichols JJ. Deposition on silicone hydrogel lenses. Eye Contact Lens. 2013 Jan;39:19-22.
  72. Hall B, Jones L, Forrest JA. Kinetics of Competitive Adsorption between Lysozyme and Lactoferrin on Silicone Hydrogel Contact Lenses and the Effect on Lysozyme Activity. Curr Eye Res. 2015 May;40:622-631.
  73. Omali NB, Subbaraman LN, Coles-Brennan C, Fadli Z, Jones LW. Biological and clinical implications of lysozyme deposition on soft contact lenses. Optom Vis Sci. 2015 Jul;92:750-757.
  74. Heynen M, Babaei Omali N, Fadli Z, Coles-Brennan C, Subbaraman LN, Jones L. Selectivity and localization of lysozyme uptake in contemporary hydrogel contact lens materials. J Biomater Sci Polym Ed. 2017 Sep;281351-1364.
  75. Chou B. Are silicone hydrogel contact lenses overrated? Contact Lens Spectrum. 2005 Jul;20:58-59.
  76. Jones L, MacDougall N, Sorbara LG. Asymptomatic corneal staining associated with the use of balafilcon silicone-hydrogel contact lenses disinfected with a polyaminopropyl biguanide-preserved care regimen. Optom Vis Sci. 2002 Dec;79:753-761.
  77. Andrasko G, Ryen K. A series of evaluations of MPS and silicone hydrogel lens combinations. Rev Cornea Contact Lenses. 2007 Mar;143:36-42.
  78. Carnt N, Jalbert I, Stretton S, Naduvilath T, Papas E. Solution toxicity in soft contact lens daily wear is associated with corneal inflammation. Optom Vis Sci. 2007 Apr;84:309-315.
  79. Papas EB, Carnt N, Willcox MD, Holden BA. Complications associated with care product use during silicone daily wear of hydrogel contact lens. Eye Contact Lens. 2007 Nov;33:392-393; discussion 399-400.
  80. Andrasko G, Ryen K. Corneal staining and comfort observed with traditional and silicone hydrogel lenses and multipurpose solution combinations. Optometry. 2008 Aug;79:444-454.
  81. Carnt N, Evans V, Holden BA, et al. IER matrix update: adding another silicone hydrogel. Contact Lens Spectrum. 2008 Mar;23:28 - 35.
  82. Carnt NA, Evans VE, Naduvilath TJ, et al. Contact lens-related adverse events and the silicone hydrogel lenses and daily wear care system used. Arch Ophthalmol. 2009 Dec;127:1616-1623.
  83. Willcox MD, Phillips B, Ozkan J, et al. Interactions of lens care with silicone hydrogel lenses and effect on comfort. Optom Vis Sci. 2010 Nov;87:839-846.
  84. Woods J, Jones LW. Pilot Study to Determine the Effect of Lens and Eye Rinsing on Solution-Induced Corneal Staining (SICS). Optom Vis Sci. 2016 Oct;93:1218-1227.
  85. Zhang X, Marchetti C, Lee J, et al. The impact of lens care solutions on corneal epithelial changes during daily silicone hydrogel contact lens wear as measured by in vivo confocal microscopy. Cont Lens Anterior Eye. 2017 Feb;40:33-41.
  86. Willcox MD, Carnt N, Diec J, et al. Contact lens case contamination during daily wear of silicone hydrogels. Optom Vis Sci. 2010 Jul;87:456-464.
  87. Wu YT, Teng YJ, Nicholas M, et al. Impact of lens case hygiene guidelines on contact lens case contamination. Optom Vis Sci. 2011 Oct;88:E1180-E1187.
  88. Willcox MD. Solutions for care of silicone hydrogel lenses. Eye Contact Lens. 2013 Jan;39:24-28.
  89. Dantam J, McCanna DJ, Subbaraman LN, et al. Microbial Contamination of Contact Lens Storage Cases During Daily Wear Use. Optom Vis Sci. 2016 Aug;93:925-932.
  90. Varikooty J, Keir N, Richter D, Jones LW, Woods C, Fonn D. Comfort response of three silicone hydrogel daily disposable contact lenses. Optom Vis Sci. 2013 Sep;90:945-953.
  91. Szczesna-Iskander DH. Comparison of tear film surface quality measured in vivo on water gradient silicone hydrogel and hydrogel contact lenses. Eye Contact Lens. 2014 Jan;40:23-27.
  92. Chalmers RL, Hickson-Curran SB, Keay L, Gleason WJ, Albright R. Rates of adverse events with hydrogel and silicone hydrogel daily disposable lenses in a large postmarket surveillance registry: the TEMPO Registry. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2015 Jan;56:654-663.
  93. Varikooty J, Schulze MM, Dumbleton K, et al. Clinical performance of three silicone hydrogel daily disposable lenses. Optom Vis Sci. 2015 Mar;92:301-311.
  94. Wolffsohn JS, Mroczkowska S, Hunt OA, Bilkhu P, Drew T, Sheppard A. Crossover Evaluation of Silicone Hydrogel Daily Disposable Contact Lenses. Optom Vis Sci. 2015 Nov;92:1063-1068.
  95. Diec J, Tilia D, Thomas V. Comparison of Silicone Hydrogel and Hydrogel Daily Disposable Contact Lenses. Eye Contact Lens. 2017 Jan 17. [Epub ahead of print]
  96. Ruiz-Alcocer J, Monsálvez-Romín D, García-Lázaro S, Albarrán-Diego C, Hernández-Verdejo JL, Madrid-Costa D. Impact of contact lens material and design on the ocular surface. Clin Exp Optom. 2018 Mar;101:188-192.
  97. Hall B, Jones L, Forrest JA. Measuring the kinetics and activity of adsorbed proteins: in vitro lysozyme deposited onto hydrogel contact lenses over short time periods. J Biomed Mater Res A. 2013 March;101:755-764.
  98. Walther H, Lorentz H, Heynen M, Kay L, Jones LW. Factors that influence in vitro cholesterol deposition on contact lenses. Optom Vis Sci. 2013 Oct;90:1057-1065.