Clinical Performance of Samfilcon A Contact Lenses in Intensive Digital Device Users: A Multicenter, Prospective Clinical Study

Creative Commons License

Ucakhan O. O., Tasindi E., Toker E., Ciftci F., Kurna S. A., Acar M., ...More

OPHTHALMOLOGY AND THERAPY, vol.10, no.4, pp.957-972, 2021 (SCI-Expanded) identifier identifier identifier

  • Publication Type: Article / Article
  • Volume: 10 Issue: 4
  • Publication Date: 2021
  • Doi Number: 10.1007/s40123-021-00389-4
  • Journal Indexes: Science Citation Index Expanded (SCI-EXPANDED), Scopus, Academic Search Premier, EMBASE, Directory of Open Access Journals
  • Page Numbers: pp.957-972
  • Keywords: Computer vision syndrome, Contact lens, Contact lens discomfort, Digital eye strain, Dry eye, Myopia, Patient preference, satisfaction, Samfilcon A, Soft contact lens, Visual acuity, TFOS INTERNATIONAL WORKSHOP, VISUAL-DISPLAY TERMINALS, BLINK RATE, SYMPTOMS, PATTERNS, COMFORT, SURFACE, WEAR
  • Hacettepe University Affiliated: Yes


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.