Skip to content

One Month Performance Comparison Between Two Commercially Available Silicone Hydrogel Lenses

One Month Performance Comparison Between 2 Commercially Available Silicone Hydrogel Lenses

Status
Completed
Phases
NA
Study type
Interventional
Source
ClinicalTrials.gov
Registry ID
NCT01300741
Enrollment
75
Registered
2011-02-23
Start date
2011-02-28
Completion date
2011-04-30
Last updated
2012-07-10

For informational purposes only — not medical advice. Sourced from public registries and may not reflect the latest updates. Terms

Conditions

Myopia

Brief summary

The purpose of this study is to compare the performance of two commercially marketed contact lenses when worn for up to one month in a daily wear modality.

Interventions

Silicone hydrogel, single vision contact lens worn in one eye in a daily wear modality for approximately 5 days or more per week, at least 10 hours per day, for up to 4 weeks.

DEVICEGalyfilcon A contact lens (ACUVUE® ADVANCE® Plus)

Silicone hydrogel, single vision contact lens worn in one eye in a daily wear modality for approximately 5 days or more per week, at least 10 hours per day, for up to 4 weeks.

Hydrogen peroxide-based system used for cleaning, disinfection and overnight storage of the study contact lenses.

Sponsors

CIBA VISION
Lead SponsorINDUSTRY

Study design

Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Intervention model
SINGLE_GROUP
Primary purpose
TREATMENT
Masking
SINGLE (Subject)

Eligibility

Sex/Gender
ALL
Healthy volunteers
No

Inclusion criteria

* Habitual spherical soft contact lens wearer who wears a contact lens brand with a recommended replacement schedule of 2 weeks or greater. * Have a need for correction in both eyes and be correctable to at least 20/40 distance vision in each eye at the dispense of study lenses. * Willing and able to wear spherical contact lenses within the available range of powers. * Wears contact lenses at least 5 days per week and at least 10 hours per day, removing them nightly. * Other protocol-defined inclusion criteria may apply.

Exclusion criteria

* Eye injury or surgery within twelve weeks prior to enrollment. * Currently enrolled in any clinical trial. * Any use of medications for which contact lens wear could be contraindicated, as determined by the investigator. * Astigmatism of 1.00D or more. * Currently wearing contact lenses in a daily disposable modality. * Currently wearing AIR OPTIX AQUA or ACUVUE ADVANCE Plus contact lenses. * Currently sleeping overnight in contact lenses on an occasional or extended wear basis. * Other protocol-defined

Design outcomes

Primary

MeasureTime frameDescription
Comfort on Insertion4 weeksAs interpreted and recorded by the participant on a questionnaire as a single, retrospective evaluation of 4 weeks of wear. Comfort on insertion was graded on a 10-point scale, with 1 being poor and 10 being excellent.
Comfort During the Day4 weeksAs interpreted and recorded by the participant on a questionnaire as a single, retrospective evaluation of 4 weeks of wear. Comfort during the day was graded on a 10-point scale, with 1 being poor and 10 being excellent.
Comfort at End of Day4 weeksAs interpreted and recorded by the participant on a questionnaire as a single, retrospective evaluation of 4 weeks of wear. Comfort at end of day was graded on a 10-point scale, with 1 being poor and 10 being excellent.
Overall Comfort4 weeksAs interpreted and recorded by the participant on a questionnaire as a single, retrospective evaluation of 4 weeks of wear. Overall comfort was graded on a 10-point scale, with 1 being poor and 10 being excellent.
Daytime Vision4 weeksAs interpreted and recorded by the participant on a questionnaire as a single, retrospective evaluation of 4 weeks of wear. Daytime vision was graded on a 10-point scale, with 1 being poor and 10 being excellent.
Low Light Vision4 weeksAs interpreted and recorded by the participant on a questionnaire as a single, retrospective evaluation of 4 weeks of wear. Low light vision was graded on a 10-point scale, with 1 being poor and 10 being excellent.
Handling on Insertion4 weeksAs interpreted and recorded by the participant on a questionnaire as a single, retrospective evaluation of 4 weeks of wear. Handling on insertion was graded on a 10-point scale, with 1 being difficult and 10 being easy.
Handling at Removal4 weeksAs interpreted and recorded by the participant on a questionnaire as a single, retrospective evaluation of 4 weeks of wear. Handling at removal was graded on a 10-point scale, with 1 being difficult and 10 being easy.
Delivers a Healthy, Natural Feeling4 weeksAs interpreted and recorded by the participant on a questionnaire as a single, retrospective evaluation of 4 weeks of wear. Delivers a healthy, natural feeling was graded on a 10-point scale, with 1 being poor and 10 being excellent.
Lens Awareness4 weeksAs interpreted and recorded by the participant on a questionnaire as a single, retrospective evaluation of 4 weeks of wear. Lens awareness was graded on a 10-point scale, with 1 being very aware and 10 being not aware.
Overall Satisfaction4 weeksAs interpreted and recorded by the participant on a questionnaire as a single, retrospective evaluation of 4 weeks of wear. Overall satisfaction was graded on a 10-point scale, with 1 being poor and 10 being excellent.
Purchase Intent4 weeksAs interpreted and recorded by the participant on a questionnaire as a single, retrospective evaluation of 4 weeks of wear. The participant was asked, How likely would you be to purchase these lenses? Purchase intent was graded on a 5-point Likert scale: Definitely would purchase, probably would purchase, may or may not purchase, probably would not purchase, definitely would not purchase. The Top-2-box response (definitely would purchase, probably would purchase) was calculated and reported as a percentage of all responses.

Participant flow

Recruitment details

Participants were recruited from 5 US study centers.

Participants by arm

ArmCount
Lotrafilcon B / Galyfilcon A
Lotrafilcon B commercially marketed contact lens randomly assigned to one eye, with galyfilcon A commercially marketed contact lens in the fellow eye for contralateral wear. Lenses were worn in a daily wear (DW) modality for approximately 5 days or more per week, at least 10 hours per day, for up to 4 weeks.
75
Total75

Withdrawals & dropouts

PeriodReasonFG000
Overall StudyDiscomfort1
Overall StudyLens deposits1
Overall StudyLost to Follow-up1

Baseline characteristics

CharacteristicLotrafilcon B / Galyfilcon A
Age Continuous30.9 years
STANDARD_DEVIATION 9.2
Sex: Female, Male
Female
53 Participants
Sex: Female, Male
Male
22 Participants

Adverse events

Event typeEG000
affected / at risk
EG001
affected / at risk
deaths
Total, all-cause mortality
— / —— / —
other
Total, other adverse events
0 / 750 / 75
serious
Total, serious adverse events
0 / 750 / 75

Outcome results

Primary

Comfort at End of Day

As interpreted and recorded by the participant on a questionnaire as a single, retrospective evaluation of 4 weeks of wear. Comfort at end of day was graded on a 10-point scale, with 1 being poor and 10 being excellent.

Time frame: 4 weeks

Population: Analysis conducted per protocol, with exclusions due to reasons such as, major protocol deviations as determined by masked review; discontinuations; and/or missing responses.

ArmMeasureValue (MEAN)Dispersion
Lotrafilcon BComfort at End of Day7.8 Units on a ScaleStandard Deviation 1.9
Galyfilcon AComfort at End of Day7.7 Units on a ScaleStandard Deviation 2
Primary

Comfort During the Day

As interpreted and recorded by the participant on a questionnaire as a single, retrospective evaluation of 4 weeks of wear. Comfort during the day was graded on a 10-point scale, with 1 being poor and 10 being excellent.

Time frame: 4 weeks

Population: Analysis conducted per protocol, with exclusions due to reasons such as, major protocol deviations as determined by masked review; discontinuations; and/or missing responses.

ArmMeasureValue (MEAN)Dispersion
Lotrafilcon BComfort During the Day8.4 Units on a ScaleStandard Deviation 1.5
Galyfilcon AComfort During the Day8.4 Units on a ScaleStandard Deviation 1.6
Primary

Comfort on Insertion

As interpreted and recorded by the participant on a questionnaire as a single, retrospective evaluation of 4 weeks of wear. Comfort on insertion was graded on a 10-point scale, with 1 being poor and 10 being excellent.

Time frame: 4 weeks

Population: Analysis conducted per protocol, with exclusions due to reasons such as, major protocol deviations as determined by masked review; discontinuations; and/or missing responses

ArmMeasureValue (MEAN)Dispersion
Lotrafilcon BComfort on Insertion8.7 Units on a ScaleStandard Deviation 1.4
Galyfilcon AComfort on Insertion8.5 Units on a ScaleStandard Deviation 1.6
Primary

Daytime Vision

As interpreted and recorded by the participant on a questionnaire as a single, retrospective evaluation of 4 weeks of wear. Daytime vision was graded on a 10-point scale, with 1 being poor and 10 being excellent.

Time frame: 4 weeks

Population: Analysis conducted per protocol, with exclusions due to reasons such as, major protocol deviations as determined by masked review; discontinuations; and/or missing responses.

ArmMeasureValue (MEAN)Dispersion
Lotrafilcon BDaytime Vision8.8 Units on a ScaleStandard Deviation 1.6
Galyfilcon ADaytime Vision8.7 Units on a ScaleStandard Deviation 1.6
Primary

Delivers a Healthy, Natural Feeling

As interpreted and recorded by the participant on a questionnaire as a single, retrospective evaluation of 4 weeks of wear. Delivers a healthy, natural feeling was graded on a 10-point scale, with 1 being poor and 10 being excellent.

Time frame: 4 weeks

Population: Analysis conducted per protocol, with exclusions due to reasons such as, major protocol deviations as determined by masked review; discontinuations; and/or missing responses.

ArmMeasureValue (MEAN)Dispersion
Lotrafilcon BDelivers a Healthy, Natural Feeling8.6 Units on a ScaleStandard Deviation 1.5
Galyfilcon ADelivers a Healthy, Natural Feeling8.3 Units on a ScaleStandard Deviation 1.9
Primary

Handling at Removal

As interpreted and recorded by the participant on a questionnaire as a single, retrospective evaluation of 4 weeks of wear. Handling at removal was graded on a 10-point scale, with 1 being difficult and 10 being easy.

Time frame: 4 weeks

Population: Analysis conducted per protocol, with exclusions due to reasons such as, major protocol deviations as determined by masked review; discontinuations; and/or missing responses.

ArmMeasureValue (MEAN)Dispersion
Lotrafilcon BHandling at Removal8.8 Units on a ScaleStandard Deviation 1.5
Galyfilcon AHandling at Removal8.8 Units on a ScaleStandard Deviation 1.5
Primary

Handling on Insertion

As interpreted and recorded by the participant on a questionnaire as a single, retrospective evaluation of 4 weeks of wear. Handling on insertion was graded on a 10-point scale, with 1 being difficult and 10 being easy.

Time frame: 4 weeks

Population: Analysis conducted per protocol, with exclusions due to reasons such as, major protocol deviations as determined by masked review; discontinuations; and/or missing responses.

ArmMeasureValue (MEAN)Dispersion
Lotrafilcon BHandling on Insertion8.8 Units on a ScaleStandard Deviation 1.4
Galyfilcon AHandling on Insertion8.6 Units on a ScaleStandard Deviation 1.7
Primary

Lens Awareness

As interpreted and recorded by the participant on a questionnaire as a single, retrospective evaluation of 4 weeks of wear. Lens awareness was graded on a 10-point scale, with 1 being very aware and 10 being not aware.

Time frame: 4 weeks

Population: Analysis conducted per protocol, with exclusions due to reasons such as, major protocol deviations as determined by masked review; discontinuations; and/or missing responses.

ArmMeasureValue (MEAN)Dispersion
Lotrafilcon BLens Awareness8.1 Units on a ScaleStandard Deviation 2.1
Galyfilcon ALens Awareness7.8 Units on a ScaleStandard Deviation 2.5
Primary

Low Light Vision

As interpreted and recorded by the participant on a questionnaire as a single, retrospective evaluation of 4 weeks of wear. Low light vision was graded on a 10-point scale, with 1 being poor and 10 being excellent.

Time frame: 4 weeks

Population: Analysis conducted per protocol, with exclusions due to reasons such as, major protocol deviations as determined by masked review; discontinuations; and/or missing responses.

ArmMeasureValue (MEAN)Dispersion
Lotrafilcon BLow Light Vision8.6 Units on a ScaleStandard Deviation 1.5
Galyfilcon ALow Light Vision8.5 Units on a ScaleStandard Deviation 1.5
Primary

Overall Comfort

As interpreted and recorded by the participant on a questionnaire as a single, retrospective evaluation of 4 weeks of wear. Overall comfort was graded on a 10-point scale, with 1 being poor and 10 being excellent.

Time frame: 4 weeks

Population: Analysis conducted per protocol, with exclusions due to reasons such as, major protocol deviations as determined by masked review; discontinuations; and/or missing responses.

ArmMeasureValue (MEAN)Dispersion
Lotrafilcon BOverall Comfort8.3 Units on a ScaleStandard Deviation 1.7
Galyfilcon AOverall Comfort8.2 Units on a ScaleStandard Deviation 1.7
Primary

Overall Satisfaction

As interpreted and recorded by the participant on a questionnaire as a single, retrospective evaluation of 4 weeks of wear. Overall satisfaction was graded on a 10-point scale, with 1 being poor and 10 being excellent.

Time frame: 4 weeks

Population: Analysis conducted per protocol, with exclusions due to reasons such as, major protocol deviations as determined by masked review; discontinuations; and/or missing responses.

ArmMeasureValue (MEAN)Dispersion
Lotrafilcon BOverall Satisfaction8.4 Units on a ScaleStandard Deviation 1.7
Galyfilcon AOverall Satisfaction8.0 Units on a ScaleStandard Deviation 2
Primary

Purchase Intent

As interpreted and recorded by the participant on a questionnaire as a single, retrospective evaluation of 4 weeks of wear. The participant was asked, How likely would you be to purchase these lenses? Purchase intent was graded on a 5-point Likert scale: Definitely would purchase, probably would purchase, may or may not purchase, probably would not purchase, definitely would not purchase. The Top-2-box response (definitely would purchase, probably would purchase) was calculated and reported as a percentage of all responses.

Time frame: 4 weeks

Population: Analysis conducted per protocol, with exclusions due to reasons such as, major protocol deviations as determined by masked review; discontinuations; and/or missing responses.

ArmMeasureValue (NUMBER)
Lotrafilcon BPurchase Intent55.1 Percent likely to purchase
Galyfilcon APurchase Intent56.5 Percent likely to purchase

Source: ClinicalTrials.gov · Data processed: Feb 4, 2026