Skip to content

Clinical Evaluation of Approved and Investigational Contact Lenses Using New UV Additive

Status
Completed
Phases
NA
Study type
Interventional
Source
ClinicalTrials.gov
Registry ID
NCT02982018
Enrollment
133
Registered
2016-12-05
Start date
2016-10-01
Completion date
2017-02-18
Last updated
2018-07-19

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

Conditions

Visual Acuity

Brief summary

Randomized, 8-visit dispensing study over 14 weeks to evaluate the safety and efficacy of an investigational contact lens with a new UV blocker compared to a marketed contact lens.

Interventions

Investigational Contact Lens

DEVICEsenofilcon A

J&J Marketed Contact Lens

Sponsors

Johnson & Johnson Vision Care, Inc.
Lead SponsorINDUSTRY

Study design

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

Eligibility

Sex/Gender
ALL
Age
18 Years to No maximum
Healthy volunteers
Yes

Inclusion criteria

1. The subject must read and sign the Informed Consent form. 2. The subject must appear able and willing to adhere to the instructions set forth in this clinical protocol. 3. Healthy adult males or females age ≥ 18 years of age with signed informed consent. Eligible presbyopes will be those that wear full distance contact lenses in both eyes, then wear reading glasses over them. 4. The subject's optimal vertexed spherical equivalent distance correction must be between -1.00 and - 6.00 Diopters (D). 5. The subject's refractive cylinder must be ≤ 1.00 D in each eye. 6. The subject must have visual acuity best correctable to 20/25+3 or better for each eye. 7. Subjects should own a wearable pair of spectacles. 8. The subject is a current spherical soft contact lens wearer (defined as a minimum of 6 hours of Daily Wear per day, at least 5 days per week, for a minimum of 1 month prior to the study) and willing to wear the study lenses on a similar basis. 9. Subjects must be able and willing to wear the study lenses at least 6 hours a day, a minimum of 5 days per week. 10. The subject must have normal eyes (i.e., no ocular medications or infections of any type).

Exclusion criteria

1. Currently pregnant or lactating (subjects who become pregnant during the study will be discontinued). 2. Any systemic disease, autoimmune disease, or use of medication, which may interfere with contact lens wear. This may include, but not be limited to, diabetes, hyperthyroidism, recurrent herpes simplex/zoster, Sjögren's syndrome, xerophthalmia, acne rosacea, Stevens-Johnson syndrome, and immunosuppressive diseases or any infectious diseases (e.g. hepatitis, tuberculosis). 3. Use of any of the following medications within 1 week prior to enrollment: oral retinoid isotretinoin (e.g. Accutane), oral tetracyclines, topical scopolamine, oral (e.g. Seldane, Chlor-Trimeton, and Benadryl) and ophthalmic antihistamines, oral phenothiazines (e.g., Haldol, Mellaril, Thorazine, Elavil, Pamelor, Compazine), oral and ophthalmic Beta-adrenergic blockers (e.g., Propranolol, Timolol, and Practolol), systemic steroids, and any prescribed or over the counter (OTC) ocular medication. 4. Entropion, ectropion, extrusions, chalazia, recurrent styes, glaucoma, history of recurrent corneal erosions, aphakia, or moderate or above corneal distortion by keratometry. 5. Any previous, or planned, ocular or interocular surgery (e.g.., radial keratotomy, photorefractive keratectomy (PRK), laser-assisted in situ keratomileusis (LASIK), etc.). 6. Any grade 2 or greater slit lamp findings (e.g.., edema, corneal neovascularization, corneal staining, tarsal abnormalities, conjunctival injection) on the FDA classification scale, any previous history or signs of a contact lens-related corneal inflammatory event (e.g.., past peripheral ulcer or round peripheral scar), or any other ocular abnormality that may contraindicate contact lens wear. 7. Any known hypersensitivity or allergic reaction to Optifree®Puremoist® multi-purpose care solution or Eye-Cept® rewetting drop solution. 8. Any ocular infection, allergy or clinically significant ocular disease (e.g. corneal edema, uveitis, severe keratoconjunctivitis sicca, ocular hypertension), or ocular conditions (e.g. strabismus), which might interfere with the study. 9. Any corneal distortion resulting from previous hard or rigid gas permeable contact lens wear. 10. Toric, extended wear, monovision or multi-focal contact lens correction. 11. Participation in any contact lens or lens care product clinical trial within 30 days prior to study enrollment. 12. History of binocular vision abnormality or strabismus. 13. Employee or relative of employees of sponsor or investigational clinic (e.g., Investigator, Coordinator, Technician).

Design outcomes

Primary

MeasureTime frameDescription
Eyestrain Related to GlareUp to 12-Week Follow-upEyestrain related to glare was assessed at the 2-, 4-, 8- and 12- week follow-up visits using an 11-item questionnaire. This questionnaire assesses patient-experience attributes of soft contact lenses. Derived eyestrain related to glare scores using Item Response Theory (IRT) follow a normal distribution with a mean of 50 and a standard deviation of 10. Scores in this study ranged from 30 to 70. Lower scores indicate better performance. This questionnaire is still under development and the data collected is considered exploratory.
Distance Monocular logMAR Visual Acuity (VA)Up to 12-Week Follow-upDistance logMAR Visual Acuity was assessed for each subject and eye at 2-, 4- 8- and 12-weeks. The average logMAR visual acuity for each lens and time point was reported. Lower values of logMAR indicate better vision.
Percentage of Eyes With Grade 3 or Higher Slit Lamp FindingsUp to 12-Week Follow-upSlit lamp findings were graded using a FDA Grade Scale, 0 = None, 1 = Slight, 2 = Moderate, 3 = Significant, 4 = Advanced. Measurements were taken in each subject eye at the initial visit, 2-4-8- and 12-week follow-ups. A new response variable was derived by dichotomizing the data as follows: 1 if a Grade 3or higher SLF was observed and 0 otherwise. The Percentage of eyes with Grade 3 or higher SLFs was reported for each lens and time point.

Secondary

MeasureTime frameDescription
Contact Lens Wearing TimeUp to 12-Week Follow-upContact lens wearing time (hours) was self-reported by each subject at the 2-, 4-, 8- and 12-week follow-ups. The average contact lens wearing time (hours) for each lens and time point was reported.
Percentage of Eyes With Subject Reported Symptoms Problems or ComplaintsUp to 12-Week Follow-upSymptoms, problems and complaints are subject reported and were collected for each subject eye at the 1-, 2-, 4-, 8- and 12-week follow-up evaluations. The data is reported as a binary outcome of yes if a subject experience a problem or complaint or no otherwise. Symptoms, problems and complaints include the following: Burning/Stinging, Itchiness/Scratchiness, Dryness, Lens Awareness, Grittiness/Foreign Body Sensation, Redness, Irritation/Discomfort, Cloudy/Blurry/Hazy, Variable Vision and Other The Percentage of subjects eyes with symptoms, problems or complaints was reported for each lens and time point.

Countries

United States

Participant flow

Recruitment details

A total of 133 subjects were enrolled into the study. Of the enrolled subjects 131 were dispensed study lenses and 2 subjects failed to meet the eligibility criteria. Of the dispensed subjects 123 completed the study and 8 subjects were discontinued.

Participants by arm

ArmCount
Senofilcon A With New UV Blocker
Subjects that wore the senofilcon A with new UV blocker lens throughout the entire duration of the study.
67
Senofilcon A
Subjects that wore the senofilcon A lens throughout the entire duration of the study.
64
Total131

Withdrawals & dropouts

PeriodReasonFG000FG001
Overall StudyAdverse Event11
Overall StudyIncorrect Lens Dispensed10
Overall StudyLens Discomfort20
Overall StudyProtocol Violation11
Overall StudyWithdrawal by Subject01

Baseline characteristics

CharacteristicSenofilcon A With New UV BlockerSenofilcon ATotal
Age, Continuous31.2 Years
STANDARD_DEVIATION 8.15
32.1 Years
STANDARD_DEVIATION 7.99
31.6 Years
STANDARD_DEVIATION 8.02
Race/Ethnicity, Customized
Asian
6 Participants1 Participants7 Participants
Race/Ethnicity, Customized
Black or African American
4 Participants1 Participants5 Participants
Race/Ethnicity, Customized
Other
1 Participants0 Participants1 Participants
Race/Ethnicity, Customized
White
56 Participants62 Participants118 Participants
Sex: Female, Male
Female
45 Participants47 Participants92 Participants
Sex: Female, Male
Male
22 Participants17 Participants39 Participants

Adverse events

Event typeEG000
affected / at risk
EG001
affected / at risk
deaths
Total, all-cause mortality
0 / 670 / 64
other
Total, other adverse events
0 / 670 / 64
serious
Total, serious adverse events
0 / 670 / 64

Outcome results

Primary

Distance Monocular logMAR Visual Acuity (VA)

Distance logMAR Visual Acuity was assessed for each subject and eye at 2-, 4- 8- and 12-weeks. The average logMAR visual acuity for each lens and time point was reported. Lower values of logMAR indicate better vision.

Time frame: Up to 12-Week Follow-up

Population: Subjects that completed all study visits without a major protocol deviation.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (MEAN)Dispersion
Senofilcon A With New UV Blocker (Test)Distance Monocular logMAR Visual Acuity (VA)12-Week Follow-up-0.105 logMARStandard Deviation 0.0769
Senofilcon A With New UV Blocker (Test)Distance Monocular logMAR Visual Acuity (VA)4-Week Follow-up-0.106 logMARStandard Deviation 0.0713
Senofilcon A With New UV Blocker (Test)Distance Monocular logMAR Visual Acuity (VA)2-Week Follow-up-0.107 logMARStandard Deviation 0.0673
Senofilcon A With New UV Blocker (Test)Distance Monocular logMAR Visual Acuity (VA)8-Week Follow-up-0.115 logMARStandard Deviation 0.0776
Senofilcon A (Control)Distance Monocular logMAR Visual Acuity (VA)2-Week Follow-up-0.080 logMARStandard Deviation 0.0663
Senofilcon A (Control)Distance Monocular logMAR Visual Acuity (VA)12-Week Follow-up-0.0892 logMARStandard Deviation 0.0686
Senofilcon A (Control)Distance Monocular logMAR Visual Acuity (VA)8-Week Follow-up-0.0881 logMARStandard Deviation 0.0665
Senofilcon A (Control)Distance Monocular logMAR Visual Acuity (VA)4-Week Follow-up-0.091 logMARStandard Deviation 0.0678
Primary

Eyestrain Related to Glare

Eyestrain related to glare was assessed at the 2-, 4-, 8- and 12- week follow-up visits using an 11-item questionnaire. This questionnaire assesses patient-experience attributes of soft contact lenses. Derived eyestrain related to glare scores using Item Response Theory (IRT) follow a normal distribution with a mean of 50 and a standard deviation of 10. Scores in this study ranged from 30 to 70. Lower scores indicate better performance. This questionnaire is still under development and the data collected is considered exploratory.

Time frame: Up to 12-Week Follow-up

Population: Subjects that completed all study visits without a major protocol deviation.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (MEAN)Dispersion
Senofilcon A With New UV Blocker (Test)Eyestrain Related to Glare8-Week Follow-up44.67 Units on a ScaleStandard Deviation 6.751
Senofilcon A With New UV Blocker (Test)Eyestrain Related to Glare4-Week Follow-up46.40 Units on a ScaleStandard Deviation 7.489
Senofilcon A With New UV Blocker (Test)Eyestrain Related to Glare12-Week Follow-up43.66 Units on a ScaleStandard Deviation 5.921
Senofilcon A With New UV Blocker (Test)Eyestrain Related to Glare2-Week Follow-up44.64 Units on a ScaleStandard Deviation 6.562
Senofilcon A (Control)Eyestrain Related to Glare12-Week Follow-up44.02 Units on a ScaleStandard Deviation 7.687
Senofilcon A (Control)Eyestrain Related to Glare4-Week Follow-up44.59 Units on a ScaleStandard Deviation 7.3
Senofilcon A (Control)Eyestrain Related to Glare8-Week Follow-up43.57 Units on a ScaleStandard Deviation 6.012
Senofilcon A (Control)Eyestrain Related to Glare2-Week Follow-up45.37 Units on a ScaleStandard Deviation 7.631
Primary

Percentage of Eyes With Grade 3 or Higher Slit Lamp Findings

Slit lamp findings were graded using a FDA Grade Scale, 0 = None, 1 = Slight, 2 = Moderate, 3 = Significant, 4 = Advanced. Measurements were taken in each subject eye at the initial visit, 2-4-8- and 12-week follow-ups. A new response variable was derived by dichotomizing the data as follows: 1 if a Grade 3or higher SLF was observed and 0 otherwise. The Percentage of eyes with Grade 3 or higher SLFs was reported for each lens and time point.

Time frame: Up to 12-Week Follow-up

Population: All subjects that were dispensed at least one study lens.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (NUMBER)
Senofilcon A With New UV Blocker (Test)Percentage of Eyes With Grade 3 or Higher Slit Lamp Findings2-Week Follow-up0 Percentage of eyes
Senofilcon A With New UV Blocker (Test)Percentage of Eyes With Grade 3 or Higher Slit Lamp Findings4-Week Follow-up0 Percentage of eyes
Senofilcon A With New UV Blocker (Test)Percentage of Eyes With Grade 3 or Higher Slit Lamp Findings8-Week Follow-up0 Percentage of eyes
Senofilcon A With New UV Blocker (Test)Percentage of Eyes With Grade 3 or Higher Slit Lamp Findings12-Week Follow-up0 Percentage of eyes
Senofilcon A (Control)Percentage of Eyes With Grade 3 or Higher Slit Lamp Findings12-Week Follow-up0 Percentage of eyes
Senofilcon A (Control)Percentage of Eyes With Grade 3 or Higher Slit Lamp Findings2-Week Follow-up0 Percentage of eyes
Senofilcon A (Control)Percentage of Eyes With Grade 3 or Higher Slit Lamp Findings8-Week Follow-up0 Percentage of eyes
Senofilcon A (Control)Percentage of Eyes With Grade 3 or Higher Slit Lamp Findings4-Week Follow-up0 Percentage of eyes
Secondary

Contact Lens Wearing Time

Contact lens wearing time (hours) was self-reported by each subject at the 2-, 4-, 8- and 12-week follow-ups. The average contact lens wearing time (hours) for each lens and time point was reported.

Time frame: Up to 12-Week Follow-up

Population: Subjects that completed all study visits without a major protocol deviation.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (MEAN)Dispersion
Senofilcon A With New UV Blocker (Test)Contact Lens Wearing Time2-Week Follow-up14.7 HoursStandard Deviation 1.76
Senofilcon A With New UV Blocker (Test)Contact Lens Wearing Time4-Week Follow-up14.5 HoursStandard Deviation 2.03
Senofilcon A With New UV Blocker (Test)Contact Lens Wearing Time8-Week Follow-up14.6 HoursStandard Deviation 1.78
Senofilcon A With New UV Blocker (Test)Contact Lens Wearing Time12-Week Follow-up14.7 HoursStandard Deviation 1.67
Senofilcon A (Control)Contact Lens Wearing Time12-Week Follow-up14.3 HoursStandard Deviation 1.83
Senofilcon A (Control)Contact Lens Wearing Time2-Week Follow-up14.0 HoursStandard Deviation 2.14
Senofilcon A (Control)Contact Lens Wearing Time8-Week Follow-up14.1 HoursStandard Deviation 2.02
Senofilcon A (Control)Contact Lens Wearing Time4-Week Follow-up14.2 HoursStandard Deviation 2.14
Secondary

Percentage of Eyes With Subject Reported Symptoms Problems or Complaints

Symptoms, problems and complaints are subject reported and were collected for each subject eye at the 1-, 2-, 4-, 8- and 12-week follow-up evaluations. The data is reported as a binary outcome of yes if a subject experience a problem or complaint or no otherwise. Symptoms, problems and complaints include the following: Burning/Stinging, Itchiness/Scratchiness, Dryness, Lens Awareness, Grittiness/Foreign Body Sensation, Redness, Irritation/Discomfort, Cloudy/Blurry/Hazy, Variable Vision and Other The Percentage of subjects eyes with symptoms, problems or complaints was reported for each lens and time point.

Time frame: Up to 12-Week Follow-up

Population: All subjects that were dispensed at least one study lens.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (NUMBER)
Senofilcon A With New UV Blocker (Test)Percentage of Eyes With Subject Reported Symptoms Problems or Complaints8-Week Follow-up14.1 Percentage of eyes
Senofilcon A With New UV Blocker (Test)Percentage of Eyes With Subject Reported Symptoms Problems or Complaints1-Week Follow-up12.9 Percentage of eyes
Senofilcon A With New UV Blocker (Test)Percentage of Eyes With Subject Reported Symptoms Problems or Complaints2-Week Follow-up15.2 Percentage of eyes
Senofilcon A With New UV Blocker (Test)Percentage of Eyes With Subject Reported Symptoms Problems or Complaints4-Week Follow-up14.1 Percentage of eyes
Senofilcon A With New UV Blocker (Test)Percentage of Eyes With Subject Reported Symptoms Problems or Complaints12-Week Follow-up12.7 Percentage of eyes
Senofilcon A (Control)Percentage of Eyes With Subject Reported Symptoms Problems or Complaints12-Week Follow-up10.7 Percentage of eyes
Senofilcon A (Control)Percentage of Eyes With Subject Reported Symptoms Problems or Complaints4-Week Follow-up11.3 Percentage of eyes
Senofilcon A (Control)Percentage of Eyes With Subject Reported Symptoms Problems or Complaints1-Week Follow-up13.3 Percentage of eyes
Senofilcon A (Control)Percentage of Eyes With Subject Reported Symptoms Problems or Complaints8-Week Follow-up16.9 Percentage of eyes
Senofilcon A (Control)Percentage of Eyes With Subject Reported Symptoms Problems or Complaints2-Week Follow-up23.3 Percentage of eyes

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