Skip to content

Performance of Two Toric Silicone Hydrogel Contact Lenses

Performance of Toric Silicone Hydrogel Contact Lenses Following Two Weeks of Daily Wear

Status
Completed
Phases
NA
Study type
Interventional
Source
ClinicalTrials.gov
Registry ID
NCT03578926
Enrollment
45
Registered
2018-07-06
Start date
2018-06-18
Completion date
2018-10-08
Last updated
2019-12-10

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

Conditions

Astigmatism

Brief summary

Prospective study to evaluate the clinical performance of fanfilcon A toric contact lens and senofilcon A toric contact lens after two weeks of wear.

Detailed description

The aim of this prospective study is to evaluate the clinical performance of Avaira Vitality toric and ACUVUE OASYS® for ASTIGMATISM contact lenses after 2-weeks of wear in each pair.

Interventions

contact lens

DEVICEsenofilcon A toric lens

contact lens

Sponsors

CooperVision, Inc.
Lead SponsorINDUSTRY

Study design

Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Intervention model
CROSSOVER
Primary purpose
TREATMENT
Masking
DOUBLE (Subject, Investigator)

Masking description

Double masked (participant and investigator)

Intervention model description

Prospective, randomized, double masked, bilateral, 2-weeks, crossover study.

Eligibility

Sex/Gender
ALL
Age
18 Years to 40 Years
Healthy volunteers
No

Inclusion criteria

* Is between 18 and 40 years of age (inclusive) * Has had a self-reported visual exam in the last two years * Is an adapted soft contact lens wearer * Has a contact lens spherical prescription between +6.00 to - 9.00 (inclusive) * Have no less than -0.75D of astigmatism and no more than -2.25 D in both eyes. * Can achieve best corrected spectacle distance visual acuity of 20/25 (0.10 logMAR) or better in each eye. * Can achieve a distance visual acuity of 20/30 (0.18 logMAR) or better in each eye with the study contact lenses. * Has clear corneas and no active ocular disease * Has read, understood and signed the information consent letter. * Patient contact lens refraction should fit within the available parameters of the study lenses. * Is willing to comply with the wear schedule (at least 5 days per week, \> 8 hours/day assuming there are no contraindications for doing so). * Is willing to comply with the visit schedule

Exclusion criteria

* Has a CL prescription outside the range of the available parameters of the study lenses. * Has a spectacle cylinder less than -0.75D or more than -2.50 D of cylinder in either eye. * Has a history of not achieving comfortable CL wear (5 days per week; \> 8 hours/day) * Has contact lens best corrected distance vision worse than 20/25 (0.10 logMAR) in either eye. * Presence of clinically significant (grade 2-4) anterior segment abnormalities * Presence of ocular or systemic disease or need of medications which might interfere with contact lens wear. * Slit lamp findings that would contraindicate contact lens wear such as: * Pathological dry eye or associated findings * Pterygium, pinguecula, or corneal scars within the visual axis * Neovascularization \> 0.75 mm in from of the limbus * Giant papillary conjunctivitis (GCP) worse than grade 1 * Anterior uveitis or iritis (past or present) * Seborrheic eczema, Seborrheic conjunctivitis * History of corneal ulcers or fungal infections * Poor personal hygiene * Has a known history of corneal hypoesthesia (reduced corneal sensitivity) * Has aphakia, keratoconus or a highly irregular cornea. * Has Presbyopia or has dependence on spectacles for near work over the contact lenses. * Has undergone corneal refractive surgery. * Is participating in any other type of eye related clinical or research study.

Design outcomes

Primary

MeasureTime frameDescription
Lens CentrationBaselineCentration of lens on eye (Optimum, Decentration acceptable, Decentration unacceptable)
Corneal CoverageBaselineLens covering the cornea (Yes, No)
Post Blink MovementBaselineAmount of lens movement after blink (0-5 Likert Scale, 0=Insufficient, 2=Optimal, 4=Excessive movement)

Secondary

MeasureTime frameDescription
Wearing Time2 weeksAverage daily wearing time (hours/day)
Comfortable Wearing Time2 weeksComfortable daily wearing time (hours/day)

Countries

Mexico

Participant flow

Recruitment details

45 habitual lens wearers were enrolled. 1 participant was ineligible for the study due to an unacceptable lens fit. 44 participants were dispensed and completed all study visits.

Participants by arm

ArmCount
Overall Study
All subjects are randomized to 2-week cross-over study to compare fanfilcon A and senofilcon A.
44
Total44

Baseline characteristics

CharacteristicOverall Study
Age, Categorical
<=18 years
0 Participants
Age, Categorical
>=65 years
0 Participants
Age, Categorical
Between 18 and 65 years
44 Participants
Age, Continuous25 years
STANDARD_DEVIATION 7.2
Race and Ethnicity Not Collected— Participants
Region of Enrollment
Mexico
44 participants
Sex: Female, Male
Female
30 Participants
Sex: Female, Male
Male
14 Participants

Adverse events

Event typeEG000
affected / at risk
EG001
affected / at risk
deaths
Total, all-cause mortality
0 / 440 / 44
other
Total, other adverse events
0 / 440 / 44
serious
Total, serious adverse events
0 / 440 / 44

Outcome results

Primary

Corneal Coverage

Lens covering the cornea (Yes, No)

Time frame: Baseline

ArmMeasureCategoryValue (COUNT_OF_PARTICIPANTS)
Fanfilcon ACorneal CoverageYes44 Participants
Fanfilcon ACorneal CoverageNo0 Participants
Senofilcon ACorneal CoverageNo0 Participants
Senofilcon ACorneal CoverageYes44 Participants
Primary

Corneal Coverage

Lens covering the cornea (Yes, No)

Time frame: 2 weeks

ArmMeasureCategoryValue (COUNT_OF_PARTICIPANTS)
Fanfilcon ACorneal CoverageYes44 Participants
Fanfilcon ACorneal CoverageNo0 Participants
Senofilcon ACorneal CoverageYes44 Participants
Senofilcon ACorneal CoverageNo0 Participants
Primary

Lens Centration

Centration of lens on eye (Optimum, Decentration acceptable, Decentration unacceptable)

Time frame: Baseline

ArmMeasureValue (COUNT_OF_PARTICIPANTS)
Fanfilcon ALens Centration44 Participants
Senofilcon ALens Centration44 Participants
Primary

Lens Centration

Centration of lens on eye (Optimum, Decentration acceptable, Decentration unacceptable)

Time frame: 2 weeks

ArmMeasureCategoryValue (COUNT_OF_PARTICIPANTS)
Fanfilcon ALens CentrationOptimal Centration44 Participants
Fanfilcon ALens CentrationDecentration Acceptable0 Participants
Fanfilcon ALens CentrationDecentration unacceptable0 Participants
Senofilcon ALens CentrationOptimal Centration44 Participants
Senofilcon ALens CentrationDecentration Acceptable0 Participants
Senofilcon ALens CentrationDecentration unacceptable0 Participants
Primary

Post Blink Movement

Amount of lens movement after blink (0-5 Likert Scale, 0=Insufficient, 2=Optimal, 4=Excessive movement)

Time frame: Baseline

ArmMeasureValue (MEAN)Dispersion
Fanfilcon APost Blink Movement1.91 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 0.3
Senofilcon APost Blink Movement1.98 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 0.3
Primary

Post Blink Movement

Amount of lens movement after blink (0-5 Likert Scale, 0=Insufficient, 2=Optimal, 4=Excessive movement)

Time frame: 2 weeks

ArmMeasureValue (MEAN)Dispersion
Fanfilcon APost Blink Movement2.00 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 0
Senofilcon APost Blink Movement2.02 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 0.3
Secondary

Comfortable Wearing Time

Comfortable daily wearing time (hours/day)

Time frame: 2 weeks

ArmMeasureValue (MEAN)Dispersion
Fanfilcon AComfortable Wearing Time10.0 hours/dayStandard Deviation 3.2
Senofilcon AComfortable Wearing Time9.0 hours/dayStandard Deviation 3
Secondary

Wearing Time

Average daily wearing time (hours/day)

Time frame: 2 weeks

ArmMeasureValue (MEAN)Dispersion
Fanfilcon AWearing Time12.2 hours/dayStandard Deviation 2.9
Senofilcon AWearing Time11.6 hours/dayStandard Deviation 3.1

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