Contact Lens Update

Download PDF

Jaya Sowjanya Siddireddy is a post-doctoral Research Fellow in the Eye Research Group, School of Optometry and Vision Science, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia.

Approximately 35% of contact lens wearers discontinue contact lens wear, with the majority reporting ‘discomfort’ and ‘dryness’ as significant reasons, particularly at the end of the day.¹ Approximately, 30 to 50% of contact lens wearers report comfort problems as dry eye symptoms.^2-5 This report briefly reviews the published literature on clinical, microbiological and biochemical aspects of eyelids, their association with ocular and contact lens comfort and offers management strategies for patients reporting contact lens discomfort.

Associations between clinical characteristics of eyelids and contact lens comfort

The eyelid margin

Tribological principles have been applied to model the dynamic interaction between the lid-wiper epithelium and the ocular or contact lens surface, during normal and abnormal blinking and dry eye situations.⁶ The lid-wiper epithelium has a conjunctiva-mucosal morphology,⁷ that contains goblet cells which produce mucin, mostly likely used for lubrication and to reduce the friction between the eyeball and eyelid margin during the blink. In contact lens wear, the coefficient of friction of the surface of the contact lens may play a dominant role, since the friction occurs during small movements and low velocities.⁶ In contrast to symptomatic contact lens wearers, asymptomatic wearers may adapt to this wear, or more likely due to highly hydrated brushes formed by mucins in the form of the glycocalyx coating the surface of the cornea and conjunctival region, may reduce mechanical forces between the ocular surface and the back surface of contact lenses.⁶ The lid-wiper region also has the highest neural sensitivity compared to other parts of the ocular surface such as the bulbar or palpebral conjunctiva and other parts of the eyelid margin and is comparable to the central cornea.⁸ It is of obvious importance during contact lens wear.^9-12

Korb et al. linked changes in the lid-wiper region of the eyelid margin in subjects who experience symptoms of ocular dryness.^9-12 A disturbance in the integrity of the lid-wiper region (called ‘epitheliopathy’) can be viewed clinically by staining the marginal conjunctiva with common ophthalmic dyes such as fluorescein and/or rose bengal.⁹ Several studies have explored the relationship between lid-wiper epitheliopathy and symptoms of dryness and discomfort in contact lens wearers. Lid-wiper epitheliopathy was more common in symptomatic lens wearers (67–80%) compared to asymptomatic lens wearers (13-32%),^10,13 with more signficant differences observed in the upper eyelid¹⁴ compared to the lower eyelid.¹⁵  However, a large multi-centre study that assessed subjective comfort in 253 habitual contact lens wearers showed that 85% of participants presented with lid-wiper staining.¹⁶ The authors found lid-wiper epitheliopathy to be independent of age, sex, race and refractive error but dependent on the habitual soft lens type that was worn. In that particular study there was no relationship to contact lens comfort.¹⁶ Clinical observations of the lid-wiper region in silicone hydrogel wearers has revealed different patterns of staining such as vertical streaks, short horizontal bands, speckled or comb appearances and broad horizontal bands.¹⁷ These patterns change with contact lens type.¹⁷ Lens surface wettability, tear film evaporation rate and quality of the tear film lipid layer may impact the different patterns of lid margin staining.¹⁷ Efron¹⁸ conducted a literature review of staining agents, staining techniques, grading scales and pathologies that were associated with lid-wiper epitheliopathy. The meta-analysis relating to various aspects of soft contact lens wear was unable to demonstrate a significant relationship between grades of lid-wiper epitheliopathy and contact lens user experience (CLUE) score.¹⁸

Histology has revealed that cells with para-keratinization increase in number and extend from the natural stainable line of Marx over the surface of the lid-wiper epithelium.⁷ Norn et al.¹⁹ performed vital staining of the eyelid margin with fluorescein, lissamine green and Sudan III, concluding that the stained line represented the border between tear fluid and the skin corresponding to a mucocuntaneous junction. Findings from this study suggested that eyes with abnormal meibomian gland secretions or morphology had significantly higher (antero-retro displacement) of line of Marx scores. Scoring of location of the line of Marx has been demonstrated to be a rapid, efficient and less-invasive screening test for assessing meibomian gland function.²⁰ Further research needs to be conducted to clearly elicit changes in the mucocutaneous junction and their association with discomfort in contact lens wearers. Studies have shown improvements in the symptomatology of contact lens wearers after treatment of anterior blepharitis and meibomian gland dysfunction.²¹

Conjunctiva

Lid parallel conjunctival folds (LIPCOF) are parallel folds of the lower bulbar conjunctiva parallel to the lower lid margin easily observable with the slit-lamp biomicroscope. They remain unaltered after forced blinks, and have been found to be present in dry eye but are not age-related.^22,23 Several factors have been hypothesized to cause LIPCOF, including conjunctival looseness, inflammatory processes, a decrease in elastic fibres and lymphatic dilation by mechanical forces between the lower eyelid and conjunctiva.²⁴ Decreased mucin production is associated with the severity of LIPCOF, and LIPCOF are also significantly correlated with lid-wiper epitheliopathy.¹⁴ Experienced contact lens wearers with an increased number of LIPCOF with their habitual contact lenses, have significantly lower numbers of LIPCOF three months after having been refit with silicone hydrogel lenses.²⁵ There is also a suggestion that LIPCOF may have an impact on tear meniscus volume and tear drainage, leading to discomfort due to dryness.²⁶ In contact lens wearers, both lid-wiper epitheliopathy and LIPCOF correlated with dryness, but other clinical factors such as corneal staining, bulbar redness, or tear break-up time, did not.²⁵ This suggests that both lid-wiper epitheliopathy and LIPCOF may arise from a similar etiology of friction,²⁷ and may also be secondary to a reduction in lubrication, leading to a cascade of events relating to dryness.

Associations between palpebral conjunctival changes and symptoms of dryness have been previously reported.^10,28 However, it is not completely clear whether these physiological changes are also the underlying cause of reduced comfort. Allansmith et al. reported that 14% of non-contact lens wearers had a satin-smooth conjunctival appearance of the upper tarsal plate, 85% had small uniform papillae and 1% had non-uniform papillae,²⁹ while Korb et al. reported 0.6% of healthy non-lens wearers showing conjunctival papillae of more than 0.3 mm on the upper tarsal conjunctiva.³⁰ The papillary reaction on the upper tarsal conjunctiva is accompanied by discomfort and mucous production and can lead to intolerance and discontinuation of contact lens wear.^28,31,32 Participants with obvious contact lens papillary conjunctivitis will be symptomatic, but there have been no reports directly linking contact lens discomfort with general, non-pathological changes to the palpebral conjunctiva.³³

Meibomian glands

Clinical and cytological evidence suggests that meibomian gland dysfunction in contact lens wearers is due to obstruction of the meibomian orifices by desquamated epithelial cells that tend to aggregate in keratotic clusters, resulting in changes in the meibomian gland and contributing to the primary complaint of contact lens intolerance.^34,35 A comparative cross-sectional study to determine the effect of contact lens wear on the meibomian glands found gland dysfunction in 49% of lens wearers and 39% of  non-lens wearers.³⁶ A recent review of the literature³⁷ on the impact of contact lens wear on meibomian glands concluded that, although there is some evidence suggesting that contact lens wear affects the morphology and function of meibomian glands, it is difficult to demonstrate a relationship between contact lens discomfort and meibomian glands due to a lack of specificity of the applied questionnaires. Longitudinal studies with appropriate questionnaires to monitor comfort changes in a population of neophyte contact lens wearers would provide useful insights in this regard.

Tear film

When meibum reaches the gland orifices, it spreads out over the anterior surface of the pre-ocular tear film.^38,39 A contact lens when placed on the ocular surface divides the tear film into a pre- and a post-lens tear film and creates new interfaces with, and within, the ocular environment. This partition and new interactions have been shown to lead to biophysical changes of the tear film properties, such tear film stability, pre-lens lipid layer thickness, tear volume as well as tear evaporation rate. To date, the effect of many of these biophysical properties on comfort are inconclusive.⁴⁰

Compared to the tear meniscus volume (approximately 1.5 µL) on the ocular surface,⁴¹ a reduced tear meniscus volume (approximately 1 µL) on the contact lens surface was evident.⁴² In contact lens wear, tear volume reduces with time,⁴³ which corresponds to the gradual decrease in ocular comfort towards the end of the day.^44,45 A significant positive association between upper and lower tear meniscus volume with comfort has been noted following 10 hours of contact lens wear.⁴⁴ Stability of the tear film is not constant throughout the day and upon insertion of contact lenses.⁴⁶ Tear film thinning occurs significantly more rapidly (5-6 seconds) over the surface of contact lenses than on the corneal surface.^47,48

In contact lens wearers, reduced pre-lens break-up times have been associated with discomfort.^45,49-55 Non-invasive tear break-up time is a significant predictor of symptoms as measured by the Ocular Surface Disease Index (OSDI).⁵⁶ Tolerant wearers averaged a non-invasive tear break-up time of around 20 seconds in comparison to 13 seconds for intolerant wearers.⁴⁵ The pattern of pre-lens tear film drying on the contact lens surface has been shown to vary with tolerance to contact lens wear, with all intolerant contact lens wearers exhibiting a streak pattern of break-up in comparison to tolerant wearers, in whom more spot break-up patterns were observed.^45,57 Non-invasive tear break-up time after 6 hours of lens wear was found to be shorter in the intolerant group, and pre-lens break-up time deteriorated gradually over the six-hour wear period in the tolerant group only.⁵⁸ However, another study could not confirm non-invasive tear break-up time as a predictor of contact lens tolerance.⁵⁹

The grade of the lipid layer recurrently deteriorates over the contact lens surface, indicating a thinning lipid layer due to lack of a sufficiently thick aqueous layer.⁶⁰ Lipid layer spread has been found to become much slower after 8 hours of soft contact lens wear.⁶¹ This impairment in lipid spread correlates with the thinner aqueous layer formed over the soft contact lens surface, especially silicone hydrogel lenses.^44,62  Tear film evaporation is believed to be the main determinant of tear film thinning and is a key component in tear dynamics,⁶³ compared to absorption and drainage.^64,65 Excessive tear evaporation may cause tear hyperosmolarity, triggering a cycle of ocular surface inflammation.⁶⁶ With one exception,⁶⁷ most of published literature report increased tear evaporation rate in dry eye,^68-72 typically in association with a loss of integrity of the lipid layer.⁷³ Tear evaporation rate increases with a contact lens in situ,^63,74,75 but there are no consistent differences in the tear evaporation rate with different lens materials, even between rigid and soft lenses under constant environmental conditions. The increase in tear evaporation rates ranged from a 1.23 to 2.63 times relative to the non-lens wearing eye, with no clear pattern relating to either the type of lens or its water content.^74,76,77

Tear hyperosmolarity is likely to be a key pathogenic factor causing ocular surface inflammation leading to discomfort.⁴⁰ The electrolytes of the aqueous phase, predominantly sodium and potassium cations and chloride and bicarbonate anions, are major contributors of tear osmolarity, while proteins and sugars play a negligible role.⁷⁸ Tear film osmolarity in the normal eye ranges between 283 and 318 mmol/kg, with an average value of approximately 302 mmol/kg.^78,79 Tear film osmolarity may return to, or remain at, its pre-contact lens insertion level,⁸⁰ or may increase post-lens removal compared to baseline.^81,82 Reduced tear production due to reduced corneal sensitivity and/or excessive tear evaporation due to a disrupted tear film and reduced tear stability could be the two main reasons for increased osmolarity in contact lens wear.^83,84 Significantly higher osmolarity values in participants with contact lens induced dryness have been observed.⁸⁵ However, in a study by Stahl and colleagues,⁸² an association between tear osmolarity and ocular comfort during contact lens wear could not be established.

There is some evidence suggesting a link between reduced blink frequency or increased percentage of incomplete blinks,^48,86-89 tear turnover rate,⁹⁰ tear pH,^91-97 and comfort in contact lens wearers. The best evidence points towards a link between decreased stability, increased evaporation, reduced tear turnover and contact lens discomfort.⁴⁰ However, the effects of these tear properties on comfort are inconclusive.

Associations between biochemical characteristics of eyelids and contact lens comfort

The level of cholesterol (cholesteryl ester + free cholesterol) in tears decreased immediately with lens wear (1.91±1.9 mg/ml) compared to no lens wear (1.95±1.5 mg/ml), but recovered to habitual levels within two weeks of ceasing soft contact lens wear.⁹⁸ Higher levels of cholesteryl esters have been significantly associated with thin lipid layer patterns and increased dryness symptoms in symptomatic contact lens wearers.⁹⁹

In meibum samples of dry eye patients there were higher levels of triacyl glycerides that increased with disease severity,¹⁰⁰ whereas lower levels of triacyl glycerides were found in patients with obstructive meibomian gland dysfunction (2.2%) compared to healthy individuals (3.1%).¹⁰¹ Differences were observed in iso and anteiso fatty acid groups of triacyl glycerides of meibum in contact lens wearers compared to non-lens wearers.¹⁰² In the same study, lower levels of unsaturated and branched fatty acids of the triacyl glycerides were observed in patients with meibomian keratoconjunctivitis. However, in one study, lower levels of triacyl glycerides in the tear lipidome in symptomatic contact lens wearers were associated with reduced tear film stability.⁹⁹

Due to their amphiphilic and surfactant properties, (O-acyl)-ω-hydroxy fatty acids (OAHFAs) are likely to play an important role in maintaining the structural stability of the tear lipid layer along with phospholipids.^100,103 Lam,¹⁰⁰ reported reduced concentrations of OAHFAs in meibum with increased disease severity in a dry eye population. The effect of contact lenses on OAHFAs in tears has not been reported to date to the best of our knowledge.

Wear of daily disposable hydrogel lenses reduced tear phospholipid concentrations (162 ± 33 μg/ml)  in tears after 12 hours of lens wear compared to tears of the same subjects when not wearing lenses (220 ± 35 μg/ml).¹⁰⁴ Reduced tear phospholipids have also been associated with shorter tear break-up times among soft contact lens wearers.⁹⁹ Phospholipase enzymes cleave the ester bond of glycerophospholipids at their sn-2 position, yielding free fatty acids. An increased activity of the enzyme secretory phospholipase A2 (sPLA2) could be a reason for the reduction in phospholipid concentration in tears during lens wear.¹⁰⁴ In tears, the normal sPLA2 concentration is 54.5±33.9 μg/ml, but this is higher (79.6±29.6 μg/ml) among the young (20-29 years), and reduced (32.4±27.8 μg/ml) in older populations (>70 years). During contact lens wear (experienced soft contact lens wearers for a minimum of 2 years), the concentration of sPLA2 in tears was decreased (56.3±30.0 μg/ml) compared to its concentration in people who did not wear contact lenses (95.2±48.2 μg/ml).¹⁰⁵

Tear film proteome changes with contact lens discomfort have not been studied extensively. No significant differences were found in the concentration of total protein, lysozyme, lactoferrin, or sIgA between tears of tolerant or intolerant contact lens wearers in the absence of lens wear compared to soft contact lens wear.^45,58  However, increased levels of lipocalin-1, sPLA₂ and leukotriene B₄ (LTB₄) in tears were observed in intolerant individuals in the absence of contact lens wear compared to tolerant lens wearers.^106,107 A study that analysed diurnal changes in tear protein concentrations with and without contact lens wear showed that absolute concentration of prolactin-induced protein was associated with end of the day discomfort,¹⁰⁸ but not related to changes in 15 different cytokines,¹⁰⁹ bradykinin, sPLA2, complement proteins C3 and C3a or secretory immunoglobulin A.¹⁰⁸ The role of resolvin-D1, which is one of the tear mediators that cease progression of acute inflammation, or cysteinyl leukotrienes and histamine, which are allergic meditors, in contact lens comfort were studied.¹¹⁰ Although there was no association between absolute concentations of LTB₄, sIGA, C3 and C3a with contact lens discomfort,¹¹⁰ a drop in their levels was noted by the end of the day in both contact lens wearers and non-lens weares, with contact lens wearers presenting higher levels compared to non-lens wearers indicating an influence of contact lens on LTB₄ concentration.¹¹¹

Protein analyses also showed decreased levels of MUC5AC in the tears of subjects experiencing contact lens discomfort,¹⁴ while another study could not confirm significant changes in the levels of transmembrane or secreted mucins, or in the content of glycosidic residues in non-goblet epithelial cell vesicles in intolerant contact lens wearers.¹¹²

Associations between microbiological characteristics of eyelids and contact lens comfort

As in other body sites, the ocular microbiota is expected to play a defensive role against colonization of pathogens.¹¹³ Ocular bacterial communities have been studied using culture-dependent methods and more recently, with 16S r RNA gene sequencing in healthy subjects and in people with eye diseases. A recent study investigated the temporal stability of the ocular surface microbiome in a large cohort of healthy subjects.¹¹⁴ This study showed a low diversity of microorganisms on the ocular surface, but most individuals shared several taxa.¹¹⁴ Over 90% of operating taxonomic units were constituted of three phyla: Proteobacteria (64.4%) Firicutes (15.5%) and Actinobacteria (15.0%), and Species of Staphylococcus, Propionibacterium, Corynebacterium, Bacillus, Micrococcus, Rothia, Pseudomonas, Streptococcus, Methylobacterum, Acinectobacter, and member of the familie Oxalobacteracease and Enterobacteriaceae have been cultured from contact lenses.^115,116 Using non-culture methods, eyelid microbiota of lens wearers has been shown to be different from that of non-lens wearers, resembling closely the microbiota of the skin.¹¹⁵ Little is known about the role of these ocular commensals in contact lens discomfort. The total colony forming units isolated from dry eye participants were significantly different from that of the non-dry eye group.¹¹⁷ While another study showed that the relative proportions of bacteria did not change significantly in different severities of meibomian gland dysfunction and anterior blepharitis.¹¹⁸ Given the discrepancies in these findings and the changes that occur to the lid microbiota during lens wear, it is possible that ocular microbiota might have some role in contact lens discomfort.

Blepharitis is known to provide a favourable environment for Demodex infestation,^119,120 and is associated with colonization of the eyelid margins by bacteria such as Staphylococcus epidermidis, Propionibacterium acnes, Corynebacterium and Staphylococcus aureus.^119,120 Some common ocular symptoms associated with Demodex infestation include itching, redness and tearing.¹²¹ Clinically, the presence of Demodex in hair follicles can be confirmed using various techniques such as reflectance in vivo confocal microscopy,¹²² cilia epilation and mite observation under a light microscope,¹²³ or by cilia manipulation and observing them in vivo under a high-magnification biomicroscope.¹²⁴ Infestation with Demodex mites has been shown to impact a number of ocular symptoms and clinical signs such as conjunctival inflammation and tear break-up time.^125,126  Additionally, a significant relationship between the number of Demodex and ocular discomfort measured with the ocular surface disease index (OSDI) has been reported,^126,127 but this could not be replicated in a recent study.¹²⁸ Hence, it is uncertain if Demodex influences contact lens comfort. Contact lens wearers may harbor more Demodex than non-contact lens wearers, with up to 90% of contact lens wearers harbouring mites.¹²⁸

Associations between microbiological characteristics of eyelids and contact lens comfort

Investigating the influence of contact lens material, design and the lens care system is vital to understanding contact lens discomfort. Differences between brands of contact lenses made from the same material (that may differ in geometric designs, edge configuration or production methods), differences in wearing modality (daily wear, overnight occasionally, or up to 30 nights continuous wear), duration of use prior to replacement, wearing time during the day (from just a few hours to most of the day) and finally the lens care products (which could range from no exposure in the case of daily disposable lenses to a preserved system) that has extensive uptake and release of product into the contact lens material may have an impact on comfort experienced by contact lens wearers.¹²⁹

Most studies with robust experimental designs, including masking, randomization and concurrent controls have shown no difference in subjective comfort between silicone hydrogel and hydrogel lenses.¹²⁹ Daily disposable hydrogel lenses have been shown to be more comfortable than the same lenses worn daily on a frequent replacement basis and using disinfecting solutions to care for lenses.¹³⁰ High water content lenses,^85,131 and high coefficient of friction,^132-134 have been shown to be associated with contact lens related dryness symptoms. Ionicity,⁸⁵ and low-modulus of elasticity,^135-137 are not believed to influence comfort.

A thorough review of the literature shows that there are very few proven links between contact lens discomfort and factors related to the contact lens material, design, and care system.^138-142 However, clinical insight,^130,143 demonstrates that making changes to the lens material, design, care system, and replacement schedule can improve comfort in contact lens wearers who exhibit unacceptable comfort.

Summary

Contact lens discomfort is a substantial problem experienced by up to 50% of lens wearers globally and it is one of the factors associated with permanent discontinuation of lens wear.¹⁴⁴ With the available information, the lid margin, especially the lid-wiper region and tear biophysical properties, appear to strongly determine symptoms in contact lens wearers, while weak associations are noted with tear biochemistry, structural and functional alterations in the meibomian gland, bulbar and palpebral conjunctiva.

REFERENCES:

1. Fonn D. Targeting Contact Lens Induced Dryness and Discomfort: What Properties Will Make Lenses More Comfortable. Optom Vis Sci 2007;84:279-85.
2. Dumbleton K, Caffery B, Dogru M, et al. The TFOS International Workshop on Contact Lens Discomfort: Report of the Subcommittee on Epidemiology. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2013;54:TFOS20-36.
3. Nichols JJ, Mitchell GL, Nichols KK, et al. The Performance of the Contact Lens Dry Eye Questionnaire as a Screening Survey for Contact Lens-Related Dry Eye. Cornea 2002;21:469-75.
4. Begley CG, Caffery B, Nichols KK, Chalmers R. Responses of Contact Lens Wearers to a Dry Eye Survey. Optom Vis Sci 2000;77:40-6.
5. Arita R, Itoh K, Inoue K, et al. Contact Lens Wear Is Associated with Decrease of Meibomian Glands. Ophthalmology 2009;116:379-84.
6. Pult H, Tosatti SG, Spencer ND, et al. Spontaneous Blinking from a Tribological Viewpoint. Ocul Surf 2015;13:236-49.
7. Knop E, Knop N, Zhivov A, et al. The Lid Wiper and Muco-Cutaneous Junction Anatomy of the Human Eyelid Margins: An in Vivo Confocal and Histological Study. J Anat 2011;218:449-61.
8. Golebiowski B, Chim K, So J, Jalbert I. Lid Margins: Sensitivity, Staining, Meibomian Gland Dysfunction, and Symptoms. Optom Vis Sci 2012;89:1443-9.
9. Korb DR, Blackie CA. Marx’s Line of the Upper Lid Is Visible in Upgaze without Lid Eversion. Eye Contact Lens 2010;36:149-51.
10. Korb DR, Greiner JV, Herman JP, et al. Lid-Wiper Epitheliopathy and Dry-Eye Symptoms in Contact Lens Wearers. CLAO J 2002;28:211-6.
11. Korb DR, Herman JP, Greiner JV, et al. Lid Wiper Epitheliopathy and Dry Eye Symptoms. Eye Contact Lens 2005;31:2-8.
12. Korb DR, Herman JP, Blackie CA, et al. Prevalence of Lid Wiper Epitheliopathy in Subjects with Dry Eye Signs and Symptoms. Cornea 2010;29:377-83.
13. Yeniad B, Beginoglu M, Bilgin LK. Lid-Wiper Epitheliopathy in Contact Lens Users and Patients with Dry Eye. Eye Contact Lens 2010;36:140-3.
14. Berry M, Pult H, Purslow C, Murphy PJ. Mucins and Ocular Signs in Symptomatic and Asymptomatic Contact Lens Wear. Optom Vis Sci 2008;85:E930-8.
15. Shiraishi A, Yamanishi S, Yamamoto Y, et al. [Lid-Wiper Epitheliopathy in Patients with Dry Eye Symptoms]. Nippon Ganka Gakkai Zasshi 2009;113:596-600.
16. Schulze MM, Srinivasan S, Hickson-Curran SB, et al. Lid Wiper Epitheliopathy in Soft Contact Lens Wearers. Optom Vis Sci 2016;93:943-54.
17. Varikooty J, Srinivasan S, Subbaraman L, et al. Variations in Observable Lid Wiper Epitheliopathy (LWE) Staining Patterns in Wearers of Silicone Hydrogel Lenses. Cont Lens Anterior Eye 2015;38:471-6.
18. Efron N, Brennan NA, Morgan PB, Wilson T. Lid Wiper Epitheliopathy. Prog Retin Eye Res 2016;53:140-74.
19. Norn MS. Vital Staining of the Canaliculus Lacrimalis and the Palpebral Border (Marx’ Line). Acta Ophthalmol (Copenh) 1966;44:948-59.
20. Nichols KK. The International Workshop on Meibomian Gland Dysfunction: Introduction. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2011;52:1917-21.
21. Guillon M, Maissa C, Wong S. Symptomatic Relief Associated with Eyelid Hygiene in Anterior Blepharitis and MGD. Eye Contact Lens 2012;38:306-12.
22. Pult H, Murphy PJ, Purslow C. A Novel Method to Predict the Dry Eye Symptoms in New Contact Lens Wearers. Optom Vis Sci 2009;86:E1042-50.
23. Nemeth J, Fodor E, Lang Z, et al. Lid-Parallel Conjunctival Folds (LIPCOF) and Dry Eye: A Multicentre Study. Br J Ophthalmol 2012;96:1380-5.
24. Balci O. Clinical Characteristics of Conjunctivochalasis. Clin Ophthalmol 2014;8:1655-60.
25. Pult H, Riede-Pult BH. Impact of Conjunctival Folds on Central Tear Meniscus Height. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2015;56:1459-66.
26. Gumus K, Pflugfelder SC. Increasing Prevalence and Severity of Conjunctivochalasis with Aging Detected by Anterior Segment Optical Coherence Tomography. Am J Ophthalmol 2013;155:238-42.e2.
27. Pult H, Tosatti SG, Spencer ND, et al. Spontaneous Blinking from a Tribological Viewpoint. Ocul Surf 2015.
28. Allansmith MR, Korb DR, Greiner JV, et al. Giant Papillary Conjunctivitis in Contact Lens Wearers. Am J Ophthalmol 1977;83:697-708.
29. Allansmith MR. Pathology and Treatment of Giant Papillary Conjunctivitis. I. The U.S. Perspective. Clin Ther 1987;9:443-50.
30. Korb DR, Allansmith MR, Greiner JV, et al. Prevalence of Conjunctival Changes in Wearers of Hard Contact Lenses. Am J Ophthalmol 1980;90:336-41.
31. Allansmith MR, Korb DR, Greiner JV. Giant Papillary Conjunctivitis Induced by Hard or Soft Contact Lens Wear: Quantitative Histology. Ophthalmology 1978;85:766-78.
32. Allansmith MR, Baird RS, Greiner JV. Vernal Conjunctivitis and Contact Lens-Associated Giant Papillary Conjunctivitis Compared and Contrasted. Am J Ophthalmol 1979;87:544-55.
33. Efron N, Jones L, Bron AJ, et al. The TFOS International Workshop on Contact Lens Discomfort: Report of the Contact Lens Interactions with the Ocular Surface and Adnexa Subcommittee. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2013;54:TFOS 98-TFOS122.
34. Korb DR, Henriquez AS. Meibomian Gland Dysfunction and Contact Lens Intolerance. J Am Optom Assoc 1980;51:243-51.
35. Henriquez AS, Korb DR. Meibomian Glands and Contact Lens Wear. Br J Ophthalmol 1981;65:108-11.
36. Ong BL. Relation between Contact Lens Wear and Meibomian Gland Dysfunction. Optom Vis Sci 1996;73:208-10.
37. Arita R, Fukuoka S, Morishige N. Meibomian Gland Dysfunction and Contact Lens Discomfort. Eye Contact Lens 2017;43:17-22.
38. Foulks GN, Bron AJ. Meibomian Gland Dysfunction: A Clinical Scheme for Description, Diagnosis, Classification, and Grading. Ocul Surf 2003;1:107-26.
39. Blackie CA, Korb DR, Knop E, et al. Nonobvious Obstructive Meibomian Gland Dysfunction. Cornea 2010;29:1333-45.
40. Craig JP, Willcox MD, Argueso P, et al. The TFOS International Workshop on Contact Lens Discomfort: Report of the Contact Lens Interactions with the Tear Film Subcommittee. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2013;54:TFOS123-56.
41. Palakuru JR, Wang J, Aquavella JV. Effect of Blinking on Tear Dynamics. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2007;48:3032-7.
42. Chen Q, Wang J, Tao A, et al. Ultrahigh-Resolution Measurement by Optical Coherence Tomography of Dynamic Tear Film Changes on Contact Lenses. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2010;51:1988-93.
43. Chen Q, Wang J, Shen M, et al. Lower Volumes of Tear Menisci in Contact Lens Wearers with Dry Eye Symptoms. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2009;50:3159-63.
44. Chen Q, Wang J, Shen M, et al. Tear Menisci and Ocular Discomfort During Daily Contact Lens Wear in Symptomatic Wearers. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2011;52:2175-80.
45. Glasson MJ, Stapleton F, Keay L, et al. Differences in Clinical Parameters and Tear Film of Tolerant and Intolerant Contact Lens Wearers. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2003;44:5116-24.
46. Nichols JJ, King-Smith PE. The Effect of Eye Closure on the Post-Lens Tear Film Thickness During Silicone Hydrogel Contact Lens Wear. Cornea 2003;22:539-44.
47. Morris CA, Holden BA, Papas E, et al. The Ocular Surface, the Tear Film, and the Wettability of Contact Lenses. Adv Exp Med Biol 1998;438:717-22.
48. Nichols JJ, Mitchell GL, King-Smith PE. Thinning Rate of the Precorneal and Prelens Tear Films. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2005;46:2353-61.
49. Faber E, Golding TR, Lowe R, Brennan NA. Effect of Hydrogel Lens Wear on Tear Film Stability. Optom Vis Sci 1991;68:380-4.
50. Fonn D, Situ P, Simpson T. Hydrogel Lens Dehydration and Subjective Comfort and Dryness Ratings in Symptomatic and Asymptomatic Contact Lens Wearers. Optom Vis Sci 1999;76:700-4.
51. Santodomingo-Rubido J, Wolffsohn JS, Gilmartin B. Changes in Ocular Physiology, Tear Film Characteristics, and Symptomatology with 18 Months Silicone Hydrogel Contact Lens Wear. Optom Vis Sci 2006;83:73-81.
52. Wolffsohn JS, Hunt OA, Chowdhury A. Objective Clinical Performance of ‘Comfort-Enhanced’ Daily Disposable Soft Contact Lenses. Cont Lens Anterior Eye 2010;33:88-92.
53. Sengor T, Aydin Kurna S, Ozbay N, et al. Contact Lens-Related Dry Eye and Ocular Surface Changes with Mapping Technique in Long-Term Soft Silicone Hydrogel Contact Lens Wearers. Eur J Ophthalmol 2012;22 Suppl 7:S17-23.
54. Dogru M, Ward SK, Wakamatsu T, et al. The Effects of 2 Week Senofilcon-a Silicone Hydrogel Contact Lens Daily Wear on Tear Functions and Ocular Surface Health Status. Cont Lens Anterior Eye 2011;34:77-82.
55. Bitton E, Jones L, Simpson T, Woods C. Influence of the Blink Interval on Tear Meniscus Height in Soft Contact Lens and Nonlens Wearers. Eye Contact Lens 2010;36:156-63.
56. Situ P, Simpson TL, Fonn D, Jones LW. Conjunctival and Corneal Pneumatic Sensitivity Is Associated with Signs and Symptoms of Ocular Dryness. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2008;49:2971-6.
57. Bitton E, Lovasik JV. Longitudinal Analysis of Precorneal Tear Film Rupture Patterns. Adv Exp Med Biol 1998;438:381-9.
58. Glasson MJ, Stapleton F, Keay L, Willcox MD. The Effect of Short Term Contact Lens Wear on the Tear Film and Ocular Surface Characteristics of Tolerant and Intolerant Wearers. Cont Lens Anterior Eye 2006;29:41-7; quiz 9.
59. Chui WS, Cho P, Brown B. Soft Contact Lens Wear in Hong Kong-Chinese: Predicting Success. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 2000;20:480-6.
60. Yokoi N, Yamada H, Mizukusa Y, et al. Rheology of Tear Film Lipid Layer Spread in Normal and Aqueous Tear-Deficient Dry Eyes. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2008;49:5319-24.
61. Varikooty J, Keir N, Simpson T. Estimating Tear Film Spread and Stability through Tear Hydrodynamics. Optom Vis Sci 2012;89:E1119-24.
62. Lorentz H, Jones L. Lipid Deposition on Hydrogel Contact Lenses: How History Can Help Us Today. Optom Vis Sci 2007;84:286-95.
63. Guillon M, Maissa C. Contact Lens Wear Affects Tear Film Evaporation. Eye Contact Lens 2008;34:326-30.
64. Kimball SH, King-Smith PE, Nichols JJ. Evidence for the Major Contribution of Evaporation to Tear Film Thinning between Blinks. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2010;51:6294-7.
65. King-Smith PE, Nichols JJ, Nichols KK, et al. Contributions of Evaporation and Other Mechanisms to Tear Film Thinning and Break-Up. Optom Vis Sci 2008;85:623-30.
66. The Definition and Classification of Dry Eye Disease: Report of the Definition and Classification Subcommittee of the International Dry Eye Workshop (2007). Ocul Surf 2007;5:75-92.
67. Tsubota K, Yamada M. Tear Evaporation from the Ocular Surface. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 1992;33:2942-50.
68. Tomlinson A, Khanal S. Assessment of Tear Film Dynamics: Quantification Approach. Ocul Surf 2005;3:81-95.
69. Mathers WD, Binarao G, Petroll M. Ocular Water Evaporation and the Dry Eye. A New Measuring Device. Cornea 1993;12:335-40.
70. Kamao T, Yamaguchi M, Kawasaki S, et al. Screening for Dry Eye with Newly Developed Ocular Surface Thermographer. Am J Ophthalmol 2011;151:782-91.e1.
71. Khanal S, Tomlinson A, Diaper CJ. Tear Physiology of Aqueous Deficiency and Evaporative Dry Eye. Optom Vis Sci 2009;86:1235-40.
72. Mathers WD. Ocular Evaporation in Meibomian Gland Dysfunction and Dry Eye. Ophthalmology 1993;100:347-51.
73. Craig JP, Tomlinson A. Importance of the Lipid Layer in Human Tear Film Stability and Evaporation. Optom Vis Sci 1997;74:8-13.
74. Thai LC, Tomlinson A, Doane MG. Effect of Contact Lens Materials on Tear Physiology. Optom Vis Sci 2004;81:194-204.
75. Hamano H, Hori M, Hamano T, et al. A New Method for Measuring Tears. CLAO J 1983;9:281-9.
76. Cedarstaff TH, Tomlinson A. A Comparative Study of Tear Evaporation Rates and Water Content of Soft Contact Lenses. Am J Optom Physiol Opt 1983;60:167-74.
77. Willcox MDP, Argueso P, Georgiev GA, et al. TFOS Dews II Tear Film Report. Ocul Surf 2017;15:366-403.
78. Murube J. Tear Osmolarity. Ocul Surf 2006;4:62-73.
79. Tomlinson A, Khanal S, Ramaesh K, et al. Tear Film Osmolarity: Determination of a Referent for Dry Eye Diagnosis. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2006;47:4309-15.
80. Sarac O, Gurdal C, Bostanci-Ceran B, Can I. Comparison of Tear Osmolarity and Ocular Comfort between Daily Disposable Contact Lenses: Hilafilcon B Hydrogel Versus Narafilcon a Silicone Hydrogel. Int Ophthalmol 2012;32:229-33.
81. Iskeleli G, Karakoc Y, Aydin O, et al. Comparison of Tear-Film Osmolarity in Different Types of Contact Lenses. CLAO J 2002;28:174-6.
82. Stahl U, Willcox MD, Naduvilath T, Stapleton F. Influence of Tear Film and Contact Lens Osmolality on Ocular Comfort in Contact Lens Wear. Optom Vis Sci 2009;86:857-67.
83. Farris RL. Tear Osmolarity–a New Gold Standard? Adv Exp Med Biol 1994;350:495-503.
84. Gilbard JP, Gray KL, Rossi SR. A Proposed Mechanism for Increased Tear-Film Osmolarity in Contact Lens Wearers. Am J Ophthalmol 1986;102:505-7.
85. Nichols JJ, Sinnott LT. Tear Film, Contact Lens, and Patient-Related Factors Associated with Contact Lens-Related Dry Eye. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2006;47:1319-28.
86. King-Smith PE, Fink BA, Hill RM, et al. The Thickness of the Tear Film. Curr Eye Res 2004;29:357-68.
87. Collins MJ, Iskander DR, Saunders A, et al. Blinking Patterns and Corneal Staining. Eye Contact Lens 2006;32:287-93.
88. Wolkoff P, Nojgaard JK, Troiano P, Piccoli B. Eye Complaints in the Office Environment: Precorneal Tear Film Integrity Influenced by Eye Blinking Efficiency. Occup Environ Med 2005;62:4-12.
89. Nichols JJ, King-Smith PE. The Impact of Hydrogel Lens Settling on the Thickness of the Tears and Contact Lens. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2004;45:2549-54.
90. Xu KP, Tsubota K. Correlation of Tear Clearance Rate and Fluorophotometric Assessment of Tear Turnover. Br J Ophthalmol 1995;79:1042-5.
91. Coles WH, Jaros PA. Dynamics of Ocular Surface pH. Br J Ophthalmol 1984;68:549-52.
92. Chen FS, Maurice DM. The pH in the Precorneal Tear Film and under a Contact Lens Measured with a Fluorescent Probe. Exp Eye Res 1990;50:251-9.
93. Andres S, Garcia ML, Espina M, et al. Tear pH, Air Pollution, and Contact Lenses. Am J Optom Physiol Opt 1988;65:627-31.
94. Abelson MB, Udell IJ, Weston JH. Normal Human Tear pH by Direct Measurement. Arch Ophthalmol 1981;99:301.
95. Pensyl CD, Dillehay SM. The Repeatability of Tear Mucus Ferning Grading. Optom Vis Sci 1998;75:600-4.
96. Ravazzoni L, Ghini C, Macri A, Rolando M. Forecasting of Hydrophilic Contact Lens Tolerance by Means of Tear Ferning Test. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 1998;236:354-8.
97. Kogbe O, Liotet S. An Interesting Use of the Study of Tear Ferning Patterns in Contactology. Ophthalmologica 1987;194:150-3.
98. Young WH, Hill RM. Tear Cholesterol Levels and Contact Lens Adaptation. Am J Optom Arch Am Acad Optom 1973;50:12-6.
99. Guillon M, Maissa C, Girard-Claudon K, Cooper P. Influence of the Tear Film Composition on Tear Film Structure and Symptomatology of Soft Contact Lens Wearers. Adv Exp Med Biol 2002;506:895-9.
100. Lam SM, Tong L, Yong SS, et al. Meibum Lipid Composition in Asians with Dry Eye Disease. PLoS One 2011;6:e24339.
101. Mathers WD, Lane JA. Meibomian Gland Lipids, Evaporation, and Tear Film Stability. Adv Exp Med Biol 1998;438:349-60.
102. Shine WE, McCulley JP. Meibomian Gland Triglyceride Fatty Acid Differences in Chronic Blepharitis Patients. Cornea 1996;15:340-6.
103. Butovich IA. Cholesteryl Esters as a Depot for Very Long Chain Fatty Acids in Human Meibum. J Lipid Res 2009;50:501-13.
104. Yamada M, Mochizuki H, Kawashima M, Hata S. Phospholipids and Their Degrading Enzyme in the Tears of Soft Contact Lens Wearers. Cornea 2006;25:S68-72.
105. Aho VV, Nevalainen TJ, Saari KM. Group IIA Phospholipase A2 Content of Basal, Nonstimulated and Reflex Tears. Curr Eye Res 2002;24:224-7.
106. Masoudi S, Stapleton FJ, Willcox MDP. Differences in Tear Film Biochemistry of Symptomatic and Asymptomatic Lens Wearers. Optom Vis Sci 2017;94:914-8.
107. Glasson M, Stapleton F, Willcox M. Lipid, Lipase and Lipocalin Differences between Tolerant and Intolerant Contact Lens Wearers. Curr Eye Res 2002;25:227-35.
108. Masoudi S, Stapleton FJ, Willcox MD. Contact Lens-Induced Discomfort and Protein Changes in Tears.Optom Vis Sci 2016;93:955-62.
109. Willcox MD, Zhao Z, Naduvilath T, Lazon de la Jara P. Cytokine Changes in Tears and Relationship to Contact Lens Discomfort. Mol Vis 2015;21:293-305.
110. Masoudi S, Zhao Z, Willcox M. Relation between Ocular Comfort, Arachidonic Acid Mediators, and Histamine. Curr Eye Res 2017;42:822-6.
111. Masoudi S, Zhao Z, Stapleton F, Willcox M. Contact Lens-Induced Discomfort and Inflammatory Mediator Changes in Tears. Eye Contact Lens 2017;43:40-5.
112. Hori Y, Argueso P, Spurr-Michaud S, Gipson IK. Mucins and Contact Lens Wear. Cornea 2006;25:176-81.
113. Bonini S, Micera A, Iovieno A, et al. Expression of Toll-Like Receptors in Healthy and Allergic Conjunctiva. Ophthalmology 2005;112:1528; discussion 48-9.
114. Ozkan J, Nielsen S, Diez-Vives C, et al. Temporal Stability and Composition of the Ocular Surface Microbiome. Sci Rep 2017;7:9880.
115. Shin H, Price K, Albert L, et al. Changes in the Eye Microbiota Associated with Contact Lens Wearing. MBio 2016;7:e00198.
116. Willcox MD. Characterization of the Normal Microbiota of the Ocular Surface. Exp Eye Res 2013;117:99-105.
117. Albietz JM, Lenton LM. Effect of Antibacterial Honey on the Ocular Flora in Tear Deficiency and Meibomian Gland Disease. Cornea 2006;25:1012-9.
118. Watters GA, Turnbull PR, Swift S, et al. Ocular Surface Microbiome in Meibomian Gland Dysfunction. Clin Exp Optom 2017;45:105-11.
119. Liu J, Sheha H, Tseng SC. Pathogenic Role of Demodex Mites in Blepharitis. Curr Opin Allergy Clin Immunol 2010;10:505-10.
120. Kim JT, Lee SH, Chun YS, Kim JC. Tear Cytokines and Chemokines in Patients with Demodex Blepharitis. Cytokine 2011;53:94-9.
121. Sedzikowska A, Oseka M, Grytner-Ziecina B. Ocular Symptoms Reported by Patients Infested with Demodex Mites. Acta Parasitol 2016;61:808-14.
122. Sattler EC, Hoffmann VS, Ruzicka T, et al. Reflectance Confocal Microscopy for Monitoring the Density of Demodex Mites in Patients with Rosacea before and after Treatment. Br J Dermatol 2015;173:69-75.
123. Sanchez Espana JC. [Demodex Folliculorum: Following the Trail to Chronic Blepharitis]. Arch Soc Esp Oftalmol 2016;91:e41.
124. Mastrota KM. Method to Identify Demodex in the Eyelash Follicle without Epilation. Optom Vis Sci 2013;90:e172-4.
125. Zhao YE, Wu LP, Hu L, Xu JR. Association of Blepharitis with Demodex: A Meta-Analysis. Ophthalmic Epidemiol 2012;19:95-102.
126. Lee SH, Chun YS, Kim JH, et al. The Relationship between Demodex and Ocular Discomfort. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2010;51:2906-11.
127. Koo H, Kim TH, Kim KW, et al. Ocular Surface Discomfort and Demodex: Effect of Tea Tree Oil Eyelid Scrub in Demodex Blepharitis. J Korean Med Sci 2012;27:1574-9.
128. Jalbert I, Rejab S. Increased Numbers of Demodex in Contact Lens Wearers. Optom Vis Sci 2015;92:671-8.
129. Jones L, Brennan NA, Gonzalez-Meijome 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;54:TFOS37-70.
130. Lazon de la Jara P, Papas E, Diec J, et al. Effect of Lens Care Systems on the Clinical Performance of a Contact Lens. Optom Vis Sci 2013;90:344-50.
131. Efron N, Brennan NA, Currie JM, et al. Determinants of the Initial Comfort of Hydrogel Contact Lenses. Am J Optom Physiol Opt 1986;63:819-23.
132. Vidal-Rohr M, Wolffsohn JS, Davies LN, Cervino A. Effect of Contact Lens Surface Properties on Comfort, Tear Stability and Ocular Physiology. Cont Lens Anterior Eye 2018;41:117-21.
133. Brennan NA. Contact Lens-Based Correlates of Soft Lens Wearing Comfort. Optom Vis Sci 2006;86:E-abstract 90957.
134. M.-L.C. Coles-Brennan NAB, H.R.M. Connor, R.G. McIlroy. Do Silicone-Hydrogels Really Solve End-of-Day Comfort Problems? Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2006;47:E-Abstract 106.
135. Dumbleton KA, Woods CA, Jones LW, Fonn D. Comfort and Adaptation to Silicone Hydrogel Lenses for Daily Wear. Eye Contact Lens 2008;34:215-23.
136. Fonn D, Dumbleton K. Dryness and Discomfort with Silicone Hydrogel Contact Lenses. Eye Contact Lens 2003;29:S101-4; discussion S15-8, S92-4.
137. Cheung SW, Cho P, Chan B, et al. A Comparative Study of Biweekly Disposable Contact Lenses: Silicone Hydrogel Versus Hydrogel. Clin Exp Optom 2007;90:124-31.
138. Morgan PB, Chamberlain P, Moody K, Maldonado-Codina C. Ocular Physiology and Comfort in Neophyte Subjects Fitted with Daily Disposable Silicone Hydrogel Contact Lenses. Cont Lens Anterior Eye 2013;36:118-25.
139. Truong TN, Graham AD, Lin MC. Factors in Contact Lens Symptoms: Evidence from a Multistudy Database. Optom Vis Sci 2014;91:133-41.
140. Wolffsohn J, Hall L, Mroczkowska S, et al. The Influence of End of Day Silicone Hydrogel Daily Disposable Contact Lens Fit on Ocular Comfort, Physiology and Lens Wettability. Cont Lens Anterior Eye 2015;38:339-44.
141. Boychev N, Laughton DS, Bharwani G, et al. How Should Initial Fit Inform Soft Contact Lens Prescribing. Cont Lens Anterior Eye 2016;39:227-33.
142. Fedtke C, Bakaraju RC, Ehrmann K, et al. Visual Performance of Single Vision and Multifocal Contact Lenses in Non-Presbyopic Myopic Eyes. Cont Lens Anterior Eye 2016;39:38-46.
143. Tilia D, Lazon de la Jara P, Peng N, et al. Effect of Lens and Solution Choice on the Comfort of Contact Lens Wearers. Optom Vis Sci 2013;90:411-8.
144. Nichols JJ, Jones L, Nelson JD, et al. The TFOS International Workshop on Contact Lens Discomfort: Introduction. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2013;54:TFOS1-6.