Contact Lens Update

Download PDF

Dr. Maria Walker received her Doctor of Optometry and Master of Vision Sciences degrees from The New England College of Optometry in 2013. She went on to complete a one-year Cornea & Contact Lens Residency at Pacific University in Portland, and a PhD in physiological optics at the University of Houston College of Optometry in 2021. She is a Fellow of the American Academy of Optometry, a Fellow and Immediate Past President of the Scleral Lens Education Society, as well as an advisory board member of the Gas Permeable Lens Institute.

Modern management of dry eye can present a great challenge for the eyecare practitioner, as the pathophysiology is multifactorial and often nuanced in presentation¹, complicating the diagnosis. Contact lens wear adds another level of complexity, with many dry eye patients wearing contact lenses and up to 50% of wearers dropping out due to contact lens discomfort^2–4. Many practitioners often wonder: are contact lenses good, or bad for my dry eye patients? Here we focus on the use of two very different types of specialty contact lenses with dry eye patients: scleral lenses (SL) and orthokeratology (ortho-k) lenses. The selection of patients for either modality is unique, and they can be used to improve vision and ocular comfort for large groups of patients suffering from dry eye^5–13.

What are the different types of dry eye and when is contact lens use appropriate?

Dry eye is classically categorized as being either evaporative or aqueous deficient, although we now understand that these forms typically co-exist^1,14,15. Careful surveying of patient symptoms and minimally invasive testing are used to adequately determine the underlying cause(s) of dry eye and determine if specialty contact lenses are indicated. Testing should be done before and after initiating treatment, to make the initial diagnosis but also to monitor the signs and symptoms for improvement. These include:

1. Surveys, such as OSDI^16,17, SPEED^16,18, or CLDEQ-8^19–21 for current contact lens wearers. These are immensely useful in gauging the severity of dry eye with and without contact lenses and are likely to be impacted the most with effective contact lens treatments for dry eye^11,19,21.
2. Non-invasive tear break up time (TBUT) or standard TBUT with fluorescein (if no appropriate instrumentation is available) is simple and an important part of the diagnostic process^22,23. Reduced TBUT (<10s) is a sign of desiccative stress on the ocular surface, and in addition, the TBUT can also be considered in the context of the “blink interval” (i.e., time between natural patient blinks). If the TBUT is less than the blink interval, the risk of desiccating stress from tear evaporation is increased¹⁴. 
3. Osmolarity & Inflammatory testing are both highly sensitive in detecting dry eye^24–28.  Osmolarity can vary widely both within and between eyes in dry eye, with > 308mOsm/L or >8 point inter-ocular difference considered abnormal^24,28–31. Inflammadry® measures MMP-9 concentration and similarly has a cutoff range, at 40ng/mL, indicative of a pro-inflammatory ocular surface^26,27. Practitioners should be aware that these measurements are taken in the tear meniscus and will typically underestimate the degree of hyperosmolar stress on the greater ocular surface¹, particularly if there is significant pooling of tears during testing.
4. Ocular surface staining should be done last, using Lissamine green first, which will stain devitalized cells³² and is particularly helpful in evaluating the conjunctival eyelid margin.  Use fluorescein to assess tear distribution and TBUT over the cornea. Staining and low TBUT are both signs that the tear fluid overlying the cornea is insufficient.

The eyelid and blinking health should be assessed specifically when diagnosing dry eye¹⁴ and determining if contact lenses are indicated. Blinks that do not fully cover the ocular surface can cause exposure-related tear deficiencies and may benefit from environmental protection provided by a full coverage contact lens (e.g., a SL), whereas ortho-K lenses may not be a good option in a patient without complete eyelid closure. Meibomian gland health should also be carefully assessed when considering contact lenses, although it is still unclear what the impact of SL or ortho-K lenses are on meibomian gland dysfunction (MGD)^33–35.  In general, any inflammation of the eyelids or ocular surface is important to carefully consider with contact lens wear and should be managed as much as possible before prescribing any contact lenses.

A variant of dry eye that is particularly applicable here is contact lens-related dry eye, which can cause between 20-50% of contact lens wearers to drop out each year³⁶. While there is not much evidence that these patients’ comfort would improve with SLs, recent studies suggest that these patients could benefit from ortho-K wear^5,6,37. Let us now further evaluate the specifics of SL and ortho-K for patients with dry eye.

1. Scleral lenses in dry eye therapy

SL have become well-established as a treatment for severe dry eye, such as those secondary to severe systemic conditions such as graft-versus-host disease^13,38–41 and Stevens-Johnson Syndrome^42–45. Similarly, for conditions such as Sjogren’s syndrome in which there is a pathologic reduction in tear production⁴⁶, the use of SL is a well-established treatment^12,47–49. The primary benefits in these populations are the continuous lubrication of the ocular surface that the SL provides, as well as protection from environmental irritants (e.g., wind, dust, allergens, etc.). In severe dry eye, the risk/benefit analysis for SL wear is clearly in favor of lens wear.

The difficult decision for the practitioner comes with the mild to moderate cases of dry eye, which may or may not improve with SL therapy. How does a practitioner decide which dry eye patients are SL candidates?  While the published evidence on the success of SL in mild to moderate dry eye patients is scarce, clinical experience and studies in more severe dry eye patients can help guide the decision-making.

A good candidate for SL dry eye treatment is ideally a patient who has worn contact lenses in the past and is easily able to handle the lenses, as application/removal challenges are a primary barrier for all SL wearers^50–52.  Patients should also be able to experience some relief from soft contact lens wear, since these provide a similar ‘liquid bandage’ over the cornea^53,54.  Clinical signs of desiccating stress, such as corneal and conjunctival staining, indicate that SL therapy could be helpful since it will provide constant lubrication to the compromised ocular surface. Dry eye patients that experience visual fluctuations, and those with a low tolerance for blur, are also good candidates due to the superior and stable optics that rigid lenses provide^42,55,56.

A poor candidate for SL dry eye treatment is someone who has never been able to find comfort in other types of contact lenses. There is no current evidence that patients experiencing soft lens discomfort will improve if switched to SLs. In addition, patients with signs of ocular surface inflammation should be managed with alternative treatments (e.g., therapeutics, hygiene) as much as possible prior to initiating SLs, as these lenses can trap inflammatory mediators on the ocular surface⁵⁷. It is prudent to treat underlying inflammation first, and if the patients still have symptoms, re-assess for SL wear. When in doubt on whether a SL will be beneficial, short in-office trials are recommended, early in the decision-making process, because the initial patient response to the SL handling and comfort are helpful in making the determination on whether to proceed.

2. Ortho-K in dry eye therapy

Using ortho-k to manage dry eye is a bit counter-intuitive, since there is virtually nothing about the lens wear itself that will improve the signs or symptoms of dry eye^33,35,37,58. There is a very specific cohort of dry eye patients who these lenses are appropriate for, which is those who experience contact lens-related dry eye.

Good candidates for ortho-K treatment in dry eye are low to moderate myopes with minimal astigmatism who experience discomfort or dissatisfaction with soft or rigid daily wear lenses. Recent studies have investigated the satisfaction of switching young adults with soft contact lens discomfort into ortho-K and have found a remarkable improvement in ocular comfort^6,59,60 as well as improvements in conjunctival health^6,37,59. Good ortho-K candidates should have a lifestyle that is permissive to overnight wear (i.e., sleep at least 6 hours per day), and it is helpful if they have a relatively mild sensitivity to blur since these lenses will slightly reduce acuity and increase glare compared to soft lenses^60,61. The alterations in acuity and glare should be balanced with the improved quality of life outcomes such as reduced itching, dryness, and lens awareness when wearing ortho-K lenses⁶⁰, also considering that the mid-peripheral aberrations may be beneficial to presbyopic patients in need of multifocality. Optically, adult patients with small pupils and wide treatment zones may have the best visual success with ortho-K, since higher order aberrations (i.e., coma and spherical aberration) are increased in the mid-peripheral cornea during ortho-K treatment^61,62.

There are also patients who will certainly be poor candidates for ortho-K treatment for dry eye. Patients with flat corneal curvatures (less than 41D [flatter than 8.23mm] at the corneal apex) are never good candidates for ortho-K since they will not likely be able to achieve full refractive correction, and although ortho-k lenses can be used in greater myopia and astigmatism, selecting patients with less than 4D myopia and less than 1D astigmatism may increase the chances of success, as higher myopes are more likely to drop out of ortho-K^60,62. Patients with an irregular sleep schedule or with incomplete eyelid closure are also not good ortho-K candidates, as previously mentioned. Like SLs, caution should be used in fitting ortho-K on patients with clear signs of inflammation, as this can complicate the fit and any inflammation should always be appropriately managed as much as possible prior to contact lens wear.

Integrating rigid lenses into dry eye treatment and monitoring for success

Contact lenses, regardless of type, should not be used in isolation in a dry eye management plan. Particularly in more severe cases, patients will often require medicated drops, hygiene therapies, environmental adjustments, and/or nutritional supplements along with the contact lenses to fully manage their disease. Patient selection is key to success, and neither SL nor ortho-K lenses are appropriate for people who are unable to invest in the initial fitting process or adhere to the handling and care routines. Education is critical in managing the dry eye patient, as there are many modifiable factors and behaviors that can improve the condition prior to and during contact lens wear. Lens handing and care, especially selecting the solutions used for disinfecting, conditioning, and application, are as important to success as the lens fitting itself. I recommend using a peroxide-based system for disinfection because they are effective, do not contain added preservatives, and can be used for all rigid lenses. Additional solutions and drops are usually necessary (especially for SL) and should be customized for each patient, depending on their individual sensitivities and responses to the ingredients.  

After implementing scleral or ortho-K lenses into dry eye treatment, monitor the signs and symptoms that were initially assessed. The success of treatment for dry eye can be tricky, however, as there is not one single parameter that is indicative of success. The most valuable indicator of success is likely to be the change in symptom survey scores collected at baseline and at ongoing checkups post-lens fitting. In fact, some of the other outcomes may be misleading (e.g., osmolarity, TBUT) as they may be altered due to contact lens wear^11,12,58 but not necessarily indicative of worsening disease. Ultimately, the patient response and wearing frequency will be the primary indicators of success with treatment.

REFERENCES:

1. Bron AJ, de Paiva CS, Chauhan SK, et al. TFOS DEWS II pathophysiology report. Ocul Surf. 2017;15(3):438-510.
2. Srinivasan S, Subbaraman LN. The Science of Contact Lens Discomfort. Rev Optom. 2015;August:1-10.
3. Dumbleton K, Caffery B, Dogru M, et al. The TFOS International Workshop on Contact Lens Discomfort: Report of the subcommittee on epidemiology. Investig Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2013;54(11).
4. Nichols JJ, Willcox MDP, Bron AJ, et al. The TFOS International Workshop on Contact Lens Discomfort: Executive Summary. Investig Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2013;54(11):7-14.
5. Duong K, McGwin G, Franklin QX, Cox J, Pucker AD. Treating Uncomfortable Contact Lens Wear With Orthokeratology. Eye Contact Lens. 2021;47(2):74-80.
6. García-Porta N, Rico-Del-Viejo L, Martin-Gil A, Carracedo G, Pintor J, González-Méijome JM. Differences in dry eye questionnaire symptoms in two different modalities of contact lens wear: Silicone-hydrogel in daily wear basis and overnight orthokeratology. Biomed Res Int. Published online 2016:1-11.
7. Kok JH, Visser R. Treatment of ocular surface disorders and dry eyes with high gas-permeable scleral lenses. Cornea. 1992;11(6):518-522.
8. Bavinger J, DeLoss K, Mian S. Scleral lens use in dry eye syndrome. Curr Opin Ophthalmol. 2015;26(4):319-324.
9. Alipour F, Kheirkhah A, Jabarvand Behrouz M. Use of mini scleral contact lenses in moderate to severe dry eye. Cont Lens Anterior Eye. 2012;35(6):272-276.
10. Sonsino J, Sztipanovits Mathe D. Central Vault in Dry Eye Patients Successfully Wearing Scleral Lens. Optom Vis Sci. 2013;90(9):e248-e251.
11. Carracedo G, Blanco MS, Martin-Gil A, Zicheng W, Alvarez JC, Pintor J. Short-term Effect of Scleral Lens on the Dry Eye Biomarkers in Keratoconus. Optom Vis Sci. 2015;93(2):150-157.
12. la Porta Weber S, Becco De Souza R, Gomes JÁP, Hofling-Lima AL. The Use of the Esclera Scleral Contact Lens in the Treatment of Moderate to Severe Dry Eye Disease. Am J Ophthamol. 2016;163:167-173.e1.
13. Jacobs DS, Rosenthal P. Boston scleral lens prosthetic device for treatment of severe dry eye in chronic graft-versus-host disease. Cornea. 2007;26(10):1195-1199.
14. Craig JP, Nichols KK, Akpek EK, et al. TFOS DEWS II Definition and Classification Report. Ocul Surf. 2017;15(3):276-283.
15. Jones L, Downie LE, Korb D, et al. TFOS DEWS II Management and Therapy Report. Ocul Surf. 2017;15(3):575-628.
16. Asiedu K, Kyei S, Mensah SN, et al. Ocular Surface Disease Index (OSDI) Versus the Standard Patient Evaluation of Eye Dryness (SPEED): A Study of a Nonclinical Sample. Cornea. 2016;35(2):175-180.
17. Schiffman RM, Christianson D, Jacobsen G, Hirsch JD, Reis BL. Reliability and Validity of the Ocular Surface Disease Index. Arch Ophthalmol. 2000;118(May):615-621.
18. Ngo W, Situ P, Keir N, Korb D, Blackie C, Simpson T. Psychometric Properties and Validation of the Standard Patient Evaluation of Eye Dryness Questionnaire. Cornea. 2013;32(9):1204-1210. www.corneajrnl.com
19. López-de la Rosa A, Arroyo-del Arroyo C, Enríquez-de-Salamanca A, Pinto-Fraga J, López-Miguel A, González-García MJ. The ability of the Contact Lens Dry Eye Questionnaire (CLDEQ)-8 to detect ocular surface alterations in contact lens wearers. Cont Lens Anterior Eye. 2019;42(3):273-277.
20. Chalmers RL, Begley CG, Moody K, Hickson-Curran SB. Contact Lens Dry Eye Questionnaire-8 (CLDEQ-8) and Opinion of Contact Lens Performance. Optom Vis Sci. 2012;89(10):1435-1442.
21. Nichols JJ, Lynn Mitchell G, Nichols KK, Chalmers R, Begley C. The Performance of the Contact Lens Dry Eye Questionnaire as a Screening Survey for Contact Lens-related Dry Eye. Cornea. 2002;21(5):469-475.
22. Wolffsohn JS, Arita R, Chalmers R, et al. TFOS DEWS II Diagnostic Methodology report. Ocul Surf. 2017;15(3):539-574.
23. Yuan Su T, Ting Ho W, Yi Lu C, Wen Chang S, Kenny Chiang H, Huihua Kenny Chiang P. Correlations among ocular surface temperature difference value, the tear meniscus height, Schirmer’s test and fluorescein tear film break up time. Ophthalmology. 2015;99:482-487.
24. Tomlinson A, Khanal S, Ramaesh K, Diaper C, McFadyen A. Tear film osmolarity: Determination of a referent for dry eye diagnosis. Investig Ophthalmol Vis Sci. Published online 2006.
25. Acera A, Vecino E, Duran JA. Tear MMP-9 levels as a marker of ocular surface inflammation in conjunctivochalasis. Cornea. 2013;54:8285-8291.
26. Sambursky R, Davitt WF, Latkany R, et al. Sensitivity and Specificity of a Point-of-Care Matrix Metalloproteinase 9 Immunoassay for Diagnosing Inflammation Related to Dry Eye. JAMA Ophthalmol. 2013;131(1):24-28.
27. Messmer EM, von Lindenfels V, Garbe A, Kampik A. Matrix Metalloproteinase 9 Testing in Dry Eye Disease Using a Commercially Available Point-of-Care Immunoassay. Ophthalmology. 2016;123(11):2300-2308.
28. Jacobi C, Jacobi A, Kruse FE, Cursiefen C. Tear Film Osmolarity Measurements in Dry Eye Disease Using Electrical Impedance Technology. Cornea. 2011;30(12):1289-1292.
29. Li M, Du C, Zhu D, Shen M, Cui L, Wang J. Daytime variations of tear osmolarity and tear meniscus volume. Eye Contact Lens. 2012;38(5):282-287.
30. Lemp MA, Bron AJ, Baudouin C, et al. Tear osmolarity in the diagnosis and management of dry eye disease. Am J Ophthalmol. 2011;151(5):792-798.
31. Versura P, Campos E. TearLab® Osmolarity System for diagnosing dry eye. Expert Rev Mol Diagn. 2013;13(2):119-129.
32. Chodosh J, Dix RD, Howell RC, Stroop WG, Tseng SCG. Staining characteristics and antiviral activity of sulforhodamine B and lissamine green B. Investig Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 1994;35(3):1046-1058.
33. Na KS, Yoo YS, Hwang HS, Won Mok J, Kim HS, Joo CK. The influence of overnight orthokeratology on ocular surface and meibomian glands in children and adolescents. Eye Contact Lens. 2016;42(1):68-73.
34. García-Marqués JV, Macedo-De-Araújo RJ, Cerviño A, García-Lázaro S, González-Méijome JM. Assessment of meibomian gland drop-out and visibility through a new quantitative method in scleral lens wearers: A one-year follow-up study. Cont Lens Anterior Eye. Published online 2022.
35. Wang X, Li J, Zhang R, et al. The influence of overnight orthokeratology on ocular surface and Meibomian gland dysfunction in teenagers with myopia. J Ophthalmol. 2019: Article ID 5142628.
36. Nichols JJ, Willcox MDP, Bron AJ, et al. The TFOS International Workshop on Contact Lens Discomfort: Executive summary. Investig Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2013 Oct 18;54(11): TFOS7-TFOS13.
37. Carracedo G, Martin-Gil A, Fonseca B, Pintor J. Effect of overnight orthokeratology on conjunctival goblet cells. Cont Lens Anterior Eye. 2016;39(4):266-269.
38. Magro L, Gauthier J, Richet M, et al. Scleral lenses for severe chronic GvHD-related keratoconjunctivitis sicca: A retrospective study by the SFGM-TC. Bone Marrow Transplant. 2017;52(6):878-882.
39. Takahide K, Parker PM, Wu M, et al. Use of fluid-ventilated, gas-permeable scleral lens for management of severe keratoconjunctivitis sicca secondary to chronic graft-versus-host disease. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant. 2007;13(9):1016-1021.
40. Espana EM, Shah S, Santhiago MR, Singh AD. Graft versus host disease: clinical evaluation, diagnosis and management. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2013;251(5):1257-1266.
41. Schornack M, Baratz K, Patel S, Maguire L. Jupiter Scleral Lenses in the Management of Chronic Graft versus Host Disease. Eye Contact Lens. 2008;34(6):302-305.
42. Tougeron-Brousseau B, Delcampe A, Gueudry J, et al. Vision-Related Function After Scleral Lens Fitting in Ocular Complications of Stevens-Johnson Syndrome and Toxic Epidermal Necrolysis. Am J Ophthalmol. 2009;148(6):852-859.e2.
43. Heur M, Bach D, Theophanous C, Chiu GB. Prosthetic Replacement of the Ocular Surface Ecosystem Scleral Lens Therapy for Patients with Ocular Symptoms of Chronic Stevens-Johnson syndrome. Am J Ophthalmol. 2014;158(1):49-54.
44. Basu S, Shanbhag SS, Gokani A, Kedar R, Bahuguna C, Sangwan VS. Chronic Ocular Sequelae of Stevens-Johnson Syndrome in Children: Long-term Impact of Appropriate Therapy on Natural History of Disease. Am J Ophthalmol. 2018;May(189):17-28.
45. Papakostas TD, Le HG, Chodosh J, Jacobs DS. Prosthetic Replacement of the Ocular Surface Ecosystem as Treatment for Ocular Surface Disease in Patients with a History of Stevens–Johnson Syndrome/Toxic Epidermal Necrolysis. Ophthalmology. 2015;122(2):248–253.
46. Oxholm P, Prause JU, Schiodt M. Pathogenesis and Management of Primary Sjogrens-Syndrome. Clin Immunother. 1994;2(6):421-429.
47. Chahal HS, Estrada M, Sindt CW, et al. Scleral Contact Lenses in an Academic Oculoplastics Clinic: Epidemiology and Emerging Considerations. Ophthalmic Plast Reconstr Surg. 2017;34(3):231-236.
48. Romero-Rangel T, Stavrou P, Cotter J, Rosenthal P, Baltatzis S, Stephen Foster C. Gas-permeable Scleral Contact Lens Therapy in Ocular Surface Disease. Am J Ophthalmol. 2000; July:25-32.
49. Shahnazi KC, Isozaki VL, Chiu GB. Effect of scleral lens wear on central corneal thickness and intraocular pressure in patients with ocular surface disease. Eye Contact Lens. 2020;46(6):341-347.
50. Fadel D, Toabe M. Scleral Lens Issues and Complications Related to Handling, Care and Compliance. J Cont Lens Res Sci. 2018;2(2):e1-e13.
51. Barnett M, Courey C, Fadel D, et al. CLEAR – Scleral lenses. Cont Lens Anterior Eye. 2021;44(2):270-288.
52. Walker MK., Bergmanson J, Miller W, Marsack J, Johnson L. Complications and fitting challenges associated with scleral contact lenses: A review. Cont Lens Anterior Eye. 2016;39(2):88-96.
53. AlDahash F, AlAmeer A, Hussain O ben, Khandekar R, Ahmad A, Ahad M. Effect of Bandage Contact Lens Exchange on Pain and Healing After Photorefractive Keratectomy-A Randomized Control Trial. Eye Contact Lens. 2021;47(2):113-117.
54. Yajuan XW, Xiang M, Suhong C, et al. Efficacy of bandage contact lens for the management of dry eye disease after cataract surgery. Int Ophthalmol. 2021;41:1403-1413.
55. Visser ES, van der Linden BJ, Otten HM, van der Lelij A, Visser R. Medical applications and outcomes of bitangential scleral lenses. Optom Vis Sci. 2013;90(10):1078-1085.
56. Otten HM, van der Linden BJJJB, Visser ES. Clinical performance of a new bitangential mini-scleral lens. Optom Vis Sci. 2018;95(6):515-522.
57. Walker MK, Lema C, Redfern R, Lema C. Scleral lens wear: Measuring inflammation in the fluid reservoir. Cont Lens Anterior Eye. 2020;43(6):577-584.
58. Yang L, Zhang L, Jian Hu R, Yu PP, Jin X. The influence of overnight orthokeratology on ocular surface and dry eye-related cytokines IL-17A, IL-6, and PGE2 in children. Cont Lens Anterior Eye. 2021;44(1):81-88.
59. Duong K, McGwin G, Franklin QX, Cox J, Pucker AD. Treating Uncomfortable Contact Lens Wear With Orthokeratology. Eye Contact Lens. 2021;47(2):74-80.
60. Lipson MJ, Sugar A, Musch DC. Overnight Corneal Reshaping versus Soft Disposable Contact Lenses: Vision-Related Quality-of-Life Differences From a Randomized Clinical Trial. Optom Vis Sci. 2005;82(10):886-891.
61. Lau JK, Vincent SJ, Cheung SW, Cho P. Higher-order aberrations and axial elongation in myopic children treated with orthokeratology. Investig Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2020;61(2):22.
62. Tomiyama ES, Hu C, Marsack JD, Richdale K. Greater higher order aberrations induced by toric orthokeratology versus soft toric multifocal contact lens wear. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt. 2021;41:726-735.