Clinical optometry · 2026
Comparison of the Influence of Two Types of Silicone Hydrogel Daily Disposable Contact Lenses on Clinical Signs of Allergic Conjunctivitis Symptoms.
Клинический случайКлиническое исследованиеСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Mimura Tatsuya, Nakagomi Ryota, Noma Hidetaka
Аннотация
PURPOSE: Contact lens (CL) wear can exacerbate allergic conjunctivitis. This study compared the effects of narafilcon A and verofilcon A on clinical signs of allergic conjunctivitis in CL wearers. Our previous studies using the same crossover cohort examined subjective CL comfort and related symptoms and tear-film stability and surface wettability. In contrast, the present study specifically evaluated objective clinical signs of allergic conjunctivitis, which were not the primary outcomes of those previous studies.
METHODS: The study included 62 CL wearers, comprising 124 eyes, who experienced CL discomfort. Participants were randomized to a cross-over design, wearing narafilcon A and verofilcon A each for 2 weeks. Ten clinical signs associated with allergic conjunctivitis related to the palpebral conjunctiva, bulbar conjunctiva, corneal limbus, and cornea were scored on a 4-point scale (0-3) according to the Japanese guidelines for allergic conjunctival diseases (3rd edition). The total score was calculated by summing the scores of the 10 items (0-30, with lower scores indicating better outcomes).
RESULTS: No participants discontinued narafilcon A or verofilcon A due to intolerance during the study period. Compared to baseline, there was no significant worsening of the mean total allergic conjunctivitis score for either narafilcon A or verofilcon A. Furthermore, the mean total score was significantly lower for verofilcon A (1.8 ± 1.4) compared to narafilcon A (4.1 ± 3.0, p < 0.01).
CONCLUSION: These findings suggest that verofilcon A may be associated with more favorable clinical signs of allergic conjunctivitis than narafilcon A in CL wearers with CL discomfort.
METHODS: The study included 62 CL wearers, comprising 124 eyes, who experienced CL discomfort. Participants were randomized to a cross-over design, wearing narafilcon A and verofilcon A each for 2 weeks. Ten clinical signs associated with allergic conjunctivitis related to the palpebral conjunctiva, bulbar conjunctiva, corneal limbus, and cornea were scored on a 4-point scale (0-3) according to the Japanese guidelines for allergic conjunctival diseases (3rd edition). The total score was calculated by summing the scores of the 10 items (0-30, with lower scores indicating better outcomes).
RESULTS: No participants discontinued narafilcon A or verofilcon A due to intolerance during the study period. Compared to baseline, there was no significant worsening of the mean total allergic conjunctivitis score for either narafilcon A or verofilcon A. Furthermore, the mean total score was significantly lower for verofilcon A (1.8 ± 1.4) compared to narafilcon A (4.1 ± 3.0, p < 0.01).
CONCLUSION: These findings suggest that verofilcon A may be associated with more favorable clinical signs of allergic conjunctivitis than narafilcon A in CL wearers with CL discomfort.