Complete Eye Care of Medina

PurposeTo compare and evaluate the clinical performance and fit success of lehfilcon A and lotrafilcon B multifocal soft contact lenses (MfSCLs).Patients and MethodsThis was a prospective, randomized, double-masked, crossover, dispensing clinical study. Eligible wearers were fitted and wore study MfSCLs bilaterally (≥8 hours/day, ≥5 days/week) over 30 days. Endpoints: binocular visual acuity (VA) at distance (4 m), intermediate (80 cm), and near (40 cm) at day 30; fit rate success; eye care professional (ECP) rating, study dispensed lens power at visit 1; lens fit, and surface characteristics at dispense and day 30; safety assessments.ResultsOverall, 101 subjects were enrolled. At day 30, lehfilcon A MfSCLs were noninferior to lotrafilcon B MfSCLs for distance, intermediate, and near VA (non-inferiority margin: 0.05; 95% UCL of LSM difference 0.00, 0.02, 0.04; mean VA, lehfilcon A: −0.10 ± 0.08, −0.10 ± 0.08, and 0.01 ± 0.12; lotrafilcon B: −0.09 ± 0.07, −0.11 ± 0.08, and −0.02 ± 0.11). At visit 1, ≥99.5% of both MfSCLs achieved successful fit with 1–2 lenses/eye. Mean ECP ratings for ease of fit: lehfilcon A 9.8 ± 0.6; lotrafilcon B: 9.7 ± 0.6. About 96.0% of subjects had same sphere (D) power and 100.0% had same ADD power in both eyes for both lenses. All MfSCLs had optimal/acceptable fit. Majority of MfSCLs (>96%) had grade 0/1 front surface wettability and front/back surface deposits. No serious AEs were reported, and all biomicroscopy findings were graded 2 (mild) or lower.ConclusionLehfilcon A multifocal contact lenses combine excellent visual performance, high fit success, and a stable, comfortable wearing experience over 30 days of daily wear. With their water-gradient surface, favorable safety profile, and ease of fit, they represent a reliable and beneficial option for clinicians to consider when selecting multifocal lenses for presbyopic patients.

Abstract BackgroundSARS-CoV-2 virus causes a very wide range of COVID-19 disease severity in humans: from completely asymptomatic to fatal, and the reasons behind it are often not understood. There is some data that Vitamin D may have protective effect, so authors decided to analyze European country-wide data to determine if Vitamin D levels are associated with COVID-19 population death rate.MethodsTo retrieve the Vitamin D levels data, authors analyzed the Vitamin D European population data compiled by 2019 ECTS Statement on Vitamin D Status published in the European Journal of Endocrinology. For the data set to used for analysis, only recently published data, that included general adult population of both genders ages 40-65 or wider, and must have included the prevalence of Vitamin D deficiency.ResultsThere were 10 countries data sets that fit the criteria and were analyzed. Severe Vitamin D deficiency was defined as 25(OH)D less than 25 nmol/L (10 ng/dL). Pearson correlation analysis between death rate per million from COVID-19 and prevalence of severe Vitamin D deficiency shows a strong correlation with r = 0.76, p = 0.01, indicating significant correlation. Correlation remained significant, even after adjusting for age structure of the population. Additionally, over time, correlation strengthened, and r coefficient asymptoticaly increased.ConclusionsAuthors recommend universal screening for Vitamin D deficiency, and further investigation of Vitamin D supplementation in randomized control studies, which may lead to possible treatment or prevention of COVID-19.