The Origins and Management of Contact Lens Discomfort

Understanding how this irritating nuisance develops is the first step toward fighting its deleterious effects.

By Dan Fuller, OD

Release Date: November 2017    

Expiration Date: November 15, 2020

Goal Statement: Contact lens discomfort can develop because of a number of issues, including poor lens wettability, low oxygen permeability or a host of environmental factors. Optometrists should be skilled at delineating these causes and the available contact lens  materials so they can best target treatment and fit patients with the most approriate option. 

Faculty/Editorial Board: Dan Fuller, OD

Credit Statement: This course is COPE approved for 2 hours of CE credit. Course ID is ​55371-CL. Check with your local state licensing board to see if this counts toward your CE requirement for relicensure.

Disclosure Statements: 

Authors: The author has no relationships to disclose. 

Editorial staff: Jack Persico, Rebecca Hepp, William Kekevian, Michael Riviello and Michael Iannucci all have no relationships to disclose.

Contact lens discomfort (CLD) is a distinctly different entity than dry eye disease (DED), whose prevalence is estimated at 30%.1-4 Numerous studies identify CLD (prevalence 30%) as a major contributing factor to contact lens dropout rates with best estimates placing it between 12% and 51%.2,5-8 The broad range of values is a function of varying definitions of what constitutes a dropout (e.g., reduced wearing time, temporary or permanent discontinuance). 

CLD creates significant burdens on patients and dramatically affects industry profitability. Identifying these patients and the factors contributing the condition will inform management decisions. 

The TFOS Workshop classifies CLD by contributory factors into two large baskets: contact lens-related and environmental etiologies (each with four individual subcategories).1 This article focuses on soft lenses and reviews what we believe we know about contact lens-related factors, the contribution from environmental factors second and offers a rational, evidence-based management approach.

Fig. 1. Example of corneal staining representative of desiccation while wearing a Group IV lens in patient with severe ocular surface disease.

The Material World
Within the contact lens-related category of CLD are four subcategories: 

(1) Surface and bulk material differences.
(2) Design differences.
 (3) Fit and wear differences.
 (4) Lens care factors. 

Materials vary widely in both surface and bulk properties. Designs vary from rigid to hydrogel to silicone hydrogel and hybrids. Rigid gas permeable lenses represented 7% of all fits worldwide in 2016 while soft lens fits/refits constituted 91% of all fits (55% of which were silicone hydrogels).9 Substantial differences in modulus, wettability and oxygen permeability prevent direct comfort comparisons between silicone hydrogels and data from hydrogel studies.10,11 Lens attributes commonly considered potential influences on comfort include polymer composition, lubricity, water content and wettability.12-20

Various modifications to early hydrogel polymers increased their water content and hydrophilic nature. The objective was to improve wettability and oxygen permeability in an attempt to improve comfort.21 Several studies demonstrate increasing water content can lead to increased dehydration, corneal desiccation and decreased end-of-day comfort by as much as threefold in FDA Group II and IV lenses.22-25 However, these studies failed to consider the contributions from differences in lens design, leading to the conclusion on-eye bulk dehydration of materials is likely neither associated or causative of discomfort.21,25 The higher the water content, the more moisture is essentially wicked away from the ocular surface to replace moisture lost from the lens polymer through dehydration, resulting in corneal desiccation and corneal staining (Figure 1).26 Silicone hydrogel lenses tend to have water contents lower than 50%, and are classified as “low” water content by the FDA, though at least four silicone hydrogel lenses have water contents above this threshold.27

Increasing water content generally increases water and sodium chloride permeability more for ionic than non-ionic soft lenses.28 This process is an order of magnitude less for silicone hydrogels than hydrogels since it appears to be more restricted by channels in the polymer.28 The impact of ionicity on comfort has not been demonstrated conclusively.21

Research shows oxygen permeability increases with water content for hydrogel lenses, but the reverse is true for silicone hydrogel, owing to these fundamental differences.21,29,30

Fig. 2. Contact lens-related papillary conjunctivitis while wearing silicone hydrogel. Photo: Christina Newman, OD
Fig. 2. Contact lens-related papillary conjunctivitis while wearing silicone hydrogel. Click photo to enlarge. Photo: Christina Newman, OD

Not long after the introduction of modern silicone hydrogels late in the 1990s, interest in the contribution of modulus or stiffness to CLD began. “Stiffness” is a function of more than the material properties such as modulus, including water content, relative thickness and geometry of the lens.12,31-33 The first generation silicone hydrogel lenses were high-modulus, low-water content designs with plasma coatings and contributed to higher rates of contact lens papillary conjunctivitis, superior arcuate epithelial lesions (SEAL) and corneal erosions and mucin balls (Figures 2 and 3).12,31,33-38 Second and third generation designs reduced the incidence of these adverse events by eliminating plasma coatings in favor of internal wetting agents such as polyvinylpyrolidone (PVP) and by increasing water contents by altering the constituent polymers, resulting in more mechanical flexibility.12 Notwithstanding some of the more prevalent adverse events associated with earlier high-modulus, low-water content designs, the Workshop on CLD concluded little difference in comfort between hydrogels and silicone hydrogels and when differences have been found, it is highly likely it resulted from methodological flaws in the study.21,39 

The Workshop on CLD considered surface properties of contact lenses including friction, lubricity and surface wear (collectively referred to as tribology) and wettability.21 Studies relating these surface properties to comfort are similarly plagued by confounding lens characteristics (e.g., sag and edge profile) or methodological challenges in attempting to model on-eye performance.21,40 Notwithstanding, manufacturers have attempted to decrease friction and increase wettability at the lens surface by incorporating agents commonly used in over-the-counter wetting agents such as polyvinyl alcohol (PVA) and hyaluronic acid (HA) into their polymers.41-43 Some of these are slowly eluted or activated while blinking and over the wear cycle. More recent designs such as deleficon A and nesofilcon A possess unique surface properties which have either not shown, or not tested, comfort differences over other lenses.44,45 Interest in lid-wiper epitheliopathy and lid parallel conjunctival folds is growing as a possible predictor of CLD and may be related to studies investigating the role of frictional forces.40,46-51

Fig. 3. Corneal erosions in high modulus silicone hydrogel in superior epithelial arcuate region.
Fig. 3. Corneal erosions in high modulus silicone hydrogel in superior epithelial arcuate region. Click photo to enlarge.

Lens Design and Fit
Consideration of comfort must also include a review of fitting characteristics and lens design. Fitting characteristics are familiar to all clinicians and include coverage, movement and centration. Design attributes include edge profile, sphere, toric and multifocal parameters. Studies demonstrate a larger lens diameter can be a significant predictor of comfort.52 Most spherical soft lenses typically fall within a range of 13.8mm to 14.2mm.21 These values are above the largest diameter of 13.5mm used to study, which may explain why diameter (corneal coverage by extension) has not been shown to be associated with comfort in more recent studies.40,52-55 

Lens movement contributes to tear exchange but the contribution of lens movement (or lack thereof) to comfort is somewhat murky. Two large retrospective studies demonstrate “loose” fitting lenses are associated with discomfort and “tighter” lenses are not, but no clear consensus exists on the minimum difference between base curves which elicit awareness.21,40,55,56

Centration has not been studied in relation to comfort independent of looseness/tightness of fit and researchers suggest small amounts of decentration (<0.3mm) are unlikely to affect comfort.21,40 A well-centered lens, with coverage and minimal amounts of movement (about 0.5mm to 1.0mm) in primary gaze, is associated with better comfort.40,55

Additionally, edge profiles appear to matter, with thin knife edges consistently demonstrating better comfort than chisel or rounded edges even though they have a higher association with paralimbal conjunctival staining (Figure 4).57-59 Chisel edge profiles are associated with higher frequencies of conjunctival indentation, which is associated with discomfort (Figure 5).60

Regarding lens designs, prism ballasted toric lenses may be more likely to elicit symptoms of discomfort confused with dryness and may represent lid-lens interactions, but direct comparisons with spherical lenses are rare to absent.21,61-63 Multifocal contact lens comparisons with spherical lenses are similarly rare but have shown no difference in comfort.64 

Fig. 4. Example of difference in edge profiles on -3.00D sphrerical lens designs, demonstrating a rounded, thicker edge in comifilcon A (left) and knife edge in senofilcon A (right).Fig. 4. Example of difference in edge profiles on -3.00D sphrerical lens designs, demonstrating a rounded, thicker edge in comifilcon A (left) and knife edge in senofilcon A (right).
Fig. 4. Example of difference in edge profiles on -3.00D sphrerical lens designs, demonstrating a rounded, thicker edge in comifilcon A (left) and knife edge in senofilcon A (right). Click photos to enlarge.

Modality and Wear Schedules
Research does not show that daily wear is any more comfortable than extended wear (except upon waking), but that may be due to a shortage of robust clinical studies.21 Though duration of lens wearing experience has a role in adaptation, it is difficult to separate the impact of duration from frequency of replacement or age.21 Multiple circumstantial studies demonstrate improved comfort with increasing frequency of lens replacement, but it is difficult to separate out the findings from confounding variables of differences in lens material or care systems in comparison studies.21 Masked, randomized, controlled studies are lacking. End-of-day comfort is clearly differentially worse for all contact lens wearers compared with non-wearers, with increasing symptoms in both groups.65–67

Lens Care
It may seem counterintuitive, but regardless of the nature of deposits, they have not directly been implicated in decreasing comfort.21 However, the subject of lens care solution interactions and their impact (positive or negative) on comfort is a subject of ongoing debates. It remains very difficult to assess individual impacts of constituent agents due to the confounding influences of their interactions, compliance methods and conflicts between in vitro and in vivo performance differences. Comparison studies exist, but are limited by the number of possible lens-solution combinations tested. Biocides include hydrogen peroxide-based, polyhexamethylene biguanide PHMB-based, Polyquad-based, and dual disinfection systems. The reality is that all FDA-approved systems have met current standards for biocidal efficacy against the challenge panel of organisms. 

Peroxide-based systems begin at 3% concentration (30,000 ppm) and must be neutralized to 100 ppm, though threshold sensitivity is between 50 to 300 ppm or discomfort will be reported.21 As previously mentioned, there are few direct comparison studies that control for potential confounding variables. Nonetheless, there is a “suggestion” peroxide-based systems provide better comfort with the limited data available.68,69  Comparisons of comfort using PHMB- and Polyquad-based systems have occasionally favored Polyquad- based systems but the majority view is there is no difference in comfort.70-75 Preservative uptake/release and induction of corneal staining with possible CLD is unique to each lens-solution combination, making it relatively unpredictable. Modern multipurpose solutions incorporate surfactants as both detergents and wetting agents. There is compelling evidence these can contribute to patient comfort by increasing the hydrophilicity of the lens surface, particularly in silicone hydrogels.21 Similar findings exist for the surfactants and wetting agents commonly added to blister pack solutions.

Fig. 5. Partial arcuate indentation of the nasal bulbar conjunctiva related to edge profile (yellow arrow).
Fig. 5. Partial arcuate indentation of the nasal bulbar conjunctiva related to edge profile (yellow arrow). Click photo to enlarge.

Other Factors 
We have summarized broadly the evidence supporting contact lens-related factors that may contribute to CLD. It may be unsatisfying, but nonetheless true, that there is no one factor most responsible for CLD. Rather, multiple lens and solution factors contribute to CLD. Factors such as discussion of wearing times, replacement intervals and modality must include consideration of environmental factors, controllable or uncontrollable. This section will summarize some of the more salient take-aways.

Non-modifiable patient factors surveyed in the Workshop on CLD included sex, age, ethnicity, tear film, blink characteristics, comorbidities and allergies.2 The authors found females may have higher rates of CLD, but this does not appear to predicative of dropout. Younger patients report CLD more often than presbyopia patients do, particularly in hydrogels. Assessments of tear film volume and stability including phenol thread test, tear meniscus, noninvasive TBUT, and pattern of breakup correlate with CLD. Little evidence exists supporting an association between changes in blink rate and CLD, but stability of the tear film in the interblink interval may be related to CLD. Seasonal allergies may be associated with CLD. Ethnicity appears not to be associated with CLD, with little evidence supporting a relationship between systemic disease and CLD.2

Modifiable patient factors included medications, dietary habits, smoking, cosmetics, compliance and psychological factors. Use of oral contraceptives and isotretinoin have been associated with CLD but no other agents are conclusively documented as contributing to CLD. Poor compliance with replacement intervals is associated with CLD. There is little evidence to support the notion that dietary intake and fluids influence CLD. The influence of smoking on CLD lacks evidence. Little evidence supports an association between cosmetic use and CLD. Psychological factors have not been found to be associated with CLD.2

Table 1. Management Strategies Based on 2013 TFOS Workshop on Contact Lens Discomfort76
Treatment strategySpecific intervention
Replacement frequencyIncrease
MaterialNo clear rule; switch to from higher to lower modulus within silicone hydrogel; switch from silicone hydrogel to hydrogel (or reverse); consider lower water content hydrogels
Add internal wetting agents
Consider silicone hydrogels lenses with PVP, PVA, hyaluronic acid.
Add external wetting agents
Preservative-free rewetting drops; modern MPS and peroxide disinfection systems offer surfactants and wetting agents
Elimination of the care system
Daily disposables
Change lens parameters
Steeper base curves; aspheric base curves; larger diameter; knife edge
Nutritional supplementation
Omega-6 in evening primrose oil 
Punctal occlusion
Occlude upper and lower
Topical agents
Cyclosporin-A; lifitegrast
Digital device use and occupational exposure
Avoidance 
Consider changing from GP to soft or vice versa
Consider in relationship to needs 
Reduce wearing time
Adjust to find optimum level
OtherOrthokeratology; refractive surgery; spectacles

Ocular enviromental factors. Contact lens wear alters multiple aspects of the ocular anatomy and physiology, including: thinning and destabilization of the tear film; increasing tear osmolarity; loss or shortening of the meibomian glands; alterations to corneal sensitivity; cellular changes in the corneal and conjunctival epithelium.2 Among these, the presence of lid-parallel conjunctival folds, conjunctival metaplasia, decreased goblet cell density, meibomian gland dysfunction and lid-wiper epitheliopathy have been shown to be associated with CLD.2

External environmental factors reviewed included relative humidity, temperature, climate, air quality, atmospheric pressure and occupation. Among these, reductions in relative humidity, increased air movement and activities which reduce blink rates such as digital device use may all contribute to CLD.2 The remaining factors lack evidence or are equivocal. 

Management of CLD
History-taking continues to be the foundation of all patient encounters. Certain risk factors help identify wearers at risk for CLD. Younger patients are at increased risk; end-of-day discomfort or discomfort upon insertion; specifics on lens parameters; wearing time; replacement interval; care system; use of adjunctive wetting agents; compliance; occupation and vision demands; coexisting disease; allergies; and current medications.76 

Strategically manage all underlying non-lens factors contributing to CLD, including diseases that contribute to ocular surface disease. Identify instances of inappropriate medication use, overuse or abuse, which may destabilize the tear film. Treat coexisting lid, tear film, cornea or conjunctival disease. Manage lens-related issues, including condition, fit and interactions with the eye. This approach is basic to all contact lens examinations.76 

When confronted with lens wearers symptomatic for discomfort, one or more of the recommendations from the Workshop on CLD cited in Table 1 may be employed based on your clinical assessment of the patient.76 Not all strategies are supported by “level I” evidence and a combination approach is often necessary. Implementing too many strategies at once and failing to manage underlying conditions may confuse your management plan. Be judicious and methodical.

CLD is ubiquitous, but we have never had more sophisticated lens and solution options. As our understanding continues to grow so, will our ability to provide wearers with lifelong comfortable, clear vision. Identify patients at risk and those with contributory conditions. Apply evidence-based management strategies in a methodical manner, increasing the probability for long-term success. 

Dr. Fuller is chief of Cornea & Contact Lens Service and founding supervisor of the Cornea & Contact Lens–Refractive Surgery residency at Southern College of Optometry. 

1.  Nichols J, Willcox M, Bron A, et al. The TFOS international workshop on contact lens discomfort: executive summary. Investig Opthalmology Vis Sci. 2013;54:TFOS7.
2.  Dumbleton K, Caffery B, Dogru M, et al. The TFOS International Workshop on Contact Lens Discomfort: Report of the Subcommittee on Epidemiology. Investig Opthalmology Vis Sci. 2013;54(11):TFOS20-36
3. Craig J, Nichols K, Akpek E, et al. TFOS DEWS II definition and classification report. The Ocular Surface. 2017;15(3):276–283.
4. Nelson J, Craig J, Akpek E, et al. TFOS DEWS II introduction. The Ocular Surface. 2017;15(3):269-75.
5. Young G, Veys J, Pritchard N, Coleman S. A multi-centre study of lapsed contact lens wearers. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt. 2002;22(6):516-27.
6. Weed K, Fonn D. Discontinuation of contact lens wear. Optom Vis Sci. 1993;70(suppl 12):140.
7. Richdale K, Sinnott LT, Skadahl E, et al. Frequency of and factors associated with contact lens dissatisfaction and discontinuation. Cornea. 2007;26(2):168-74.
8. Pritchard N, Fonn D, Brazeau D. Discontinuation of contact lens wear: a survey. Int Contact Lens Clin. 1999;26(6):157-62.
9. Morgan P, Woods C, Tranoudis I, et al. International contact lens prescribing 2016. Contact Lens Spectr. 2017;32:30-5.
10. Diec J, Tilia D, Thomas V. Comparison of silicone hydrogel and hydrogel daily disposable contact lenses. Eye Contact Lens Sci Clin Pract. Available journals.lww.com/claojournal/Abstract/publishahead/Comparison_of_Silicone_Hydrogel_and_Hydrogel_Daily.99381.aspx. Accessed: September 20, 2017.
11. Dumbleton KA, Woods CA, Jones LW, Fonn D. Comfort and adaptation to silicone hydrogel lenses for daily wear. Eye Contact Lens. 2008;34(4):215-23.
12. Jacob JT. Biocompatibility in the development of silicone-hydrogel lenses. Eye Contact Lens. 2013;39(1):13-9.
13. Kim S, Opdahl A, Marmo C, Somorjai G. AFM and SFG studies of pHEMA-based hydrogel contact lens surfaces in saline solution: adhesion, friction, and the presence of non-crosslinked polymer chains at the surface. Biomaterials. 2002;23(7):1657-66.
14. Kim S, Marmo C, Somorjai G. Friction studies of hydrogel contact lenses using AFM: non-crosslinked polymers of low friction at the surface. Biomaterials. 2001;22(24):3285-94.
15. Ramamoorthy P, Sinnott L, Nichols J. Treatment, material, care, and patient-related factors in contact lens-related dry eye. Optom Vis Sci. 2008;85(24):764-72.
16. Tranoudis I, Efron N. Parameter stability of soft contact lenses made from different materials. Cont Lens Anterior Eye. 2004;27:115-31.
17. Wheeler JC, Woods JA, Cox MJ, et al. Evolution of hydrogel polymers as contact lenses, surface coatings, dressings, and drug delivery systems. J Long Term Eff Med Implants. 1996;6(3-4):207-17.
18. Yasuda H. Biocompatibility of Nanofilm-Encapsulated Silicone and Silicone-Hydrogel Contact Lenses. Macromol Biosci. 2006;6(2):121-38.
19. Ramamoorthy P, Sinnott LT, Nichols JJ. Contact lens material characteristics associated with hydrogel lens dehydration. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt. 2010;30(2):160-6.
20. Opdahl A, Kim SH, Koffas TS, et al. Surface mechanical properties of pHEMA contact lenses: Viscoelastic and adhesive property changes on exposure to controlled humidity. J Biomed Mater Res. 2003;67(1):350-6.
21. Jones L, Brennan N, González-Méijome J, et al. The TFOS International Workshop on Contact Lens Discomfort: Report of the Contact Lens Materials, Design, and Care Subcommittee. Investig Opthalmology Vis Sci. 2013;54:TFOS37.
22. Martin D. Water transport in dehydrating hydrogel contact lenses: implications for corneal desiccation. J Biomed Mater Res. 1995;29(7):857-65.
23. McConville P, Pope J. Diffusion limited evaporation rates in hydrogel contact lenses. CLAO J. 2001;27(4):186-91.
24. Orsborn GN, Zantos SG. Corneal desiccation staining with thin high water content contact lenses. CLAO J. 1988;14(2):81-5.
25. 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(13):1319-28.
26. Fonn D, Peterson R, Woods C. Corneal staining as a response to contact lens wear the clinical manifestations. 2010;36(5):318-21.
27. Tyller Thompson T. FDA Groups. Tyler’s Q Soft Contact Lens Param Guid. Available http://tylersq.com. Accsessed: September 20, 2017.
28. Gavara R, Compañ V. Oxygen, water, and sodium chloride transport in soft contact lenses materials. J Biomed Mater Res Part B Appl Biomater. Available www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27441390. Accessed September 20, 2017.
29. Efron N, Morgan Pb, Cameron Id, et al. Oxygen permeability and water content of silicone hydrogel contact lens materials. Optom Vis Sci. 2007;84(4):E328-37.
30. Morgan PB, Efron N. The oxygen performance of contemporary hydrogel contact lenses. Contact Lens Anterior Eye. 1998;21(1):3-6.
31. Lin MC, Yeh TN. Mechanical complications induced by silicone hydrogel contact lenses. Eye Contact Lens Sci Clin Pract. 2013;39(1):114-23.
32. Tagliaferri A, Love TE, Szczotka-Flynn LB. Risk factors for contact lens–induced papillary conjunctivitis associated with silicone hydrogel contact lens wear. Eye Contact Lens. 2014;40(3):117-22.
33. Holden BA, Stephenson A, Stretton S, et al. Superior epithelial arcuate lesions with soft contact lens wear. Optom Vis Sci. 2001;78(1):9-12.
34. O’Hare N, Stapleton F, Naduvilath T, et al. Interaction between the contact lens and the ocular surface in the etiology of superior epithelial arcuate lesions. Adv Exp Med Biol. 2002;506(Pt. B):973-80.
35. Dumbleton K. Adverse events with silicone hydrogel continuous wear. Contact Lens Anterior Eye. 2002;25(3):137-46.
36. Dumbleton K. Noninflammatory silicone hydrogel contact lens complications. Eye Contact Lens. 2003;29:S186-9-1, S192-4.
37. 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. Investig Opthalmology Vis Sci. 2013;54:TFOS98.
38. Stapleton F, Marfurt C, Golebiowski B, et al. The TFOS International Workshop on Contact Lens Discomfort: Report of the subcommittee on neurobiology. Investig Opthalmology Vis Sci. 2013;54:TFOS71.
39. Guillon M. Are silicone hydrogel contact lenses more comfortable than hydrogel contact lenses? Eye Contact Lens. 2013;39(1):86-92.
40. Stapleton F, Tan J. Impact of contact lens material, design and fitting on discomfort. Eye Contact Lens Sci Clin Pract. 2017;43(3):32-9.
41. Winterton LC, Lally JM, Sentell KB, Chapoy LL. The elution of poly (vinyl alcohol) from a contact lens: the realization of a time release moisturizing agent/artificial tear. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater. 2007;80(2):424-32.
42. Peterson RC, Wolffsohn JS, Nick J, et al. Clinical performance of daily disposable soft contact lenses using sustained release technology. Cont Lens Anterior Eye. 2006;29(3):127-34.
43. Ali M, Byrne ME. Controlled release of high molecular weight hyaluronic acid from molecularly imprinted hydrogel contact lenses. Pharm Res. 2009 Mar;26(3):714-26.
44. Wolffsohn JS, Hunt OA, Chowdhury A. Objective clinical performance of “comfort-enhanced” daily disposable soft contact lenses. Cont Lens Anterior Eye. 2010;33(2):88–92.
45. Schafer J, Steffen R, Reindel W, Chinn J. Evaluation of surface water characteristics of novel daily disposable contact lens materials, using refractive index shifts after wear. Clin Ophthalmol. 2015;9:1973-9.
46. Korb D, Greiner J, Herman J, et al. Lid-wiper epitheliopathy and dry-eye symptoms in contact lens wearers. CLAO J. 2002;28(4):211-6.
47. Korb DR, Herman JP, Blackie CA, et al. Prevalence of lid wiper epitheliopathy in subjects with dry eye signs and symptoms. Cornea. 2010;29(4):377-83.
48. Pult H, Purslow C, Berry M, Murphy PJ. Clinical tests for successful contact lens wear: relationship and predictive potential. 2008;85(10):E924-9.
49. Berry M, Pult H, Purslow C, Murphy P. Mucins and ocular signs in symptomatic and asymptomatic contact lens wear. Optom Vis Sci. 2008;85:E930-8.
50. 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(9):E1042-50.
51. Yeniad B, Beginoglu M, Bilgin LK. Lid-wiper epitheliopathy in contact lens users and patients with dry eye. Eye Contact Lens. 2010;36(3):140–3.
52. McNamara N, Polse K, Brand R, et al. Tear mixing under a soft contact lens: Effects of lens diameter. Am J Ophthalmol. 1999;127(6):659-65.
53. Boychev N, Laughton D, Bharwani G, et al. How should initial fit inform soft contact lens prescribing. Contact Lens Anterior Eye. 2016;39(3):227-33.
54. Fedtke C, Bakaraju R, Ehrmann K, et al. Visual performance of single vision and multifocal contact lenses in non-presbyopic myopic eyes. Contact Lens Anterior Eye. 2016;39:38-46.
55. Truong T, Graham AD, Lin MC. Factors in contact lens symptoms: evidence from a multistudy database. Optom Vis Sci. 2014;91(12):133-41.
56. Young G. Evaluation of soft contact lens fitting characteristics. Optom Vis Sci. 1996;73(4):247-54.
57. Morgan P, Chamberlain P, Moody K, Maldonado-Codina C. Ocular physiology and comfort in neophyte subjects fitted with daily disposable silicone hydrogel contact lenses. 2013. Jun;36(3):118-25.
58. Maïssa C, Guillon M, Garofalo RJ. Contact lens-induced circumlimbal staining in silicone hydrogel contact lenses worn on a daily wear basis. Eye Contact Lens. 2012;38(1):16-26.
59. Maldonado-Codina C, Morgan PB, Schnider CM, Efron N. Short-term physiologic response in neophyte subjects fitted with hydrogel and silicone hydrogel contact lenses. Optom Vis Sci. 2004;81:911-21.
60. Stahl U, Willcox M, 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.
61. Cho P, Cheung S, Charm J. Visual outcome of Soflens Daily Disposable and Soflens Daily Disposable for Astigmatism in subjects with low astigmatism. Clin Exp Optom. 2012;95:43-7.
62. Young G, Chalmers R, Napier L, et al. Soft contact lens-related dryness with and without clinical signs. Optom Vis Sci. 2012;89:1125-32.
63. Brennan NA, Efron N. Symptomatology of HEMA contact lens wear. Optom Vis Sci. 1989;66:834-8.
64. Richdale K, Mitchell GL, Zadnik K. Comparison of multifocal and monovision soft contact lens corrections in patients with low-astigmatic presbyopia. Optom Vis Sci. 2006;83:266-73.
65. Chalmers R, Begley C. Dryness symptoms among an unselected clinical population with and without contact lens wear. Cont Lens Anterior Eye. 2006;29:25-30.
66. Begley CG, Chalmers RL, Mitchell GL, et al. Characterization of ocular surface symptoms from optometric practices in North America. Cornea. 2001;20:610-8.
67. Nichols JJ, Ziegler C, Mitchell GL, Nichols KK. Self-reported dry eye disease across refractive modalities. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2005;46:1911-4.
68. Begley CG, Edrington TB, Chalmers RL. Effect of lens care systems on corneal fluoresceing staining and subjective comfort in hydrogel lens wearers. Int Contact Lens Clin. 1994;21:7-12.
69. Keir N, Woods CA, Dumbleton K, Jones L. Clinical performance of different care systems with silicone hydrogel contact lenses.
70. Sorbara L, Peterson RC, Woods CA, Fonn D. Multipurpose disinfecting solutions and their interactions with a silicone hydrogel lens. Eye Contact Lens. 2009;35:92-7.
71. Stiegemeier MJ, Cedrone R, Evans D, et al. Clinical performance of “no rub” multi-purpose solutions. Cont Lens Anterior Eye. 2004;27:65-74.
72. Santodomingo-Rubido J. The comparative clinical performance of a new polyhexamethylene biguanide- vs a polyquad-based contact lens care regime with two silicone hydrogel contact lenses. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt. 2007;27:168-73.
73. Nichols JJ, Mitchell GL, King-Smith PE. Thinning rate of the precorneal and prelens tear films. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2005;46:2353-61.
74. Lipener C. A randomized clinical comparison of OPTI-FREE EXPRESS and ReNu MultiPLUS multipurpose lens care solutions. Adv Ther. 2009;26:435-46.
75. Epstein AB. Contact lens care products effect on corneal sensitivity and patient comfort. Eye Contact Lens. 2006;32:128-32.
76. Papas E, Ciolino J, Jacobs D, et al. The TFOS international workshop on contact lens discomfort: Report of the management and therapy subcommittee. Investig Opthalmology Vis Sci. 2013;54:TFOS183.