PDF
ePub
Citation
Print
Abstract
Purpose
In this study we investigated the safety level of the national standard for tinted soft contact lenses by comparing the standards in various countries.
Methods
To evaluate the current guidelines for tinted soft contact lenses such as form and appearance, diameter, curvature radi-us, vertex power, cylindrical refractivity and cylindrical axis, luminous/ultraviolet ray (UV) transmittance, moisture content, oxygen permeability coefficient, extractables, elution test, cytotoxicity, sensitization, eye irritation test, acute systemic/subchronic/sub-acute toxicity, genotoxicity and biocompatibility safety test using rabbit eyes and sterility test. We compared the standards of International Organization for Standardization (ISO), Food and Drug Administration (FDA) of the United States, Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare (MHLW) of Japan and Ministry of Food and Drug Safety (MFDS) of Korea.
Results
The guidelines for tinted soft contact lenses of ISO, FDA and MFDS are similar to soft contact lenses but MHLW of Japan classifies these lenses and sets specific guidelines. First, the oxygen permeability coefficient measured at 6mm from the center should be maintained over 80%. Also, coloring should not affect the oxygen permeability coefficient significantly. Regarding the physical (form and appearance, diameter, curvature radius, moisture content) and optical (vertex power, cylin-drical refractivity and cylindrical axis, luminous/UV transmittance, oxygen permeability coefficient) characteristics, no differences were found between ISO and MFDS. However, several differences were found in chemical characteristics (extractables, elution test) and biological stability (cytotoxicity, sensitization, eye irritation test, acute systemic/subchronic/subacute toxicity test, geno-toxicity, biocompatibility safety test using rabbit eyes, sterility test). For example, the elution test is required only by MFDS.
Conclusions
The reinvestigation into the effectiveness of the elution test is needed and new evaluation measures including scanning electron microscopy and atomic force microscopy designed for tinted soft contact lenses to evaluate the size of the op-tical area, the location and roughness of the pigmented layer are required.
References
1. Morgan PB, Woods CA, Tranoudis IG. . International contact lens prescribing in 2011. Contact Lens Spectrum. 2012; 27:26–32.
2. Morgan PB, Woods CA, Tranoudis IG. . International contact lens prescribing in 2012. Contact Lens Spectrum. 2013; 28:31–8.
3. Efron N, Morgan PB. Woods CA; International Contact Lens Prescribing Survey Consortium International survey of contact lens prescribing for extended wear. Optom Vis Sci. 2012; 89:122–9.
4. Efron N, Morgan PB. Woods CA; International Contact Lens Prescribing Survey Consortium An international survey of daily disposable contact lens prescribing. Clin Exp Optom. 2013; 96:58–64.
5. Sauer A. Bourcier T; French Study Group for Contact Lenses Related Microbial Keratitis Microbial keratitis as a foreseeable complication of cosmetic contact lenses: a prospective study. Acta Ophthalmol. 2011; 89:e439–42.
6. Steinemann TL, Fletcher M, Bonny AE. . Over-the-counter decorative contact lenses: cosmetic or medical devices? A case series. Eye Contact Lens. 2005; 31:194–200.
7. Steinemann TL, Pinninti U, Szczotka LB. . Ocular complica-tions associated with the use of cosmetic contact lenses from un-licensed vendors. Eye Contact Lens. 2003; 29:196–200.
8. McKelvie J, Patel D, McGhee C. Cosmetic contact lens-related Acanthamoeba keratitis. Clin Experiment Ophthalmol. 2009; 37:419–20.
9. Williams D. Great expectations and the grapes of wrath: con-tamination of contact lenses. Med Device Technol. 1999; 10:10–3.
10. Chan KY, Cho P, Boost M. Microbial adherence to cosmetic con-tact lenses. Cont Lens Anterior Eye. 2014; 37:267–72.
11. Bruinsma GM, Rustema-Abbing M, de Vries J. . Influence of wear and overwear on surface properties of etafilcon A contact lenses and adhesion of Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Invest Ophthal-mol Vis Sci. 2002; 43:3646–53.
12. Vermeltfoort PB, Rustema-Abbing M, de Vries J. . Influence of day and night wear on surface properties of silicone hydrogel con-tact lenses and bacterial adhesion. Cornea. 2006; 25:516–23.
13. Vermeltfoort PB, van der Mei HC, Busscher HJ. . Physico-chemical factors influencing bacterial transfer from contact lenses to surfaces with different roughness and wettability. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater. 2004; 71:336–42.
14. Vijay AK, Zhu H, Ozkan J. . Bacterial adhesion to unworn and worn silicone hydrogel lenses. Optom Vis Sci. 2012; 89:1095–106.
15. Bos R, van der Mei HC, Busscher HJ. Physico-chemistry of initial microbial adhesive interactions-its mechanisms and methods for study. FEMS Microbiol Rev. 1999; 23:179–230.
16. Packham DE. Surface energy, surface topography and adhesion. Int J Adhes Adhes. 2003; 23:437–48.
17. Lorenz KO, Kakkassery J, Boree D, Pinto D. Atomic force micro-scopy and scanning electron microscopy analysis of daily dis-posable limbal ring contact lenses. Clin Exp Optom. 2014; 97:411–7.
18. Ji YW, Hong SH, Chung DY. . Comparison of surface rough-ness and bacterial adhesion between cosmetic contact lenses and conventional contact lenses. J Korean Ophthalmol Soc. 2014; 55:646–55.
19. Korean Contact Lens Study Society Contact Lens: Principles and Practice, 1th ed. Seoul: Naeoe Haksool,. 2007; 123–31.
XML Download