Trial Outcomes & Findings for Ocular Characteristics in Contact Lens and Spectacle Wear (NCT NCT03913377)
NCT ID: NCT03913377
Last Updated: 2021-02-04
Results Overview
NIBUT/NIKBUT was measured as the time interval in seconds after the final blink to the first appearance of distortion in the reflected rings; or to the time that the participant has to blink due to discomfort. NIBUT is measured by a topographer (e.g. Medmont) via observation by the investigator and a stopwatch. NIKBUTis measured by the Oculus Keratograph and reported by the instrument. Different instrumentation was used depending on site availability. Combined measurements of pre-lens data collected for the interventional arm are reported. Only the interventional arm was reported since the primary analysis was conducted among habitual contact lens users. The average NIKBUT was reported for each treatment. Higher values indicate better performance
COMPLETED
NA
78 participants
1-Week Follow-up
2021-02-04
Participant Flow
A total of 78 subjects were enrolled into this study. Of those enrolled, 65 subjects were assigned to either the observational arm (21) or the interventional arm (44), while 13 subjects failed to meet all eligibility criteria.
Of the 21 subjects assigned to the observational arm, all subjects completed the study. Of the 44 subjects assigned to the interventional arm 2 subjects were discontinued. A total of 63 subjects completed the study.
Participant milestones
| Measure |
Observational
Participants wearing their habitual spectacle wearers during the course of the study. This arm was included in the study to investigate ocular characteristics among habitual spectacle wearers which served as a reference group.
|
Interventional: Test (Senofilcon A)/Control (Spectacle)
Subjects randomized to this sequence received the Test lens (senofilcon A) during the first period and then worn their spectacles (Control) during the second period.
|
Interventional: Control (Spectacle)/Test (Senofilcon A)
Subjects randomized to this sequence worn their spectacles (Control) during the first period and then received the Test lens (senofilcon A) during the second period.
|
|---|---|---|---|
|
Period 1
STARTED
|
21
|
22
|
22
|
|
Period 1
COMPLETED
|
21
|
21
|
21
|
|
Period 1
NOT COMPLETED
|
0
|
1
|
1
|
|
Period 2
STARTED
|
0
|
21
|
21
|
|
Period 2
COMPLETED
|
0
|
21
|
21
|
|
Period 2
NOT COMPLETED
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
Reasons for withdrawal
| Measure |
Observational
Participants wearing their habitual spectacle wearers during the course of the study. This arm was included in the study to investigate ocular characteristics among habitual spectacle wearers which served as a reference group.
|
Interventional: Test (Senofilcon A)/Control (Spectacle)
Subjects randomized to this sequence received the Test lens (senofilcon A) during the first period and then worn their spectacles (Control) during the second period.
|
Interventional: Control (Spectacle)/Test (Senofilcon A)
Subjects randomized to this sequence worn their spectacles (Control) during the first period and then received the Test lens (senofilcon A) during the second period.
|
|---|---|---|---|
|
Period 1
Test Article no longer available
|
0
|
1
|
0
|
|
Period 1
No Longer Meets Eligibility Criteria
|
0
|
0
|
1
|
Baseline Characteristics
Ocular Characteristics in Contact Lens and Spectacle Wear
Baseline characteristics by cohort
| Measure |
Observational Arm
n=21 Participants
Subjects wearing their habitual spectacle wearers during the course of the study. This arm was included in the study to investigate ocular characteristics among habitual spectacle wearers which served as a reference group.
|
Interventional Arms
n=44 Participants
Participants assigned to the interentional arm to wear the Test lens and their own spectacles in a random order.
|
Total
n=65 Participants
Total of all reporting groups
|
|---|---|---|---|
|
Age, Continuous
|
29.1 Years
STANDARD_DEVIATION 6.40 • n=99 Participants
|
28.9 Years
STANDARD_DEVIATION 7.00 • n=107 Participants
|
29.0 Years
STANDARD_DEVIATION 6.76 • n=206 Participants
|
|
Sex: Female, Male
Female
|
16 Participants
n=99 Participants
|
26 Participants
n=107 Participants
|
42 Participants
n=206 Participants
|
|
Sex: Female, Male
Male
|
5 Participants
n=99 Participants
|
18 Participants
n=107 Participants
|
23 Participants
n=206 Participants
|
|
Race (NIH/OMB)
American Indian or Alaska Native
|
0 Participants
n=99 Participants
|
0 Participants
n=107 Participants
|
0 Participants
n=206 Participants
|
|
Race (NIH/OMB)
Asian
|
3 Participants
n=99 Participants
|
5 Participants
n=107 Participants
|
8 Participants
n=206 Participants
|
|
Race (NIH/OMB)
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander
|
0 Participants
n=99 Participants
|
1 Participants
n=107 Participants
|
1 Participants
n=206 Participants
|
|
Race (NIH/OMB)
Black or African American
|
4 Participants
n=99 Participants
|
3 Participants
n=107 Participants
|
7 Participants
n=206 Participants
|
|
Race (NIH/OMB)
White
|
11 Participants
n=99 Participants
|
32 Participants
n=107 Participants
|
43 Participants
n=206 Participants
|
|
Race (NIH/OMB)
More than one race
|
0 Participants
n=99 Participants
|
0 Participants
n=107 Participants
|
0 Participants
n=206 Participants
|
|
Race (NIH/OMB)
Unknown or Not Reported
|
3 Participants
n=99 Participants
|
3 Participants
n=107 Participants
|
6 Participants
n=206 Participants
|
|
Region of Enrollment
United States
|
21 Participants
n=99 Participants
|
44 Participants
n=107 Participants
|
65 Participants
n=206 Participants
|
PRIMARY outcome
Timeframe: 1-Week Follow-upPopulation: All subjects who had successfully completed all visits in the interventional arm and did not substantially deviate from the protocol.
NIBUT/NIKBUT was measured as the time interval in seconds after the final blink to the first appearance of distortion in the reflected rings; or to the time that the participant has to blink due to discomfort. NIBUT is measured by a topographer (e.g. Medmont) via observation by the investigator and a stopwatch. NIKBUTis measured by the Oculus Keratograph and reported by the instrument. Different instrumentation was used depending on site availability. Combined measurements of pre-lens data collected for the interventional arm are reported. Only the interventional arm was reported since the primary analysis was conducted among habitual contact lens users. The average NIKBUT was reported for each treatment. Higher values indicate better performance
Outcome measures
| Measure |
Test (Senofilcon A)
n=82 eyes
Subjects that wore the Test article in either the first or second period of the study.
|
Control (Spectacle)
n=82 eyes
Subjects that wore their spectacles in either the first or second period of the study.
|
|---|---|---|
|
Non-Invasive Break Up Time (NIBUT) or Non-Invasive Keratograph Break Up Time (NIKBUT)
|
8.28 Seconds
Standard Deviation 4.482
|
11.10 Seconds
Standard Deviation 5.761
|
SECONDARY outcome
Timeframe: 1-Week Follow-upPopulation: All participants who had successfully completed all visits in the interventional arm and did not substantially deviate from the protocol.
Meibomian gland expressiblity was assessed in three regions of the lower eyelid: temporal, central, and nasal. Each region is expressed and the overall grade of the region is evaluated using a four-grade scale: 0 = No Secretion, 1 = Inspissated, 2 = Colored/Cloudy Liquid, and 3 = Clear Liquid Oil. The total score was calculated as the sum of all grades across the three regions and ranged from 0 (no secretion) to 9, with higher scores indicating more MGE. Total scores were converted into a binary variable for the analysis purpose where Y=1 if the total score is greater than 6 and 0 otherwise. The percentage of participants with MGE total score greater than 6 was estimated. Only the interventional arm was reported since the secondary analysis was conducted among habitual contact lens users.
Outcome measures
| Measure |
Test (Senofilcon A)
n=82 Eyes
Subjects that wore the Test article in either the first or second period of the study.
|
Control (Spectacle)
n=82 Eyes
Subjects that wore their spectacles in either the first or second period of the study.
|
|---|---|---|
|
Total Scores of Meibomian Gland Expressibility (MGE)
|
8.5 Units on a scale
Standard Deviation 1.24
|
8.5 Units on a scale
Standard Deviation 1.28
|
SECONDARY outcome
Timeframe: 1-Week Follow-upPopulation: All subjects who had successfully completed all visits in the interventional arm and did not substantially deviate from the protocol.
Conjunctival staining was graded and recorded by quadrant (Superior, Inferior, Nasal, and Temporal) using the following grading scale: Grade 0 = None, Grade 1 = Trace, Grade 2 = Mild, Grade 3 = Moderate, and Grade 4 = Severe. Average grade was calculated based on grades of the four quadrants. Only the interventional arm was reported since the secondary analysis was conducted among habitual contact lens users.
Outcome measures
| Measure |
Test (Senofilcon A)
n=82 Eyes
Subjects that wore the Test article in either the first or second period of the study.
|
Control (Spectacle)
n=82 Eyes
Subjects that wore their spectacles in either the first or second period of the study.
|
|---|---|---|
|
Conjunctival Staining
Nasal: Grade 0
|
41 Number of Eyes
|
59 Number of Eyes
|
|
Conjunctival Staining
Nasal: Grade 1
|
34 Number of Eyes
|
23 Number of Eyes
|
|
Conjunctival Staining
Nasal: Grade 2
|
7 Number of Eyes
|
0 Number of Eyes
|
|
Conjunctival Staining
Nasal: Grade 3
|
0 Number of Eyes
|
0 Number of Eyes
|
|
Conjunctival Staining
Nasal: Grade 4
|
0 Number of Eyes
|
0 Number of Eyes
|
|
Conjunctival Staining
Temporal: Grade 0
|
55 Number of Eyes
|
79 Number of Eyes
|
|
Conjunctival Staining
Temporal: Grade 1
|
25 Number of Eyes
|
3 Number of Eyes
|
|
Conjunctival Staining
Temporal: Grade 2
|
2 Number of Eyes
|
0 Number of Eyes
|
|
Conjunctival Staining
Temporal: Grade 3
|
0 Number of Eyes
|
0 Number of Eyes
|
|
Conjunctival Staining
Temporal: Grade 4
|
0 Number of Eyes
|
0 Number of Eyes
|
|
Conjunctival Staining
Inferior: Grade 0
|
40 Number of Eyes
|
75 Number of Eyes
|
|
Conjunctival Staining
Inferior: Grade 1
|
34 Number of Eyes
|
6 Number of Eyes
|
|
Conjunctival Staining
Inferior: Grade 2
|
7 Number of Eyes
|
1 Number of Eyes
|
|
Conjunctival Staining
Inferior: Grade 3
|
1 Number of Eyes
|
0 Number of Eyes
|
|
Conjunctival Staining
Inferior: Grade 4
|
0 Number of Eyes
|
0 Number of Eyes
|
|
Conjunctival Staining
Superior: Grade 0
|
71 Number of Eyes
|
82 Number of Eyes
|
|
Conjunctival Staining
Superior: Grade 1
|
9 Number of Eyes
|
0 Number of Eyes
|
|
Conjunctival Staining
Superior: Grade 2
|
2 Number of Eyes
|
0 Number of Eyes
|
|
Conjunctival Staining
Superior: Grade 3
|
0 Number of Eyes
|
0 Number of Eyes
|
|
Conjunctival Staining
Superior: Grade 4
|
0 Number of Eyes
|
0 Number of Eyes
|
SECONDARY outcome
Timeframe: 1-Week Follow-upPopulation: All participants who had successfully completed all visits in the interventional arm and did not substantially deviate from the protocol.
Horizontal lid margin staining and sagittal lid margin staining are graded for each eyelid (upper and lower) separately. The horizontal and sagittal grades are then averaged for each eyelid to obtain the upper lid average grade and lower lid average grade. The final grade is the average of the upper and lower lid average grades. Participants can be classified according to their final grades for each eye. The classification is defined as follows: "None" for final grades of 0, "Mild" for final grades between 0.25 and 1.00, "Moderate" for final grades between 1.25 and 2.00, and "Severe" for final graded between 2.25 and 3.00. Only the interventional arm was reported since the secondary analysis was planned to be conducted among habitual contact lens users only.
Outcome measures
| Measure |
Test (Senofilcon A)
n=82 Eyes
Subjects that wore the Test article in either the first or second period of the study.
|
Control (Spectacle)
n=82 Eyes
Subjects that wore their spectacles in either the first or second period of the study.
|
|---|---|---|
|
Number of Eyes With Clinically Significant (Grade 3 or 4 of Overall Classification) Lid Wiper Epitheliopathy
None
|
36 Number of eyes
|
31 Number of eyes
|
|
Number of Eyes With Clinically Significant (Grade 3 or 4 of Overall Classification) Lid Wiper Epitheliopathy
Mild
|
15 Number of eyes
|
19 Number of eyes
|
|
Number of Eyes With Clinically Significant (Grade 3 or 4 of Overall Classification) Lid Wiper Epitheliopathy
Moderate
|
29 Number of eyes
|
30 Number of eyes
|
|
Number of Eyes With Clinically Significant (Grade 3 or 4 of Overall Classification) Lid Wiper Epitheliopathy
Severe
|
2 Number of eyes
|
2 Number of eyes
|
SECONDARY outcome
Timeframe: 1-Week Follow-upPopulation: All participants who had successfully completed all visits in the interventional arm and did not substantially deviate from the protocol.
Meibomian gland expressiblity was assessed in three regions of the lower eyelid: temporal, central, and nasal. Each region is expressed and the overall grade of the region is evaluated using a four-grade scale: 0 = No Secretion, 1 = Inspissated, 2 = Colored/Cloudy Liquid, and 3 = Clear Liquid Oil. Only the interventional arm was reported since the secondary analysis was conducted among habitual contact lens users.
Outcome measures
| Measure |
Test (Senofilcon A)
n=82 Eyes
Subjects that wore the Test article in either the first or second period of the study.
|
Control (Spectacle)
n=82 Eyes
Subjects that wore their spectacles in either the first or second period of the study.
|
|---|---|---|
|
Meibomian Gland Expressibility (MGE) Grades
Central Lower Lid- Grade 0
|
0 Units on a scale
|
0 Units on a scale
|
|
Meibomian Gland Expressibility (MGE) Grades
Central Lower Lid- Grade 1
|
0 Units on a scale
|
0 Units on a scale
|
|
Meibomian Gland Expressibility (MGE) Grades
Central Lower Lid- Grade 2
|
10 Units on a scale
|
6 Units on a scale
|
|
Meibomian Gland Expressibility (MGE) Grades
Central Lower Lid- Grade 3
|
72 Units on a scale
|
76 Units on a scale
|
|
Meibomian Gland Expressibility (MGE) Grades
Nasal Lower Lid- Grade 0
|
0 Units on a scale
|
1 Units on a scale
|
|
Meibomian Gland Expressibility (MGE) Grades
Nasal Lower Lid- Grade 1
|
2 Units on a scale
|
0 Units on a scale
|
|
Meibomian Gland Expressibility (MGE) Grades
Nasal Lower Lid- Grade 2
|
9 Units on a scale
|
7 Units on a scale
|
|
Meibomian Gland Expressibility (MGE) Grades
Nasal Lower Lid- Grade 3
|
71 Units on a scale
|
74 Units on a scale
|
|
Meibomian Gland Expressibility (MGE) Grades
Temporal Lower Lid- Grade 0
|
2 Units on a scale
|
6 Units on a scale
|
|
Meibomian Gland Expressibility (MGE) Grades
Temporal Lower Lid- Grade 1
|
4 Units on a scale
|
2 Units on a scale
|
|
Meibomian Gland Expressibility (MGE) Grades
Temporal Lower Lid- Grade 2
|
5 Units on a scale
|
5 Units on a scale
|
|
Meibomian Gland Expressibility (MGE) Grades
Temporal Lower Lid- Grade 3
|
71 Units on a scale
|
69 Units on a scale
|
Adverse Events
Observational
Test (Senofilcon A)
Control (Spectacle)
Serious adverse events
Adverse event data not reported
Other adverse events
Adverse event data not reported
Additional Information
Elizabeth Dow, PRINCIPAL RESEARCH OPTOMETRIST
Johnson & Johnson Vision Care
Results disclosure agreements
- Principal investigator is a sponsor employee
- Publication restrictions are in place
Restriction type: GT60