Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion Groups
General
GeneralCardiologyVisionDentistryPharmacyLaboratoryNutritionAlternative
Diseases and Disorders
AIDSAlzheimer'sArthritisAsthmaCancerBreast CancerDiabetesEpilepsyGlaucomaHepatitisHerpesLupusProstate BPHProstate CancerProstatitisSinusitisTinnitus

Medical Forum / General / Vision / July 2006

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

most commonly RX'd contacts??

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
zurc2800@pacificu.edu - 27 Jun 2006 00:30 GMT
Hello everybody,
I am a third year Optometry student at Pacific University.  In clinic
today, my attending doctor gave my group an assigmnet so we could get a
better feel for what's being used out there in terms of soft CL's.
Instead of going around and asking professors (like everyone else,) I
thought I'd get on here and ask some of you out there in the real
world.  Which lenses do you prefer to use on a typical young, roughly
spherical patient?  Have you noticed much reluctance for docs to move
to new materials like silicone hydrogel and wearing schedules (rather
than the old 2 wk?)  I've heard that the Europeans have been much more
likely to adopt new modalities than their American counterparts.
Thanks a bunch,
-Levi Z.
p.clarkii@gmail.com - 27 Jun 2006 00:55 GMT
i believe (could be wrong) that Acuvue 2 is still the #1 brand of
contact lenses sold in the US.  but it is rapidly losing market share
to the newer competitively-priced silicone hydrogel (sihy) lenses (AV
Advance, 02 Optix, etc.)

i believe there is almost no reluctance on the part of doctors to
switch their patients to sihy lenses.  they are clearly better.

aside from any input from the patient (habitual lenses, brand
preference based upon their previous experiences, etc.) i guess my
favorite spherical disposable lens is 02 Optix.

i can't say much about European fitting practices vs. american.  i just
don't know.

===============
> Hello everybody,
> I am a third year Optometry student at Pacific University.  In clinic
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
> Thanks a bunch,
> -Levi Z.
drfrank21@gmail.com - 27 Jun 2006 01:32 GMT
> Hello everybody,
> I am a third year Optometry student at Pacific University.  In clinic
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
> Thanks a bunch,
> -Levi Z.

How's Forest Grove these days ( you must be doing an externship
this summer)?

If you're asking the actual statistics on the most commonly
rx'ed cl's it is likely the acuvues.

Silicone hydrogels are really taking over; I'm fitting these for both
refit and new fit patients. My top choices are the 02 optix and
night and days but I do fit many Pure Vision as well.

Among the non-silicone lenses, my top choices are the proclears
and the vertex/encores.

I don't see any reluctance among my colleagues in fitting
new materials in the U.S. versus our European counterparts.
But you have to separate the hype versus the actual
performance, whether new cl materials or new medications,
on the market.

Best of luck in your 4th yr at Pacific.

frank
LarryDoc - 27 Jun 2006 02:54 GMT
I'll echo dr frank.

> If you're asking the actual statistics on the most commonly
> rx'ed cl's it is likely the acuvues.

I believe that's mostly because of marketing by commercial opticals and
the pre-  silicone hydrogel mass marketing of two week disposable
lenses.  J&J did a great promo job.  And it's actually a good lens for
what it is, compared.  Among private practitioners, at least......

> Silicone hydrogels are really taking over; I'm fitting these for both
> refit and new fit patients. My top choices are the 02 optix and
> night and days but I do fit many Pure Vision as well.

Likewise.  Purevision in toric and multifocal is the only player in that
catagory, at the moment. I no longer fit "standard" HEMMA plastics.

> Among the non-silicone lenses, my top choices are the proclears
> and the vertex/encores.

Proclear is also my other primary soft lens of choice.

> I don't see any reluctance among my colleagues in fitting
> new materials in the U.S. versus our European counterparts.
> But you have to separate the hype versus the actual
> performance, whether new cl materials or new medications,
> on the market.

I would disagree, at least in my neighborhood.  Our colleagues are a
little slow in adopting new designs, especially multifocals and to a
lesser extent, torics.  But you asked about spherical.

> Best of luck in your 4th yr at Pacific.

4 years?  I STILL takes that long to become an OD eye doc?    ;-0)

LB, O.D.
CatmanX - 29 Jun 2006 22:16 GMT
I hate acuvues with a passion. Can't understand why anyone would use
them. Advance are certainly an improvement. I use primarily PureVision
and dailies in my practice these days.

Most optoms stick to a certain brand they are comfortable with, and
particularly chain stores are more likely to push or offer only a small
range of lenses so the optoms don't have a choice.

dr grant
Anon E. Muss - 30 Jun 2006 00:00 GMT
>I hate acuvues with a passion. Can't understand why anyone would use
>them.

*Talking from a patient's perspective here:

Because patients find them very comfortable, provide excellent vision,
and they are widely available.  Extended contact lens "abusers" like
them because they eye generally remains comfortable up until the point
CLARE or bacterial keratitis kicks in.  Patients generally don't like
lenses that "tell" or "remind" them that they are abusing themselves.

Also, some patients are extremely cost conscious.  When I have tried
different contact lenses in the past to try and keep him up with
modern technology and contact lens advancements, his first question is
always whether these lenses can be obtained at CostCo.  This same
patient just last week that to stick with his Acuvue2 over Oasys
because of the $5-$10/box difference.  I thoroughly educated him about
the advantages of silicone hydrogel contacts, but he is motivated
primarily by price rather than what is best for his eyes.  I moved him
to Advance a couple years ago, but he went back to Acuvue2 the
following year because they were $5/box cheaper at CostCo.

He wears the lenses on a daily wear basis (albeit stretching them out
to last about 3 weeks against my recommendations) and has no obvious
contact lens related complications, so ethically it would not be right
for me to insist he wears what is best rather than what which is
adequate.

*Talking from an OD's perspective here:

I think Acuvue were great lenses for the time, just like gentamicin
was great at the time for bacterial keratitis.  Now, it is old,
outdated and deprecated technology.  For me, Acuvue (and other
standard HEMA disposable SCLs) are never a first choice, but rather
one of the last choices.

Prior to silicone hydrogels, ODs just "accepted" a certain amount of
microcystic edema and limbal neovascularization.  In 6/2006, there is
almost never a reason to put up with those contact lens related
problems.

>Advance are certainly an improvement. I use primarily PureVision and
>dailies in my practice these days.

Likwise, I prefer to prescribe silicone hydrogels as much as possible.
For essentially spherical patients, I tend to prescribe CibaVision's
Focus Night & Day for people who insist on wearing the lenses between
7 and 30 days of EW.  For <7d of EW, I tend to use Ciba's O2Optix and
Acuvue's Oasys (I like these lenses but the 8.4 BC limits my use to
steeper corneas).  For daily wear, I use a mix of O2Optix, Advance and
Oasys.  I used PureVision a lot in the past, but I stopped using them
during the period they were off the US market and never started up
again once they came back (that and the fact that my B&L rep is a
major flake).

And daily disposables have a good place for selected patients.

>Most optoms stick to a certain brand they are comfortable with

Certainly.

I generally stick to a certain core group of lenses so I can be
thoroughly familiar with them -- know how they work, feel,
complications, idiosyncracies, etc.

And I don't do a lot of experimentation, unless a certain type of
contact lenses promises real benefits.

There were a lot of soft contact lens materials that made a lot of
promises (in between HEMA and silicon hydrogels), but I think the only
one that really lived up to the promises were the Proclears.
Dr. Leukoma - 30 Jun 2006 12:36 GMT
> Hello everybody,
> I am a third year Optometry student at Pacific University.  In clinic
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
> Thanks a bunch,
> -Levi Z.

In my practice:

#1 = Oasys

#2 = Oasys

#3 = Oasys

#4 = Proclear/BMXC, Focus N&D, Purevision

DrG
acemanvx@yahoo.com - 01 Jul 2006 01:15 GMT
Hello, it appears that anywhere from -1.5 to -4 is the most commonly
pescribed. The fact begs is about 2/3 of myopes are in that range. Very
low myopes dont really need correction so they dont wear glasses nor
contacts. Theres alot less high myopes so you dont see too many -6s and
beyond.
Dr. Leukoma - 01 Jul 2006 13:07 GMT
> Hello, it appears that anywhere from -1.5 to -4 is the most commonly
> pescribed. The fact begs is about 2/3 of myopes are in that range. Very
> low myopes dont really need correction so they dont wear glasses nor
> contacts. Theres alot less high myopes so you dont see too many -6s and
> beyond.

You don't see any because you aren't a doctor.  I believe that the
*optometry student* was interested more in the brand than a normal
distribution of refractive error.

DrG
zurc2800@pacificu.edu - 06 Jul 2006 00:48 GMT
Thanks for all the great input from everyone.  It was really helpful.
Things are great here in the Grove...  I think Pacific is a great
school for the most part.  Yeah, opt school still takes four years.  It
seems like they keep having to cram more and more into the same amount
of time though.  I guess that's bound to happen, as we get more
priveledges and technology advances.
 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2009 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.