 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / Vision / July 2006Great safety program for soft contact lens wearers
When the "fusarium scare" occurred and Bausch and Lomb "Renu with Moisture Lock" was pulled off the market, B&L was put in a similar place that the makers of Tylenol were after the great poisoning scare years back. To build patient compliance and advocate good contact lens hygiene B&L has created a FREE "Wear & Care" consumer program. When you go on their website at www.bausch.com and hit the "Wear and Care" button, you can sign up for a FREE care package that includes 12 free contact lens cases to encourage monthly case disposal. YOU DON"T HAVE TO WEAR B&L LENSES to get the free cases. My rep says they have had 80,000 sign up so far, and the more the merrier. So, I encourage everyone here who wears soft contacts or fits soft contacts to send everyone to this program. When cases are clean and hands are clean there are fewer infections and we all win, not just B&L. > When the "fusarium scare" occurred and Bausch and Lomb "Renu with > Moisture Lock" was pulled off the market, B&L was put in a similar [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > When cases are clean and hands are clean there are fewer infections and > we all win, not just B&L. Just wondering here, but are RGP wearers affected by this also? When the silicone hydrogel lenses like Focus Night & Day and Acuvue Advance were first invented the solutions manufacturers had to play "catch up." The concept behind "Moisture Lock" was a great idea...to create a layer of film on the contact that keeps it softer and more supple. The "perfect storm" that seems to have enveloped the Bausch & Lomb product is that when the patient put the "moisture lock" in his case, a biofilm occurred on the surface of the solution. Then, when he just "topped off" his case the next day without emptying and rinsing, the trapped biofilm became a medium for the fusarium to grow. So, the patient had to be around mold (which is really easy to do in the Southern US where most of the infections occurred) and then they were "top-offers", which certainly does not mean that they were filthy disgusting people with bad breath and bad hygeine. The "Wear & Care" program includes a video that explains how to clean your lenses and also a little sticker that goes on the bathroom mirror to remind you to wash your hands before you touch your contacts. These issues usually do not affect RGPs because microbes hate to live on gas permeables. One of the features of a rigid lens that makes it "gas permeable" is that it has to have an ability to grab oxygen and literally throw it through the lens to the cornea. A tiny little electrical charge that amounts to just hundredths of a millivolt is produced by this exchange of oxygen, and microbes hate electricity and run away from RGPs. They are innately a lot "smarter" than we ever give them credit for. > > When the "fusarium scare" occurred and Bausch and Lomb "Renu with > > Moisture Lock" was pulled off the market, B&L was put in a similar [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Just wondering here, but are RGP wearers affected by this also? > When the silicone hydrogel lenses like Focus Night & Day > and Acuvue Advance were first invented the solutions [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > goes on the bathroom mirror to remind you to wash your > hands before you touch your contacts. All the solutions I've used have instructions to discard the used solution after soaking/storage. Moisture Lock didn't? -Quick Topping off your case was never a good idea, because you were diluting the antibacterial effect of the solution. The biofilm added a totally new risk because the top-off wasn't simply diluting the solution but was effectively rendering it worthless. When chemists invent new solutions they often don't build in an "idiot factor" that accounts for what goes wrong when it is used improperly. I often use the story that TORO lawn mowers now have a page in their instructions that remind you not to pick up your lawnmower and use it to trim hedges. That page exists because...you guessed it...somebody mowed their hedge with a gas mower and sued when they got hurt. Duh. > > When the silicone hydrogel lenses like Focus Night & Day > > and Acuvue Advance were first invented the solutions [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > -Quick > TORO lawn mowers now have a page in their instructions that remind you > not to pick up your lawnmower and use it to trim hedges. Certainly not without wearing safety glasses! Contacts are relatively useless for eye safety. -- Dicky As I am sure you are aware, one always present problem with any type of treatment is that the patient will screw it up because they are idiots. Keller is a prime example of that. As I recall... in her latest stunt, attempted to remove a contact lens with a plunger while drunk, and wound up tearing off a chunk of her epiithelium. OUCH! Of course.. she doesn't think that was her fault in any way. >Topping off your case was never a good idea, because you were diluting >the antibacterial effect of the solution. The biofilm added a totally [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] >> >> -Quick And your point? Have you just done a complete 180 in the matter of 2 posts? -Quick > As I am sure you are aware, one always present problem > with any type of treatment is that the patient will screw [quoted text clipped - 49 lines] >>> >>> -Quick What point are you referring to? I am not aware of any 180 >And your point? Have you just done a complete >180 in the matter of 2 posts? [quoted text clipped - 54 lines] >>>> >>>> -Quick Thanks for that post! I have just one comment about it. B&L would like people to believe that the problems with their eyedrops were actually the fault of poor patient hygiene. A dozen contact lens cases is a bit silly. It pains me to see a myopic patient wearing glasses. They should be wearing contact lenses - rigid if they can tolerate them - and consider LASIK when they can pay for it. Actually.. anybody can pay for it. When the numbers are crunched, it takes at most 12 years of contact lens or glasses to equal the cost of LASIK. Also, Lasik is tax deductable - as are glasses and contacts - but people are not likely to go to the trouble of deducting their contacts or glasses.. but are likely to deduct that big lasik payment. The operation is easily financed. I would like everyone to be wearing rigid contacts if possible. They are very low maintenance, and provide the best possible vision. It's unfortunate that so few people are willing to put up with a little discomfort. >When the "fusarium scare" occurred and Bausch and Lomb "Renu with >Moisture Lock" was pulled off the market, B&L was put in a similar [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >When cases are clean and hands are clean there are fewer infections and >we all win, not just B&L. > Thanks for that post! > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > unfortunate that so few people are willing to put up with a little > discomfort. Are you an eye doc? >Thanks for that post! > >I have just one comment about it. B&L would like people to believe >that the problems with their eyedrops were actually the fault of poor >patient hygiene. Are you talking about "eyedrops" or Renu with MoisturLOC? Have you actually read the conclusions of B&L and the ophthalmic community? <http://tinyurl.com/zgek5> >A dozen contact lens cases is a bit silly. It pains me to see a >myopic patient wearing glasses. They should be wearing contact lenses >- rigid if they can tolerate them - and consider LASIK when they can >pay for it. These are silly blanket statements and bad advice for many patients. [snip] >I would like everyone to be wearing rigid contacts if possible. They >are very low maintenance, and provide the best possible vision. It's >unfortunate that so few people are willing to put up with a little >discomfort. Many patients tolerate RGPs successfully. However, while some patients with dry eyes do better with RGPs, others can have their dry eye condition aggravated by RGPs and don't like to go around with dry eyes for *years*. I know from experience -- I did. I wore RGPs for over 5 years with constantly dry eyes. I got sick of it. I didn't do well with HEMA lenses either -- eyes got dry with them too. When silicone hydrogel lenses came out, I moved into them and now get comfortable lens wear for 14+ hours on most every day. I never got that routinely with RGPs or HEMA SCLs. I don't know why you replied anonymously... you did a good post. I had not seen the full story about B&L and that solution. Scary stuff. Which is yet another reason to avoid soft contact lenses. Rigid lenses can be rinsed off with warm tap water. Those lenses to not absorb water nor does water adhere to them. Still, one might want to give them a squirt with some contact lens solution after thouroughly cleaning them with tap water. Another issue is that preserved solutions are not healthy for the eye... yet no preservatives is even more dangerous... so again.. go for the RGPs >>Thanks for that post! >> [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] >comfortable lens wear for 14+ hours on most every day. I never got >that routinely with RGPs or HEMA SCLs. >I had not seen the full story about B&L and that solution. Scary >stuff. I am convinced that these cases wouldn't have occured in any greater incidence than patients using other solutions if the patients followed proper lens hygiene, care, and obeyed the product instructions. I believe that this is the case of a "perfect storm". IOW, B&L ReNu with MoisturLOC was riskier to use than other solutions if you were non-compliant (i.e., basically a lazy slob) with your doctor's instructions. >Which is yet another reason to avoid soft contact lenses. Wearing ANY contact lenses involve risk. That risk can be minimized by following proper lens hygiene and wearing them per your eye doctor's instructions. For most people the risk to benefit ratio is certainly very acceptable. >Rigid lenses can be rinsed off with warm tap water. Those lenses to >not absorb water nor does water adhere to them. Still, one might want >to give them a squirt with some contact lens solution after >thouroughly cleaning them with tap water. Might? >Another issue is that preserved solutions are not healthy for the >eye... yet no preservatives is even more dangerous... so again.. go >for the RGPs Rigid gas permeable contact lenses (RGPs) have advantages and disadvantages versus soft contact lenses (SCLs). Eye doctors realize this. For most of my patients, the advantages of SCLs (e.g., initial comfort and relatively inexpensive frequent replacement modality) overwhelmingly outweigh the advantages of RGPs (e.g., less costly over the long run if patient doesn't lose/crack lenses and prescription doesn't change). The "healthier for the eyes" advantage that RGPs had over SCLs is pretty much gone with the availability of silicone hydrogel contat lenses (SHCLs). (Yes, there are exceptions to this, like the -12.00DS -3.00DC OU patient I had that had nasty limbal neovascularization and microcystic edema from daily wear of Hydrasoft Torics and I "forced" into RGPs -- BTW, it was amazing hoiw much healthier her eyes looked in just the course of a couple months! But for the -4.00DS myope, arguing that RGPs are healthier than SHCLs if both are worn properly is basically untenable.) When I go over the pros/cons of RGPs versus SCLs (which in 6/2006 is SHCLs easily 95% of the time), the vast majority of my patients choose SCLs. I tend to agree with you.... there are many issues involved in solutions... preservatives vs non-preserved... for instance... distilled water is not chlorinated.. so distilled water is potentially a medium for bacteria soup. And I promise tnot to make a big issure out of this.. even though I probably should.. but this is a good reason to have LASIK... to be free of sticking solutions into your eyes. Don't get me started on the old pretien eating pig pancreatin tablets.... >>I had not seen the full story about B&L and that solution. Scary >>stuff. [quoted text clipped - 51 lines] >SHCLs easily 95% of the time), the vast majority of my patients choose >SCLs. >I tend to agree with you.... there are many issues involved in >solutions... preservatives vs non-preserved... for instance... [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >free of sticking solutions into your eyes. Don't get me started on >the old pretien eating pig pancreatin tablets.... You generalise too much. LASIK isn't good for all. It wouldn't be good for me as I am monocular. Too risky. Ann >>>I had not seen the full story about B&L and that solution. Scary >>>stuff. [quoted text clipped - 51 lines] >>SHCLs easily 95% of the time), the vast majority of my patients choose >>SCLs. > >I tend to agree with you.... there are many issues involved in > >solutions... preservatives vs non-preserved... for instance... [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Ann That's for sure. LASIK is inherently riskier than any contact lens. DrG . LASIK is inherently riskier than any contact lens. > DrG Sounds like a true contact salesman. "Can't have anyone cutting a slice in my pie." >. LASIK is inherently riskier than any contact lens. >> >> DrG > > Sounds like a true contact salesman. "Can't have anyone cutting a >slice in my pie." Watched you for quite some time. I'd say your "agenda" is far more at play here than that of Dr. G. But then, that's must my impression .... based in part on decades of research and review of peer-reviewed studies. > Watched you for quite some time. I'd say your "agenda" is far more at > play here than that of Dr. G. > > But then, that's must my impression .... based in part on decades of > research and review of peer-reviewed studies. My agenda is only to counter the anti- RS loony fringe. And since my SE days of long ago I've noticed that Leukoma's agenda is to stroke his own ego and play the part of a super hero. Anyone can fit a lens or say which is better, 1 or 2 ? >> Watched you for quite some time. I'd say your "agenda" is far more at >> play here than that of Dr. G. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >own ego and play the part of a super hero. Anyone can fit a lens or say >which is better, 1 or 2 ? I love this perspective. I'll go out on a limb and assume you're a blood relative of Otis Brown, right? Airline pilots have the easiest job in the world ... about 98% of the time. During the other 2% of the time, though, you are praying for their expertise, their judgment, their acumen, and their experience to all coalesce to pull your bacon out of the fire. I don't doubt that some big % (dramatically UNDER 98%, I would guess) of an OD's practice is NOT particularly challenging to them either, but that just keeps the lights on AND isn't of their making. Their scope of practice matches up with certain optometric problems in the general population in a certain way. It is what it is. LOTS of OD's (I've known quite a few), however, "get out of bed" for the remainder of their patients--those whose cases are more complex, more challenging, and, therefore, more rewarding. Whatever your profession, I'm sure I could take equally prejudicial and unenlightened pot-shots at it and at you. I wouldn't, but just know that it could easily be done. You've only been on one side of the chair, I presume. > > Watched you for quite some time. I'd say your "agenda" is far more at > > play here than that of Dr. G. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > own ego and play the part of a super hero. Anyone can fit a lens or say > which is better, 1 or 2 ? Ace, of course, could perform PRK. DrG > Ace, of course, could perform PRK. > > DrG God forbid !!!!!!!!!!! All right, ya got me there. I left the gate wide open for that one. >>LASIK is inherently riskier than any contact lens. > > Sounds like a true contact salesman. "Can't have anyone cutting a >slice in my pie." Why do you think that his statement (vague though it is) is not based on his true beliefs rather than on financial reasons? As an eye doctor, I have no reason to doubt his sincerity, why do you? Do you think all professionals care more about a buck than their patient care? Are you naturally distrusting? Take off your tin foil hat and quit looking for black helicopters. Part of your problem is you apparently look at Dr. Leukoma (and perhaps all eye doctors) as someone pushing a product rather than providing a service. You need to change your thinking: EYE DOCTOR rather than GLASSES SALESMAN. Refractive surgery has a lot of higher incidence of certain risks than do contact lenses. And refractive surgery is generally not reversible. You can get halos, glare, aggravated dry eyes, DLK, corneal ectasia, flap complications, etc. with the various refractive surgery options. You can get bacterial keratitis, GPC, etc. with contact lenses. People who are extremely picky about there vision can many times easily get their prescription fine-tuned by changing contact lens power by +/-0.25D steps to get the exact power they want. You don't get that with refractive surgery. And once again, don't underestimate the reversibility of contact lenses and glasses, especially for the low myope (<-3.00D) who is near presbyopia. With refractive surgery, although the goal is perfection, you need to be content with very good. Simply put: Both refractive surgery, contact lenses and glasses have risks. For some people people, I think refractive surgery is best. Likewise, some people do best with contacts. Others still, with glasses. One of the most important things is to make sure as a potential patient you are thoroughly educated about the pros/cons of all your vision correction options and then make a informed decision based on the health of your eyes and your personal comfort zone. > As an eye doctor, I have no reason to doubt his sincerity, why do you? > Do you think all professionals care more about a buck than their [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > providing a service. You need to change your thinking: EYE DOCTOR > rather than GLASSES SALESMAN. If you think that Leukoma (example only in this case) does not have a financial incentive then maybe you should buy a tin foil hat. Thanks, but I'll decide how to think, I don't need you to do it for me. [snip] > If you think that Leukoma (example only in this case) does not have >a financial incentive then maybe you should buy a tin foil hat. Everyone (except maybe Mother Teresa) has financial reasons; it's when it takes priority over good patient care when it becomes a problem. I will take great patient care and filthy rich over great patient care and dirt poor any day of the week. >Thanks, but I'll decide how to think Hey, it's a free country brother. You are feel to think however you want to. >I don't need you to do it for me. Yes you do. >> >I tend to agree with you.... there are many issues involved in >> >solutions... preservatives vs non-preserved... for instance... [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > >DrG That is completely false. You have no business practicing as a doctor and putting forth such blatant false nonsense. You should be ashamed of yourself. I might add one thing to this. LASIK is the most performed surgery of all time.. and the only surgery that has never had a fatality. HOWEVER, I know of a case where an irresponsible optometrist gave a post-lasik patient some gloom and doom scenario to scare the patient - and the patient wound up committing suicide. That optometrist should have been charged with manslaughter and malpractice. The name of that optometrist slips my mind at the moment. > That is completely false. You have no business > practicing as a doctor and putting forth such blatant > false nonsense. You should be ashamed of yourself. What's the name of that game... DOOM? Where there has been a leak at the nuclear plant and these mutants keep coming at you, each one mutated in a different way? > I might add one thing to this. LASIK is the most > performed surgery of all time.. and the only surgery that > has never had a fatality. I thought that was lancing boils. "lancing", not "lasik". -Quick >>> >I tend to agree with you.... there are many issues involved in >>> >solutions... preservatives vs non-preserved... for instance... [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] >have been charged with manslaughter and malpractice. The name of >that optometrist slips my mind at the moment. So are you saying that you would advise a monocular patient to undergo LASIK? I've never come across anyone yet who would advise such a thing whether or not they had a vested interest. Ann >>>> >I tend to agree with you.... there are many issues involved in >>>> >solutions... preservatives vs non-preserved... for instance... [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > >Ann Where did this monocular issue come from? I never mentioned it at all. And just to answer your question... I would advice a monocular patient to undergo LASIK. I have never come across anyone yet who would NOT advice such a thing. The only exception is... why is that patient monocular? If it was due to some eye disease.. then no.. they should not have lasik in their other eye. Basically.. the criteria here is to determine what was the cause of the loss of vision in the bad eye. >>>>> >I tend to agree with you.... there are many issues involved in >>>>> >solutions... preservatives vs non-preserved... for instance... [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > >Where did this monocular issue come from? You obviously didn't bother reading my response to your post of some time ago. That's okay, it's not obligatory to read all posts but when you miss them you can't act surprised. I never mentioned it at >all. And just to answer your question... I would advice a monocular >patient to undergo LASIK. I have never come across anyone yet who >would NOT advice such a thing. 'advise' the word is. Advice doesn't fit. >The only exception is... why is that patient monocular? If it was due >to some eye disease.. then no.. they should not have lasik in their >other eye. Basically.. the criteria here is to determine what was the >cause of the loss of vision in the bad eye. That doesn't make sense. You aren't explaining yourself very well. Ann >>>Ann >> [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > >Ann My screen resolution is set at 2048 x 1536 and the text is extremely small... yes.. advise is the correct spelling. If it doesn't make sense to you, it never will. I will try again though. As long as the condition that led to the loss of vision in one eye is not related to the good eye.. then there is no reason at all not to have lasik on the good eye. I think you confused monovision with monocular vision. >>>>Ann >>> [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > >I think you confused monovision with monocular vision. No, not at all. Having one eye is a contraindication for having LASIK. You are the only person I have ever come across to say otherwise. Most even advise against wearing a contact lens never mind messing about permanently with the eye. I don't think I would recommend your services to anyone. Ann >>>>>Ann >>>> [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > >Ann That's great Ann.. or should I say... Sandy. You didn't fool me. You are out of your mind. > That's great Ann.. or should I say... Sandy. You didn't fool me. > > You are out of your mind. You can do that all by yourself. Ann is a sci.med.vision regular. She lives in the UK, and lost an eye to melanoma. She's also wicked smart, as you have discovered. DrG Really? Did her adivce every kill anyone? Ann doesn't impress me. Neither do you. >> That's great Ann.. or should I say... Sandy. You didn't fool me. >> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > >DrG >Really? >Did her adivce every kill anyone? > >Ann doesn't impress me. Neither do you. I bet our Ace and our Otis do, though. > >Really? > >Did her adivce every kill anyone? > > > >Ann doesn't impress me. Neither do you. > > I bet our Ace and our Otis do, though. Please delete the cross-posts from alt.lasik-eyes. Ragnar is their Otis. It's a flame war that's been raging daily for four years, perhaps longer. Tiring, boring. LB, O.D. Ace doesn't impress me at all. Who is Otis? >>Really? >>Did her adivce every kill anyone? >> >>Ann doesn't impress me. Neither do you. > >I bet our Ace and our Otis do, though. >So are you saying that you would advise a monocular patient to undergo >LASIK? I'm not the person to whom you are posting this follow-up to, but I will chime in. A lot of this depends on what one considers monocular. For sake of discussion, let's call a monocular patient one who is legally blind in the worse eye (<20/200 best corrected visual acuity [BCVA] or <20 degrees of visual field [VF]), but this could likely apply to patients as low as BCVA of 20/50 in the worse eye. I can't think of even *one situation* in which I would recommend a such a monocular patient undergo LASIK. Perhaps someone could come up with a hypothetical example, but right now my mind is drawing a blank. If something went bad, I couldn't defend myself or the surgeon who performed such a surgery. I would basically have to just give my wallet to the patient and say, "Here -- take it all." > Thanks for that post! > [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > >When cases are clean and hands are clean there are fewer infections and > >we all win, not just B&L. > Thanks for that post! > > I have just one comment about it. B&L would like people to believe > that the problems with their eyedrops were actually the fault of poor > patient hygiene. A dozen contact lens cases is a bit silly. Ragnar is correct that B&L would like people to believe that the problems with their lens cleaning solutions is only the fault of poor patient hygiene. However the contact lens industry has long been well aware that patient compliance with manufacturers regimens is poor and thatthe prescribed multipurpose lens care solutions have failed to prevent approximately 25,000 annual cases of microbial keratitis plus hundreds of thousands of cases of CLARE.There has been inadequate warning of the risks to users of contact lenses. >Ragnar is correct that B&L would like people to believe that the >problems with their lens cleaning solutions is only the fault of poor >patient hygiene. I am convinced that the association of fusarium keratitis with BL MoisturLOC's solution is related to patients not following proper lens hygiene -- that is doing things like not changing the solution in the case daily, not rinsing out the contact lens case with hot water and letting it air dry, not closing the bottle lid properly, not washing their hands, etc. IOW, if patients did proper lens hygiene I believe this "fusarium outbreak" would not have occured. Basically, B&L with MoisturLOC was a lot less forgiving when patients didn't do what they were supposed to do. >However the contact lens industry has long been well aware that >patient compliance with manufacturers regimens is poor Whose fault is that? The lazy patient's. The manufacturers have long realized this and have attempted to reduce the number of steps and make things simpler in order to increase compliance. And even with care systems as simple as the one-step multipurpose solution care systems are now, many patients are non-compliant due to laziness and do not taking their doctors seriously when they tell them of the risks of poor lens hygiene/care. >and that the prescribed multipurpose lens care solutions have failed >to prevent approximately 25,000 annual cases of microbial keratitis >plus hundreds of thousands of cases of CLARE. The vast majority of these cases of bacterial keratitis and CLARE in contact lens patients are related to *extended wear*, not the solutions or care system. I bet 95% of the soft contact lens wearers who are diagnosed with bacterial keratitis in my practice have an immediate antecedent history of extended wear, and of the 5% remaining, I suspect half of them lied about not sleeping in their lenses. With CLARE, I bet it's an even higher percentage. >There has been inadequate warning of the risks to users of contact >lenses. Patients need to take their doctors recommendations seriously. And FWIW, silicone hydrogel contacts haven't eliminated bacterial keratitis in my extended wear patients either. I actually had several cases of patients in the course of a few months that I switched from years of successful EW in ACUVUE to Ciba Focus Night & Day develop CLARE and/or bacterial keratitis. >>Ragnar is correct that B&L would like people to believe that the >>problems with their lens cleaning solutions is only the fault of poor [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >letting it air dry, not closing the bottle lid properly, not washing >their hands, etc. It seems reasonable that hygiene has contributed to the problem. This would explain why soft contact lens wearers who did not use B&L's ReNu with MoistureLoc have developed problems, but I don't think hygiene alone is going to get B&L off the hook. It would appear (just by observation and logic, not by proven study) that there is something about ReNu with MoistureLoc that exacerbated the situation. That would explain why a majority of the soft contact lens wearers who did develop problems were using ReNu with MoistureLoc. Whether B&L is trying to make people believe that the whole problem was because of hygiene or not, the new program is an excellent method of educating contact lens wearers of good hygiene and B&L is not requiring people use B&L products to get the kit. Anyone who requests it is getting it, no matter whose products they use. Glenn Hagele Executive Director USAEyes.org Patient Advocacy Surgeon Certification "Consider and Choose With Confidence" Email to glenn dot hagele at usaeyes dot org http://www.USAEyes.org http://www.ComplicatedEyes.org I am not a doctor. >>>Ragnar is correct that B&L would like people to believe that the >>>problems with their lens cleaning solutions is only the fault of poor [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >explain why a majority of the soft contact lens wearers who did >develop problems were using ReNu with MoistureLoc. Read the following journal article: <http://tinyurl.com/zgek5> B&L's conclusions are clearly spelled out in there. Again.. I tend to agree with everything you said. However, patients often don't do what they should. >>Ragnar is correct that B&L would like people to believe that the >>problems with their lens cleaning solutions is only the fault of poor [quoted text clipped - 51 lines] >years of successful EW in ACUVUE to Ciba Focus Night & Day develop >CLARE and/or bacterial keratitis. >Again.. I tend to agree with everything you said. However, patients >often don't do what they should. Which is why B&L pulled the product off the market rather than saying "It's not our fault -- our conclusions state it's the patients who were non-compliant with the products instructions." Make no mistake: B&L has paid a heavy price for this. Somewhere (if I am not mistaken) in the range of $60M loss due to the recall and Alcon has now overtaken B&L in the contact lens solutions market for the first time. I would be not so understanding if this was related to gross negligence, incompetance or financial reasons (e.g., we spent a lot on developing MoisturLOC, we realize there is a small risk of fusarium keratitis with non compliant patients, but let's release it anyways). As I wrote, I am convinced, unless/until proven otherwise, that B&L followed all the proper steps *at the time* that they should have to proven MoisturLOC was safe. But woe to the company that doesn't test any present or future products against the conditions that caused this to occur with MoisturLOC. Thanks for the update. I'm surprised that B&L did not do a press release on this. We normally get their releases and I had not heard about this excellent service. We have added it to our RSS NewsFeed and it is now on our website. Glenn Hagele Executive Director USAEyes.org Patient Advocacy Surgeon Certification "Consider and Choose With Confidence" Email to glenn dot hagele at usaeyes dot org http://www.USAEyes.org http://www.ComplicatedEyes.org I am not a doctor. |
Reply to this Message |
 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.