Trial reportClinical optometry2026
Comparison of Clinical Performance and Fit Success of Lehfilcon A and Lotrafilcon B Daily Wear Monthly Replacement Silicone Hydrogel Multifocal Contact Lenses in Patients with Presbyopia.
Trial report in Clinical optometry, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: To compare and evaluate the clinical performance and fit success of lehfilcon A and lotrafilcon B multifocal soft contact lenses (MfSCLs). Patients and Methods: This was a prospective, randomized, double-masked, crossover, dispensing clinical study. Eligible wearers were fitted and wore study MfSCLs bilaterally (≥8 hours/day, ≥5 days/week) over 30 days. Endpoints: binocular visual acuity (VA) at distance (4 m), intermediate (80 cm), and near (40 cm) at day 30; fit rate success; eye care professional (ECP) rating, study dispensed lens power at visit 1; lens fit, and surface characteristics at dispense and day 30; safety assessments. Results: Overall, 101 subjects were enrolled. At day 30, lehfilcon A MfSCLs were noninferior to lotrafilcon B MfSCLs for distance, intermediate, and near VA (non-inferiority margin: 0.05; 95% UCL of LSM difference 0.00, 0.02, 0.04; mean VA, lehfilcon A: -0.10 ± 0.08, -0.10 ± 0.08, and 0.01 ± 0.12; lotrafilcon B: -0.09 ± 0.07, -0.11 ± 0.08, and -0.02 ± 0.11). At visit 1, ≥99.5% of both MfSCLs achieved successful fit with 1-2 lenses/eye. Mean ECP ratings for ease of fit: lehfilcon A 9.8 ± 0.6; lotrafilcon B: 9.7 ± 0.6. About 96.0% of subjects had same sphere (D) power and 100.0% had same ADD power in both eyes for both lenses. All MfSCLs had optimal/acceptable fit. Majority of MfSCLs (>96%) had grade 0/1 front surface wettability and front/back surface deposits. No serious AEs were reported, and all biomicroscopy findings were graded 2 (mild) or lower. Conclusion: Lehfilcon A multifocal contact lenses combine excellent visual performance, high fit success, and a stable, comfortable wearing experience over 30 days of daily wear. With their water-gradient surface, favorable safety profile, and ease of fit, they represent a reliable and beneficial option for clinicians to consider when selecting multifocal lenses for presbyopic patients.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.