Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
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.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Bickle et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: