U.S. patent application number 12/144387 was filed with the patent office on 2009-03-05 for soft contact lenses displaying superior on-eye comfort.
Invention is credited to Azaam Alli, Kevin McCabe, Cristine Schnider, Robert STEFFEN, David Turner, Kent Young.
Application Number | 20090059164 12/144387 |
Document ID | / |
Family ID | 34840461 |
Filed Date | 2009-03-05 |
United States Patent
Application |
20090059164 |
Kind Code |
A1 |
STEFFEN; Robert ; et
al. |
March 5, 2009 |
SOFT CONTACT LENSES DISPLAYING SUPERIOR ON-EYE COMFORT
Abstract
The present invention relates to soft contact lenses having an
overall comfort preference of at least about 2 to 1 as compared to
an Acuvue.RTM. contact lens and measured after one week of daily
wear. The present invention further relates to a soft contact lens
comprising an oxygen transmissibility greater than about 70
barrers/mm and physical properties suitable to provide wearer
comfort over at least about 9 hours in at least about 80% of
wearers, as measured in a randomized, double masked clinical
study.
Inventors: |
STEFFEN; Robert; (Webster,
NY) ; McCabe; Kevin; ( St. Augustine Beach, FL)
; Turner; David; (Jacksonville, FL) ; Alli;
Azaam; (Jacksonville, FL) ; Young; Kent;
(Jacksonville, FL) ; Schnider; Cristine;
(Jacksonville, FL) |
Correspondence
Address: |
PHILIP S. JOHNSON;JOHNSON & JOHNSON
ONE JOHNSON & JOHNSON PLAZA
NEW BRUNSWICK
NJ
08933-7003
US
|
Family ID: |
34840461 |
Appl. No.: |
12/144387 |
Filed: |
November 10, 2008 |
Related U.S. Patent Documents
|
|
|
|
|
|
Application
Number |
Filing Date |
Patent Number |
|
|
11036669 |
Jan 14, 2005 |
7461937 |
|
|
12144387 |
|
|
|
|
10236762 |
Sep 6, 2002 |
7052131 |
|
|
11036669 |
|
|
|
|
10236538 |
Sep 6, 2002 |
6822016 |
|
|
11036669 |
|
|
|
|
09652817 |
Aug 30, 2000 |
|
|
|
11036669 |
|
|
|
|
09414365 |
Oct 7, 1999 |
|
|
|
09652817 |
|
|
|
|
09532943 |
Mar 22, 2000 |
|
|
|
09414365 |
|
|
|
|
60537369 |
Jan 17, 2004 |
|
|
|
60318536 |
Sep 10, 2001 |
|
|
|
60318536 |
Sep 10, 2001 |
|
|
|
Current U.S.
Class: |
351/159.33 |
Current CPC
Class: |
B29D 11/00067 20130101;
C08F 220/60 20130101; C08F 226/10 20130101 |
Class at
Publication: |
351/160.H |
International
Class: |
G02C 7/04 20060101
G02C007/04 |
Claims
1. A soft hydrogel contact lens having an overall comfort
preference of at least about 2 to 1 as compared to an etafilcon A
contact lens and measured after one week of daily wear, provided
however, said contact lens is not coated with polyacrylic acid or
poly(N,N-dimethylacrylamide).
2. A soft hydrogel contact lens having an overall comfort
preference of at least about 3 to 1 as compared to an etafilcon A
contact lens and measured after one week of daily wear provided
however, said contact lens is not coated with polyacrylic acid or
poly(N,N-dimethylacrylamide).
3 . A soft hydrogel contact lens having an overall comfort
preference of at least about 2 to 1 as compared to an Acuvue2.RTM.
contact lens and measured after one week of daily wear, provided
however, said contact lens is not coated with polyacrylic acid or
poly(N,N-dimethylacrylamide).
4. A soft hydrogel contact lens having an end of day comfort
preference of at least about 3 to 1 as compared to an etafilcon A
contact lens and measured after one week of daily wear, provided
however, said contact lens is not coated with polyacrylic acid or
poly(N,N-dimethylacrylamide).
5. A soft hydrogel contact lens having an end of day comfort
preference of at least about 3 to 1 as compared to an etafilcon A
contact lens and measured after one week of daily wear, provided
however, said contact lens is not coated with polyacrylic acid or
poly(N,N-dimethylacrylamide).
6. (canceled)
7. The contact lens of claim 1 comprising an oxygen
transmissibility is at least about 85 barrers/mm.
8. The contact lens of claim 1 further comprising an advancing
dynamic contact angle of less than about 90.degree..
9. The lens of claim 1 further comprising a water content of at
least about 30%.
10. The lens of claim 1 wherein said oxygen transmissibility is at
least about 80 barrers/mm.
11. The lens of claim 1 wherein said oxygen transmissibility is at
least about 90 barrers/mm.
12. The lens of claim 1 wherein said oxygen transmissibility is at
least about 110 barrers/mm.
13. The lens of claim 1 wherein said oxygen transmissibility is at
least about 140 barrers/mm.
14. The lens of claim 8 wherein said advancing dynamic contact
angle is less than about 80.degree..
15. The lens of claim 8 wherein said advancing dynamic contact
angle is less than about 70.degree..
16. The lens of claim 9 wherein said water content is between about
30% and about 50%.
17. The lens of claim 11 wherein said lens further comprises a
water content between about 30% and about 50%.
18. The lens of claim 7 further comprising a tensile modulus of
less than about 120 psi.
19. The lens of claim 7 further comprising a tensile modulus of
less than about 100 psi.
20. The lens of claim 7 further comprising a tensile modulus of
about 40 to about 100 psi.
21. The lens of claim 7 wherein said lens is formed from a silicone
hydrogel.
22. The lens of claim 21 wherein said silicone hydrogel is formed
from a reaction mixture comprising at least about 20 weight %
silicone containing components.
23. The lens of claim 21 wherein said silicone hydrogel is formed
from a reaction mixture comprising between about 20 and about 70
weight % silicone containing components.
24. The lens of claim 22 wherein said reaction mixture comprises at
least one monofunctional silicone containing component and less
than about 10 mmol multifunctional components/100 g reactive
components.
25. The lens of claim 24 wherein said multifunctional components
comprise less than about 7 mmol/100 g of the reactive
components.
26. The lens of claim 24 wherein said monofunctional silicone
containing component is selected from the group consisting of
polysiloxanylalkyl(meth)acrylic monomers, mono-functional
polydimethylsiloxanes and mixtures thereof.
27. The lens of claim 24 wherein said multifunctional components
comprise multifunctional silicone containing components.
28. The lens of claim 27 wherein said multifunctional silicone
containing components are selected from the group consisting of
poly(organosiloxane) prepolymer, multifunctional
silicone-containing vinyl carbonate and vinyl carbamate monomers,
polyurethane macromers, and combinations thereof.
29. The lens of claim 22 wherein at least about 30 weight % of said
silicone components comprise silicone containing compounds free
from branching trimethylsiloxy groups.
30. The lens of claim 22 wherein at least about 60 weight % of said
silicone components comprise silicone containing compounds free
from branching trimethylsiloxy groups.
31. A soft hydrogel contact lens having a modulus less than about
140 psi, oxygen transmissibility of at least about 70 barrers/mm,
and at least one lubricious polymer comprising a water content of
at least about 70% in an amount sufficient to provide an overall
comfort preference of at least about 2 to 1 as compared to an
etafilcon A contact lens, measured after one week of daily wear,
provided however, said contact lens is not coated with polyacrylic
acid or poly(N,N-dimethylacrylamide).
32. The contact lens of claim 31 wherein said hydrophilic polymer
comprises a water content of at least about 80%.
33. A soft hydrogel contact lens comprising an oxygen
transmissibility greater than about 80 barrers/mm and physical
properties suitable to provide wearer comfort over a wear time of
at least about 9 hours in at least about 80% of wearers, provided
however, said contact lens is not coated with polyacrylic acid or
poly(N,N-dimethylacrylamide).
34. The contact lens of claim 33 wherein said wear time is in an
environment with less than about 40% humidity.
35. A method for the mitigation of ocular discomfort caused by
contact lens wear comprising contacting the surface of the eye of a
patient who experiences said discomfort with a soft hydrogel
contact lens comprising a modulus less than about 140 psi, oxygen
transmissibility of at least about 70 barrers/mm and a dynamic
coefficient of friction of less than about 0.01 when measured at a
sliding speed of 10 cm/second.
Description
RELATED U.S. APPLICATIONS
[0001] This application claims priority from provisional
application U.S. Ser. No. 60/537369, filed on Jan.17, 2003 and is a
continuation-in-part of U.S. Ser. No. 10/236,538, and U.S. Ser. No.
10/236,762, both of which were filed on Sep. 6, 2002, and both of
which claim the priority of provisional application Ser. No.
60/318,536, filed on Sep. 10, 2001. This application is also a
continuation-in-part of U.S. Ser. No. 09/652,817, filed on Aug. 30,
2000, which is a continuation-in-part of U.S. Ser. No. 09/532,943,
filed on Mar. 22, 2000, which is a continuation-in-part of U.S.
Ser. No. 09/414,365, filed on Oct. 7, 1999, which is a
continuation-in-part of U.S. Ser. No. 09/033,347, filed on Mar. 2,
1998, now issued as U.S. Pat. 5,998,498
FIELD OF THE INVENTION
[0002] This invention relates to soft contact lenses displaying
superior comfort when worn on eye. In particular, the invention
relates to soft contact lenses displaying a unique combination of
properties which provide superior on eye comfort.
BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION
[0003] Soft contact lenses have been available since the 1980s.
Currently there are two types of soft contact lenses.
"Conventional" lenses are made from hydrophilic polymers such as
poly(2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate) (PHEMA) and copolymers of N-vinyl
pyrrolidone and methyl methacrylate. These contact lenses have
relatively low permeability to oxygen (typically below 8-30
barrers), but high water content (typically in excess of 35%).
Examples of a conventional soft contact lens include Acuvue.RTM.
and Acuvue 2.RTM. brand contact lenses, both of which are
considered as among the most comfortable soft contact lenses
commercially available. However, many lens wearers cannot
comfortably wear conventional lenses for a full day (up to nine
hours or more).
[0004] Contact lens wearers commonly report symptoms of dryness and
discomfort while wearing contact lenses. These symptoms can be
exacerbated in environments prone to low relative humidity, such as
pressurized airline cabins, home or office environments that use
forced-air heating or air-conditioning systems, as well as locales
and environments subject to low ambient humidity. The relative
humidity in commercial airlines commonly ranges from as low as 5%
to under 40%, with mean values averaging between 14-19%.
[0005] Silicone hydrogel contact lenses contain silicone in the
lens polymer. Silicone increases the lens's oxygen permeability,
which contributes to the lenses ability to be worn for longer
periods of continuous wear. However, commercially available
silicone hydrogel contact lenses are perceived by many lens wearers
to be less comfortable than conventional contact lenses.
Accordingly, there remains a need in the industry for a contact
lens which can be worn comfortably for a full day of wear, even in
low humidity environments.
SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION
[0006] The present invention relates to soft contact lenses having
an overall comfort preference of at least about 2 to 1 as compared
to an Acuvue.RTM. contact lens and measured after one week of daily
wear.
[0007] The invention also relates to soft contact lenses having an
overall comfort preference of at least about 2 to 1 as compared to
an Acuvue2.RTM. contact lens and measured after one week of daily
wear.
[0008] The invention further relates to soft contact lenses having
a modulus of less than about 100 psi, oxygen transmissibility of at
least about 80 barrers/mm and a dynamic coefficient of friction of
less than about 0.01 when measured at a sliding speed of 10
cm/second, provided however, said contact lens is not coated with
polyacrylic acid or poly(N,N-dimethylacrylamide).
DESCRIPTION OF THE FIGURES
[0009] FIG. 1 contains two photographs of the right eye of a
clinical trial patient wearing spectacle lenses for one month.
[0010] FIG. 2 contains two photographs of the right eye of a
clinical trial patient wearing the contact lenses of Example 5 for
one month of daily wear.
[0011] FIG. 3 contains two photographs of the right eye of a
clinical trial patient wearing Focus Night and Day.RTM. brand
contact lenses for one month of daily wear.
[0012] FIG. 4 contains two photographs of the right eye of a
clinical trial patient wearing Acuvue.RTM.2 brand contact lenses
for one month of daily wear.
[0013] FIG. 5 is a graph comparing the limbal redness observed in
patients wearing spectacle lenses, the contact lenses of Example 5,
Focus Night and Day.RTM. brand contact lenses and Acuvue.RTM.2
brand contact lenses.
[0014] FIG. 6 is a graph comparing lid irritation observed in
patients wearing spectacle lenses, the contact lenses of Example 5,
Focus Night and Day.RTM. brand contact lenses and Acuvue.RTM.2
brand contact lenses.
[0015] FIG. 7 is a graph comparing the overall redness observed in
patients wearing spectacle lenses, the contact lenses of Example 5,
Focus Night and Day.RTM. brand contact lenses and Acuvue.RTM.2
brand contact lenses.
DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION
[0016] It has been surprisingly found that contact lenses having a
unique balance of properties display superior comfort compared to
presently available soft contact lenses. The contact lenses of the
present invention display superior overall comfort throughout wear,
and at the end of the day. The lenses of the present invention were
found, in clinical trials to be significantly more comfortable than
Acuvue.RTM. or Acuvue.RTM.2 brand contact lenses, both of which are
recognized in the industry as lenses which are among the most
comfortable commercially available lenses. By significant, we mean
a preference rating of at least 2 to 1 in a double masked, clinical
trial with at least about 20 patients completing the trial and
wearing lenses for at least 8 hours per day for at least one week.
End of day comfort data was collected at least 8 hours after lens
insertion. The questionnaires allowed participants the following
choices: preferred the test lens, preferred the control lens,
preferred both lenses or preferred neither lens. Ratings were
generated using all responses indicating a preference between the
lenses. Acuvue.RTM. and Acuvue2.RTM. brand contact lenses are soft
hydrogel contact lenses made from etafilcon A and commercially
available from Johnson & Johnson Vision Care, Inc.
[0017] Lenses of the present invention were also found to provide
improved comfort in low humidity environments, generally under 40%
relative humidity, such as airline cabins, heated and air
conditioned buildings and the like.
[0018] It has been surprisingly found that lenses that have a
modulus of less than about 140 psi, an oxygen transmissibility,
Dk/t, of at least about 70 barrers/mm and a dynamic coefficient of
friction ("COF") of less than about 0.01, display superior comfort.
Low modulus provides a soft and flexible lens. High oxygen
transmissibility provides sufficient levels of oxygen to the cornea
to prevent redness and promote corneal health, and a low dynamic
COF provides the lens with a lubricious, silky feel.
[0019] Preferably the Dk/t is at least about 80 barrers/mm, in some
embodiments at least about 90, and for contact lenses which are
intended to be worn continuously for two weeks or more, preferably
at least about 100 barrers/mm. In some embodiments, Dk/t of at
least about 140 barrer/mm may be desirable.
[0020] Preferably the modulus is less than about 120 psi, more
preferably less than about 100 psi, and in some embodiments between
about 40 and 100 psi.
[0021] Additionally contact lenses of the present invention may
have water contents of at least about 30%, and preferably between
about 30 and about 50%. The contact lenses of the present invention
may also display advancing contact angles of less than about
80.degree. and preferably less than about 70.degree. as measured
using a Wilhelmy dynamic contact angle balance.
[0022] Suitable components for producing soft contact lenses having
a variety of properties are known in the art. The combination of
components to provide the novel combination of properties disclosed
in the present invention will now be described.
[0023] The oxygen transmissibility may be imparted to the lens
formulation by including at least one silicone containing component
in the lens formulation. Suitable silicone containing components
include silicone containing monomers, prepolymer and/or
macromers.
[0024] The term "monomer" used herein refers to lower molecular
weight compounds that can be polymerized to higher molecular weight
compounds, polymers, macromers, or prepolymers. The term "macromer"
as used herein refers to a high molecular weight polymerizable
compound. Prepolymers are partially polymerized monomers or
monomers which are capable of further polymerization.
[0025] A "silicone-containing monomer" is one that contains at
least two [-Si-O-] repeating units in a monomer, macromer or
prepolymer. Preferably, the total Si and attached O are present in
the silicone-containing monomer in an amount greater than 20 weight
percent, and more preferably greater than 30 weight percent of the
total molecular weight of the silicone-containing monomer. Useful
silicone-containing components preferably comprise polymerizable
functional groups such as acrylate, methacrylate, acrylamide,
methacrylamide, N-vinyl lactam, N-vinylamide, and styryl functional
groups. Examples of silicone-containing components which are useful
in this invention may be found in U.S. Pat. Nos. 3,808,178;
4,120,570; 4,136,250; 4,153,641; 4,740,533; 5,034,461 and
5,070,215, and EP080539. All of the patents cited herein are hereby
incorporated in their entireties by reference. These references
disclose many examples of olefinic silicone-containing
components.
[0026] While almost any silicone containing component may be
included to increase the Dk of the resulting lens, in order to
provide the lenses of the present invention with the desired
modulus, the majority of the mass fraction of the silicone
components used in the lens formulation should contain only one
polymerizable functional group ("monofunctional silicone containing
component"). To insure the desired balance of oxygen
transmissibility and modulus it is preferred that all components
having more than one polymerizable functional groups
("multifunctional components") make up no more than 10 mmol/100 g
of the reactive components, and preferably no more than 7 mmol/100
g of the reactive components. Suitable monofunctional silicone
containing components include polysiloxanylalkyl(meth)acrylic
monomers of Formula I:
##STR00001##
wherein: R denotes H or lower alkyl; X denotes O or NR.sup.4; each
R.sup.4 independently denotes hydrogen or methyl,
[0027] each R.sup.1-R.sup.3 independently denotes a lower alkyl
radical or a phenyl radical, and
[0028] n is 1 or 3 to 10.
Mono-functional polydimethylsiloxanes (mPDMS) may also be used.
Suitable mPDMS compounds include Structure II:
##STR00002##
where b=0 to 100, where it is understood that b is a distribution
having a mode equal to a stated value, preferably 4 to 16, more
preferably 8 to 10; R.sub.58 is a monovalent group containing at
least one ethylenically unsaturated moiety, preferably a monovalent
group containing a styryl, vinyl, or methacrylate moiety, more
preferably a methacrylate moiety; each R.sub.59 is independently a
monovalent alkyl, or aryl group, which may be further substituted
with alcohol, amine, ketone, carboxylic acid or ether groups,
preferably unsubstituted monovalent alkyl or aryl groups, more
preferably methyl; R.sub.60 is a monovalent alkyl, or aryl group,
which may be further substituted with alcohol, amine, ketone,
carboxylic acid or ether groups, preferably unsubstituted
monovalent alkyl or aryl groups, preferably a C.sub.1-10 aliphatic
or aromatic group which may include hetero atoms, more preferably
C.sub.3-8 alkyl groups, most preferably butyl; and R.sub.61 is
independently alkyl or aromatic, preferably ethyl, methyl, benzyl,
phenyl, or a monovalent siloxane chain comprising from 1 to 100
repeating Si--O units. Examples of suitable mPDMS compounds include
3-methacryloxy-2-hydroxypropyloxy)propylbis(trimethylsiloxy)methylsilane,
monomethacryloxypropyl terminated mono-n-butyl terminated
polydimethylsiloxane, methacryloxypropylpentamethyl disiloxane,
combinations thereof and the like.
[0029] Examples of polysiloxanylalkyl (meth)acrylic monomers
include methacryloxypropyl tris(trimethylsiloxy) silane,
pentamethyldisiloxanyl methylmethacrylate, and
methyldi(trimethylsiloxy)methacryloxymethyl silane.
Methacryloxypropyl tris(trimethylsiloxy)silane is the most
preferred.
[0030] In some embodiments monofunctional polydimethylsiloxanes may
be preferred, as they lower not only modulus, but also tan .delta.,
while bulky silicones, such as those containing at least one
branching trimethylsiloxy group will increase tan .delta..
Accordingly, at least about 30 and preferably at least about 60
weight % of all the silicone components should be non-bulky
silicone containing compounds such as polydimethylsiloxanes.
[0031] Desirably, silicone hydrogels made according to the
invention comprise at least about 20 and preferably between about
20 and 70% wt silicone containing components based on total weight
of reactive monomer components from which the polymer is made.
[0032] In addition to the monofunctional silicone containing
components, multifunctional silicone containing components and/or
bulky silicone containing compounds may also be included in amounts
which do not impart an undesirably high modulus and/or tan
.delta..
[0033] One class of silicone-containing components is a
poly(organosiloxane) prepolymer represented by formula III:
##STR00003##
wherein each A independently denotes an activated unsaturated
group, such as an ester or amide of an acrylic or a methacrylic
acid or an alkyl or aryl group (providing that at least one A
comprises an activated unsaturated group capable of undergoing
radical polymerization); each of R.sup.5, R.sup.6, R.sup.7 and
R.sup.8 are independently selected from the group consisting of a
monovalent hydrocarbon radical or a halogen substituted monovalent
hydrocarbon radical having 1 to 18 carbon atoms which may have
ether linkages between carbon atoms;
[0034] R.sup.9 denotes a divalent hydrocarbon radical having from 1
to 22 carbon atoms, and
[0035] m is 0 or an integer greater than or equal to 1, and
preferable 5 to 400, and more preferably 10 to 300. One specific
example is .alpha., .omega.-bismethacryloxypropyl
polydimethylsiloxane.
[0036] Another useful class of silicone containing components
includes silicone-containing vinyl carbonate or vinyl carbamate
monomers of the following formula:
##STR00004##
wherein: Y denotes O, S, or NH; R.sup.Si denotes a
silicone-containing organic radical; R denotes
[0037] hydrogen or methyl; d is 1, 2, 3 or 4; and q is 0 or 1.
Suitable silicone-containing organic radicals R.sup.Si include the
following:
##STR00005##
wherein:
[0038] Q denotes
##STR00006##
[0039] Wherein p is 1 to 6; R.sup.10 denotes an alkyl radical or a
fluoroalkyl radical having 1 to 6 carbon atoms; e is 0 to 200; q'
is 1, 2, 3 or 4; and s is 0, 1, 2, 3, 4 or 5.
[0040] The silicone-containing vinyl carbonate or vinyl carbamate
monomers specifically include:
1,3-bis[4-(vinyloxycarbonyloxy)but-1-yl]tetramethyl-disiloxane;
3-(vinyloxycarbonylthio)propyl-[tris (trimethylsiloxy)silane];
3-[tris(trimethylsiloxy)silyl]propyl allyl carbamate;
3-[tris(trimethylsiloxy)silyl]propyl vinyl carbamate;
trimethylsilylethyl vinyl carbonate; trimethylsilylmethyl vinyl
carbonate, and
##STR00007##
[0041] Another class of silicone-containing components includes
polyurethane macromers of the following formulae: Formulae
IV-VI
[0042] (*D*A*D*G).sub.a*D*D*E.sup.1;
[0043] E(*D*G*D*A).sub.a*D*G*D*E.sup.1 or;
[0044] E(*D*A*D*G).sub.a*D*A*D*E.sup.1
wherein:
[0045] D denotes an alkyl diradical, an alkyl cycloalkyl diradical,
a cycloalkyl diradical, an aryl diradical or an alkylaryl diradical
having 6 to 30 carbon atoms, G denotes an alkyl diradical, a
cycloalkyl diradical, an alkyl cycloalkyl diradical, an aryl
diradical or an alkylaryl diradical having 1 to 40 carbon atoms and
which may contain ether, thio or amine linkages in the main
chain;
[0046] * denotes a urethane or ureido linkage;
[0047] a is at least 1;
[0048] A denotes a divalent polymeric radical of formula:
##STR00008##
R.sup.11 independently denotes an alkyl or fluoro-substituted alkyl
group having 1 to 10 carbon atoms which may contain ether linkages
between carbon atoms; y is at least 1; and p provides a moiety
weight of 400 to 10,000; each of E and E.sup.1 independently
denotes a polymerizable unsaturated organic radical represented by
formula:
##STR00009##
wherein: R.sup.12 is hydrogen or methyl; R.sup.13 is hydrogen, an
alkyl radical having 1 to 6 carbon atoms, or a --CO--Y--R.sup.15
radical wherein Y is --O--, Y--S-- or --NH--; R.sup.14 is a
divalent radical having 1 to 12 carbon atoms; X denotes --CO-- or
--OCO--; Z denotes --O-- or --NH--; Ar denotes an aromatic radical
having 6 to 30 carbon atoms; w is 0 to 6; x is 0 or 1; y is 0 or 1;
and z is 0 or 1.
[0049] A preferred silicone-containing component is a polyurethane
macromer represented by the following formula:
##STR00010##
wherein R.sup.16 is a diradical of a diisocyanate after removal of
the isocyanate group, such as the diradical of isophorone
diisocyanate. Another suitable silicone containing macromer is
compound of formula X (in which x+y is a number in the range of 10
to 30) formed by the reaction of fluoroether, hydroxy-terminated
polydimethylsiloxane, isophorone diisocyanate and
isocyanatoethylmethacrylate.
##STR00011##
[0050] Other silicone-containing components suitable for use in
this invention include those described is WO 96/31792 such as
macromers containing polysiloxane, polyalkylene ether,
diisocyanate, polyfluorinated hydrocarbon, polyfluorinated ether
and polysaccharide groups. U.S. Pat. Nos. 5,321,108; 5,387,662 and
5,539,016 describe polysiloxanes with a polar fluorinated graft or
side group having a hydrogen atom attached to a terminal
difluoro-substituted carbon atom. U.S. 2002/0016383 describe
hydrophilic siloxanyl methacrylates containing ether and siloxanyl
linkanges and crosslinkable monomers containing polyether and
polysiloxanyl groups. Any of the foregoing polysiloxanes can also
be used as the silicone containing component in this invention.
[0051] Hydrophilic monomers are also included in the reactive
components used to make the contact lenses of the present
invention. The hydrophilic monomers used to make the contact lenses
of this invention can be any of the known hydrophilic monomers
disclosed in the prior art to make hydrogels.
[0052] The preferred hydrophilic monomers used to make the polymer
of this invention may be either acrylic- or vinyl-containing. Such
hydrophilic monomers may themselves be used as crosslinking agents,
however, where hydrophilic monomers having more than one
polymerizable functional group are used, their concentration should
be limited as discussed above to provide a contact lens having the
desired modulus. The term "vinyl-type" or "vinyl-containing"
monomers refer to monomers containing the vinyl grouping
(--CH.dbd.CH.sub.2) and are generally highly reactive. Such
hydrophilic vinyl-containing monomers are known to polymerize
relatively easily. "Acrylic-type" or "acrylic-containing" monomers
are those monomers containing the acrylic group:
(CH.sub.2.dbd.CRCOX) wherein R is H or CH.sub.3, and X is O or N,
which are also known to polymerize readily, such as N,N-dimethyl
acrylamide (DMA), 2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate (HEMA), glycerol
methacrylate, 2-hydroxyethyl methacrylamide, polyethyleneglycol
monomethacrylate, methacrylic acid and acrylic acid.
[0053] Hydrophilic vinyl-containing monomers which may be
incorporated into the silicone hydrogels of the present invention
include monomers such as N-vinyl amides, N-vinyl lactams (e.g.
NVP), N-vinyl-N-methyl acetamide, N-vinyl-N-ethyl acetamide,
N-vinyl-N-ethyl formamide, N-vinyl formamide, with NVP being
preferred.
[0054] Other hydrophilic monomers that can be employed in the
invention include polyoxyethylene polyols having one or more of the
terminal hydroxyl groups replaced with a functional group
containing a polymerizable double bond. Examples include
polyethylene glycol, ethoxylated alkyl glucoside, and ethoxylated
bisphenol A reacted with one or more molar equivalents of an
end-capping group such as isocyanatoethyl methacrylate ("IEM"),
methacrylic anhydride, methacryloyl chloride, vinylbenzoyl
chloride, or the like, to produce a polyethylene polyol having one
or more terminal polymerizable olefinic groups bonded to the
polyethylene polyol through linking moieties such as carbamate or
ester groups.
[0055] Still further examples are the hydrophilic vinyl carbonate
or vinyl carbamate monomers disclosed in U.S. Pat. No. 5,070,215,
and the hydrophilic oxazolone monomers disclosed in U.S. Pat. No.
4,910,277. Other suitable hydrophilic monomers will be apparent to
one skilled in the art.
[0056] More preferred hydrophilic monomers which may be
incorporated into the polymer of the present invention include
hydrophilic monomers such as DMA, HEMA, glycerol methacrylate,
2-hydroxyethyl methacrylamide, NVP, N-vinyl-N-methyl acrylamide,
polyethyleneglycol monomethacrylate, methacrylic acid and acrylic
acid with DMA being the most preferred.
[0057] The hydrophilic monomers may be present in a wide range of
amounts, depending upon the specific balance of properties desired.
Amounts of hydrophilic monomer up to about 50 and preferably
between about 5 and about 50 weight %, based upon all components in
the reactive components are acceptable. For example, in one
embodiment lenses of the present invention comprise a water content
of at least about 30%, and in another embodiment between about 30
and about 50%. For these embodiments, the hydrophilic monomer may
be included in amounts between about 20 and about 50 weight The
lenses of the present invention have a dynamic COF less than 0.01.
The dynamic COF may be imparted to the contact lens by
incorporating a lubricious polymer into the reactive mixture from
which the lens will be made, or by coating a lens with a lubricious
polymer. Suitable lubricious polymers have a weight average
molecular weight of at least about 50,000 Daltons, and in some
embodiments greater than about 100,000 Daltons. The molecular
weight may be determined via gel permeation chromatography (GPC)
using a ViscoGEL GMPWXL Column with a 20/80 methanol/water ratio
with a flow rate 1.0 ml/min. at 30.degree. C.
[0058] Suitable lubricious polymers will also possess, when
polymerized and crosslinked to minor amount, a water content of at
least about 70%, preferably at least about 80%. For lubricious
polymers which are free radical reactive, a "minor amount" of
crosslinking may be effected by polymerizing the monomer(s) from
which the polymer is formed with a small amount (such as about 7.5
mmol/100 gram of polymer) of crosslinker (for example, EGDMA).
Methods for forming crosslinked polymers which are not free radical
reactive will be apparent to those of skill in the art from the
disclosure contained herein.
[0059] Alternatively, the suitability of a polymer for use as a
lubricious polymer may be determined by mixing 10 wt % of the
monomer from which the polymer is formed in water at room
temperature. Monomers that are soluble under these conditions may
be used to form lubricious polymers for use in the contact lenses
of the present invention. Specific examples of lubricious polymers
include high molecular weight hydrophilic polymers of polyamides,
polylactones, polyimides, polylactams and functionalized
polyamides, polylactones, polyimides, polylactams, such as DMA
functionalized by copolymerizing DMA with a lesser molar amount of
a hydroxyl-functional monomer such as HEMA, and then reacting the
hydroxyl groups of the resulting copolymer with materials
containing radical polymerizable groups, such as
isocyanatoethylmethacrylate or methacryloyl chloride. Hydrophilic
polymers or prepolymers made from DMA or n-vinyl pyrrolidone with
glycidyl methacrylate may also be used. The glycidyl methacrylate
ring can be opened to give a diol which may be used in conjunction
with other hydrophilic prepolymers in a mixed system. Specific
examples of lubricious polymers include but are not limited to
poly-N-vinyl pyrrolidone, poly(N-vinyl-N-methylacetamide),
poly-N-vinyl-2- piperidone, poly-N-vinyl-2-caprolactam,
poly-N-vinyl-3-methyl-2- caprolactam,
poly-N-vinyl-3-methyl-2-piperidone, poly-N-vinyl-4-methyl-2-
piperidone, poly-N-vinyl-4-methyl-2-caprolactam,
poly-N-vinyl-3-ethyl-2-pyrrolidone, and
poly-N-vinyl-4,5-dimethyl-2-pyrrolidone, polyvinylimidazole,
poly-N-N-dimethylacrylamide, polyvinyl alcohol, polyethylene oxide,
poly 2 ethyl oxazoline, heparin polysaccharides, polysaccharides,
mixtures and copolymers (including block or random, branched,
multichain, comb-shaped or star shaped) thereof where
poly-N-vinylpyrrolidone (PVP), poly(N-vinyl-N-methylacetamide)
(PVMA) are particularly preferred. Copolymers might also be used
such as graft copolymers of PVP or amphiphilic copolymers having
hydrophilic and hydrophobic blocks such as those disclosed in U.S.
10/954,560. The lubricious polymer may be incorporated into the
lens polymer without chemical bonding, such as is disclosed in
US2003/162,862 and US2003/125,498 or may be copolymerized into the
lens matrix or coated onto the contact lens, by any known method
such as premold spin casting, as disclosed, for example, in
US2003/052,424, grafting, soaking the lens in a polymeric solution
as disclosed in US2002/006,521 and U.S. Pat. No. 6,478,423, and the
like.
[0060] When the lubricious polymer is incorporated into the lens
polymer, the lubricious polymer may also comprise polyacrylic acid.
However, when the lubricious polymer is coated onto the lens, the
lubricious polymer is not polyacrylic acid or
poly(N,N-dimethylacrylamide).
[0061] Alternatively, the lubricious polymer may be a reactive
polymer have a molecular weight as low as 2000. Suitable low
molecular weight polymers are disclosed in U.S. Ser. No.
10/954559.
[0062] The lubricious polymer is incorporated into or onto the lens
in amounts sufficient to provide the desired COF. When the
lubricious polymer is incorporated into the lens, it may be
included in the reaction mixture in amounts between about 1 to
about 15 weight percent, more preferably about 3 to about 15
percent, most preferably about 5 to about 12 percent, all based
upon the total of all reactive components.
[0063] When the lubricious polymer is coated onto the lens any
amount which is sufficient to coat the surface of the lens and
provide the desired COF may be used ("coating effective amount").
Generally, the amount of lubricious polymer used may be about 0.001
to about 100, preferably about 0.01 to about 50 and more preferably
about 0.01 to about 10 weight percent of the coating solution.
[0064] Other monomers that can be present in the reaction mixture
used to form the contact lenses of this invention include
compatibilizing components, such as those disclosed in
US2003/162,862 and US2003/2003/125,498, ultra-violet absorbing
compounds, medicinal agents, antimicrobial compounds,
copolymerizable and nonpolymerizable dyes, release agents, reactive
tints, pigments, combinations thereof and the like.
[0065] A polymerization catalyst is preferably included in the
reaction mixture. The polymerization initiators includes compounds
such as lauryl peroxide, benzoyl peroxide, isopropyl percarbonate,
azobisisobutyronitrile, and the like, that generate free radicals
at moderately elevated temperatures, and photoinitiator systems
such as aromatic alpha-hydroxy ketones, alkoxyoxybenzoins,
acetophenones, acylphosphine oxides, bisacylphosphine oxides, and a
tertiary amine plus a diketone, mixtures thereof and the like.
Illustrative examples of photoinitiators are 1-hydroxycyclohexyl
phenyl ketone, 2-hydroxy-2-methyl-1-phenyl-propan-1-one,
bis(2,6-dimethoxybenzoyl)-2,4-4-trimethylpentyl phosphine oxide
(DMBAPO), bis(2,4,6-trimethylbenzoyl)-phenyl phosphineoxide
(Irgacure 819), 2,4,6-trimethylbenzyldiphenyl phosphine oxide and
2,4,6-trimethylbenzoyl diphenylphosphine oxide, benzoin methyl
ester and a combination of camphorquinone and ethyl
4-(N,N-dimethylamino)benzoate. Commercially available visible light
initiator systems include Irgacure 819, Irgacure 1700, Irgacure
1800, Irgacure 819, Irgacure 1850 (all from Ciba Specialty
Chemicals) and Lucirin TPO initiator (available from BASF).
Commercially available UV photoinitiators include Darocur 1173 and
Darocur 2959 (Ciba Specialty Chemicals). These and other
photoinitators which may be used are disclosed in Volume III,
Photoinitiators for Free Radical Cationic & Anionic
Photopolymerization, 2.sup.nd Edition by J. V. Crivello& K.
Dietliker; edited by G. Bradley; John Wiley and Sons; New York;
1998. The initiator is used in the reaction mixture in effective
amounts to initiate photopolymerization of the reaction mixture,
e.g., from about 0.1 to about 2 parts by weight per 100 parts of
reactive monomer. Polymerization of the reaction mixture can be
initiated using the appropriate choice of heat or visible or
ultraviolet light or other means depending on the polymerization
initiator used. Alternatively, initiation can be conducted without
a photoinitiator using, for example, e-beam. However, when a
photoinitiator is used, the preferred initiators are
bisacylphosphine oxides, such as bis(2,4,6-trimethylbenzoyl)-phenyl
phosphine oxide (Irgacure 819.RTM. or a combination of
1-hydroxycyclohexyl phenyl ketone and
bis(2,6-dimethoxybenzoyl)-2,4-4-trimethylpentyl phosphine oxide
(DMBAPO), and the preferred method of polymerization initiation is
visible light. The most preferred is
bis(2,4,6-trimethylbenzoyl)-phenyl phosphine oxide (Irgacure
819.RTM..
The reactive components (silicone containing component, hydrophilic
monomers, lubricious polymers, and other components which are
reacted to form the lens) are mixed together either with or without
a diluent to form the reaction mixture. The diluent is selected to
solubilize the reactive components. Suitable diluents include
include those which possess both a hydrophilic and a hydrophobic
nature. It has been found that the hydrophilic nature may be
characterized by hydrogen donating ability, using Kamlet alpha
values (also referred to as alpha values). The hydrophobic nature
of the diluent may be characterized by the Hansen solubility
parameter .delta.p. Suitable diluents for the present invention are
good hydrogen bond donors and polar. As used herein a "good"
hydrogen bond donor, will donate hydrogen at least as readily as
3-methyl-3-pentanol. For certain diluents it is possible to measure
the hydrogen bond donating ability by measuring the Kamlet alpha
value (or as used herein "alpha value"). Suitable alpha values
include those between about 0.05 and about 1 and preferably between
about 0.1 and about 0.9. The diluents useful in the present
invention should also be relatively non-polar. The selected diluent
should have a polarity sufficiently low to solubilize the non-polar
components in the reactive mixture at reaction conditions. One way
to characterize the polarity of the diluents of the present
invention is via the Hansen solubility parameter, .delta.p. In
certain embodiments, the .delta.p is less than about 10, and
preferably less than about 6. Suitable diluents are further
disclosed in U.S. Ser. No 60/452898 and U.S. Pat. No. 6,020,445.
Classes of suitable diluents include, without limitation, alcohols
having 2 to 20 carbons, amides having 10 to 20 carbon atoms derived
from primary amines and carboxylic acids having 8 to 20 carbon
atoms. In some embodiments, primary and tertiary alcohols are
preferred. Preferred classes include alcohols having 5 to 20
carbons and carboxylic acids having 10 to 20 carbon atoms.
Preferred diluents include 3,7-dimethyl-3-octanol, 1-odecanol,
1-decanol, 1-octanol, 1-pentanol, 1-hexanol, 2-hexanol, 2-octanol,
3-methyl-3-pentanol, 2-pentanol, t-amyl alcohol, tert-butanol,
2-butanol, 1-butanol, 2-methyl-2-pentanol, 2- ethyl-1-butanol,
ethanol, 3,3-dimethyl-2-butanol, 2-octyl-1-dodecanol, decanoic
acid, octanoic acid, dodecanoic acid, mixtures thereof and the
like. More preferred diluents include 3,7-dimethyl-3-octanol,
1-dodecanol, 1-decanol, 1-octanol, 1-pentanol, 1-hexanol,
2-hexanol, 2-octanol, 1-dodecanol, 3-methyl-3-pentanol, 1-pentanol,
2-pentanol, t-amyl alcohol, tert-butanol, 2-butanol, 1-butanol,
2-methyl-2-pentanol, 2-ethyl-1-butanol, 3,3-dimethyl-2-butanol,
2-octyl-1-dodecanol, mixtures thereof and the like.
[0066] Various processes are known for molding the reaction mixture
in the production of contact lenses, including spincasting and
static casting. Spincasting methods are disclosed in U.S. Pat. Nos.
3,408,429 and 3,660,545, and static casting methods are disclosed
in U.S. Pat. Nos. 4,113,224 and 4,197,266. The preferred method for
producing contact lenses comprising the polymer of this invention
is by the direct molding of the silicone hydrogels, which is
economical, and enables precise control over the final shape of the
hydrated lens. For this method, the reaction mixture is placed in a
mold having the shape of the final desired silicone hydrogel, i.e.
water-swollen polymer, and the reaction mixture is subjected to
conditions whereby the monomers polymerize, to thereby produce a
polymer in the approximate shape of the final desired product.
Then, this polymer mixture is optionally treated with a solvent and
then water, producing a silicone hydrogel having a final size and
shape which are quite similar to the size and shape of the original
molded polymer article. This method can be used to form contact
lenses and is further described in U.S. Pat. Nos. 4,495,313;
4,680,336; 4,889,664; and 5,039,459, incorporated herein by
reference. After producing the silicone hydrogel, the lens be may
be coated with a hydrophilic coating. Some methods of adding
hydrophilic coatings to a lens have been disclosed in the prior
art, including U.S. Pat. Nos. 3,854,982, 3,916,033, 4,920,184,
5,002,794, 5,779,943, 6,087,415; WO 91/04283, and EPO
93/810,399.
[0067] The non-limiting examples below further describe this
invention.
Test Methods
[0068] The dynamic contact angle or DCA, was measured at 23.degree.
C., with borate buffered saline, using a Wilhelmy balance. The
wetting force between the lens surface and borate buffered saline
is measured using a Wilhelmy microbalance while the sample strip
cut from the center portion of the lens is being immersed into the
saline at a rate of 100 microns/sec . The following equation is
used
F=2.gamma.p cos.theta. or .theta.=cos.sup.-1(F/2.gamma.p)
where F is the wetting force, .gamma. is the surface tension of the
probe liquid, p is the perimeter of the sample at the meniscus and
.theta. is the contact angle. Typically, two contact angles are
obtained from a dynamic wetting experiment--advancing contact angle
and receding contact angle. Advancing contact angle is obtained
from the portion of the wetting experiment where the sample is
being immersed into the probe liquid, and these are the values
reported herein. At least four lenses of each composition are
measured and the average is reported.
[0069] Oxygen permeability was determined by the polarographic
method generally described in ISO 9913-1: 1996(E), but with the
following variations. The measurement is conducted at an
environment containing 2.1% oxygen. This environment is created by
equipping the test chamber with nitrogen and air inputs set at the
appropriate ratio, for example 1800 ml/min of nitrogen and 200
ml/min of air. The t/Dk is calculated using the adjusted p.sub.o2.
Borate buffered saline was used. The dark current was measured by
using a pure humidified nitrogen environment instead of applying
MMA lenses. The lenses were not blotted before measuring. Four
lenses were stacked instead of using lenses of varied thickness. A
curved sensor was used in place of a flat sensor. The resulting Dk
value is reported in barrers (1 barrer=10.sup.-10 (cm.sup.3 of
gas.times.cm.sup.2)/(cm.sup.3 of polymer.times.sec.times.cm Hg).
Oxygen transmissibility is oxygen permeability divided by the
thickness of the lens. Lens thickness is measured using a
micrometer, such as a Reider guage at the center of a hydrated
lens, using a flat anvil.
[0070] The water content was measured as follows: lenses to be
tested were allowed to sit in packing solution for 24 hours. Each
of three test lens were removed from packing solution using a
sponge tipped swab and placed on blotting wipes which have been
dampened with packing solution Both sides of the lens were
contacted with the wipe. Using tweezers, the test lens were placed
in a weighing pan and weighed. The two more sets of samples were
prepared and weighed as above. The pan was weighed three times and
the average is the wet weight.
[0071] The dry weight was measured by placing the sample pans in a
vacuum oven which has been preheated to 60.degree. C. for 30
minutes. Vacuum was applied until at least 0.4 inches Hg is
attained. The vacuum valve and pump were turned off and the lenses
were dried for four hours. The purge valve was opened and the oven
was allowed reach atmospheric pressure. The pans were removed and
weighed. The water content was calculated as follows:
Wet weight = combined wet weight of pan and lenses - weight of
weighting pan Dry weight = combined dry weight of pan and lens -
weight of weighing pan % water content = ( wet weight - dry weight
) wet weight .times. 100 ##EQU00001##
The average and standard deviation of the water content are
calculated for the samples are reported.
[0072] Modulus was measured by using the crosshead of a constant
rate of movement type tensile testing machine equipped with a load
cell that is lowered to the initial gauge height. A suitable
testing machine includes an Instron model 1122. A dog-bone shaped
sample having a 0.522 inch length, 0.276 inch "ear" width and 0.213
inch "neck" width was loaded into the grips and elongated at a
constant rate of strain of 2 in/min. until it broke. The initial
gauge length of the sample (Lo) and sample length at break (Lf)
were measured. Twelve specimens (either -0.05 or -1.00 D) of each
composition were measured and the average is reported. Tensile
modulus was measured at the initial linear portion of the
stress/strain curve. Percent elongation
is=[(Lf-Lo)/Lo].times.100.
[0073] The dynamic coefficient of friction of the contact lens was
measured using a Micro-Tribometer, Model UMT-2 unit, with a
pin-on-disk sample mount. The contact lens sample was removed from
its packing solution and placed on the tip of the "pin" with the
center of the lens on the pin tip and pressed against a highly
polished stainless steel disk moving at a constant speed of either
10 or 15 cm/sec. Loads of 3, 5, 10 and 20 g were used. The duration
at each load was 25 seconds and all measurements were taken at
ambient temperature. The resistant frictional force was measured
and was used to calculate the coefficient of friction using the
following formula:
.mu.=(F-f')/N,
where
[0074] .mu.=coefficient of friction
[0075] F=measured frictional force, f+f'
[0076] f=actual frictional force
[0077] f'=experimental artifacts due lens deformation, such as
dehydration and interfacial surface tension forces, elasticity,
etc.
[0078] N=normal load
Seven lenses were tested for each lens type. The coefficient of
friction were averaged and reported In the examples, the following
abbreviations are used.
[0079] SiGMA 2-propenoic acid,
2-methyl-,2-hydroxy-3-[3-[1,3,3,3-tetramethyl-1-[(trimethylsilyl)oxy]disi-
loxanyl]propoxy]propyl ester
DAROCUR 1173 2-hydroxy-2-methyl-1-phenyl propane-1-one [0080] DMA
N,N-dimethylacrylamide [0081] HEMA 2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate
[0082] mPDMS 800-1000 MW (M.sub.n) monomethacryloxypropyl
terminated mono-n-butyl terminated polydimethylsiloxane [0083] MAA
methacrylic acid [0084] Norbloc
2-(2'-hydroxy-5-methacrylyloxyethylphenyl)-2H-benzotriazole [0085]
CGI 1850 1:1 (wgt) blend of 1-hydroxycyclohexyl phenyl ketone and
bis(2,6-dimethoxybenzoyl)-2,4-4-trimethylpentyl phosphine oxide
[0086] PVP poly(N-vinyl pyrrolidone) (K value 90) [0087] Blue HEMA
the reaction product of Reactive Blue 4 and HEMA, as described in
Example 4 of U.S. Pat. No. 5,944,853 [0088] IPA isopropyl alcohol
[0089] D3O 0 3,7-dimethyl-3-octanol [0090] TEGDMA
tetraethyleneglycol dimethacrylate [0091] TRIS
3-methacryloxypropyltris(trimethylsiloxy)silane [0092] PAA
poly(acrylic acid) [0093] CGI 819
bis(2,4,6-trimethylbenzoyl)-phenylphosphineoxide
EXAMPLE 1
[0094] The reaction components and diluent (D30) listed in Table 1
were mixed together until all components were dissolved. The
reactive components are reported as weight percent of all reactive
components and the diluent is weight percent of final reaction
mixture. The reaction mixture was placed into thermoplastic contact
lens molds (front molds made from Zeonor.RTM., back molds made from
polypropylene) and irradiated at 60.degree. C. with 0.5
mW/cm.sup.2, followed by 1 mW/cm.sup.2 then 3 mW/ cm.sup.2 visible
light using Philips TL 20W/03T fluorescent bulbs. The molds were
opened and lenses were extracted five times with IPA at ambient
temperature for about 2 hours per cycle to remove residual diluent
and monomers, placed into borate-buffered saline solution. The
physical properties of the lenses (Dk, water content, advancing
dynamic contact angle, modulus, elongation and dynamic coefficient
of friction) were measured and are shown in Table 3, below.
TABLE-US-00001 TABLE 1 Component Wt % SiGMA 28 PVP (K90) 7 DMA 23.5
MPDMS 31 HEMA 6 Norbloc 2 TEGDMA 1.5 Blue HEMA 0.02 CGI 1850 0.98 %
Diluent* 23 Diluent D3O
EXAMPLE 2
[0095] The lenses of Example 1 were clinically evaluated against
Acuvue.RTM. brand contact lenses. The clinical evaluation, was a
randomized, bilateral cross-over study with 39 patients. The lenses
were worn in a daily wear mode (nightly removal) for a period of
one week using ReNu MultiPlus Multi-Purpose Solution. After 30
minutes and one week of wear for each lens, the patients were asked
to rate the lenses for the following: dryness, initial comfort, end
of day comfort, overall preference. Each attribute is rated on a
visual analog questionnaire form. The form consisted of a visual
analog from 0 to 50 with verbal descriptions at specific intervals
to explain the scale to the subject (50=excellent, 0=very poor).
Lenses, which score above 42 on the scale, are considered good to
excellent. A mean difference of five units between the lens types
is considered clinically significant. Table 2 shows the preference
results from the clinical study.
TABLE-US-00002 TABLE 2 Ex. 1 v. Acuvue .RTM. contact Attribute
lenses Overall Preference 23:6 Initial Comfort 21:3 Dryness 20:3
End of Day Comfort 18:3
TABLE-US-00003 TABLE 3 Acuvue .RTM. contact Property Ex 1.sub.--
lenses Dk (barrer) 101 21 Center thickness 0.078-0.0.087 0.11 (mm)
% H2O 36-37 58 DCA (.degree.) 55-57 82 Modulus (psi) 87 37
Elongation (%) 223 120 COF (@ 10 cm/s) 0.005
EXAMPLE 3
[0096] Lenses were made from the formulation in Table 4. The
preparation of the macromer used is described in U.S. Patent
application 200300052424.
[0097] Lenses were formed in using a process similar to that of
Example 1, but with TOPAS.RTM. front molds and polypropylene back
molds, curing under visible light at 70.degree. C. Lenses were made
as above except with the application of a polyHEMA coating to the
surfaces of the molds as described in Examples 10-13 of U.S. Patent
application 200300052424.
TABLE-US-00004 TABLE 4 Component Wt % Macromer 18 TRIS 14 PVP (K90)
5 DMA 26 MPDMS 28 HEMA 5 Norbloc 2 TEGDMA 1 Blue HEMA 0.02 CGI 1850
1 % Diluent* 20 Diluent D3O
The physical properties of the lenses (Dk, water content, advancing
dynamic contact angle, modulus, elongation and dynamic coefficient
of friction were measured and are shown in Table 6, below.
EXAMPLE 4
[0098] The lenses of Example 3 were clinically evaluated against
Acuvue.RTM. brand contact lenses. The clinical evaluation, was a
randomized, bilateral cross-over study with 53 patients. The lenses
were worn in a daily wear mode (nightly removal) for a period of
one week using SoloCare Multi-Purpose Solution. After 30 minutes
and one week of wear for each lens, the patients were asked to rate
the lenses for the following: dryness, initial comfort, end of day
comfort, overall preference. Each attribute is rated on a visual
analog questionnaire form. The form consisted of a visual analog
from 0 to 50 with verbal descriptions at specific intervals to
explain the scale to the subject (50=excellent, 0=very poor).
Lenses, which score above 42 on the scale, are considered good to
excellent. A mean difference of five units between the lens types
is considered clinically significant. Table 5 shows the preference
results from the clinical study.
TABLE-US-00005 TABLE 5 Ex. 3 v. Acuvue .RTM. contact Attribute
lenses Overall Preference 20:10 Initial Comfort 17:10 Dryness 14:12
End of Day Comfort 16:12
TABLE-US-00006 TABLE 6 Property Ex 3 Acuvue .RTM. contact lenses Dk
(barrer) 99 21 Center Thickness 0.064-0.072 0.011 (mm) % H2O 40-41
58 DCA (.degree.) 83-94 82 Modulus (psi) 75 37 Elongation (%) 281
120 COF (@ 10 cm/s) 0.024
EXAMPLE 5
[0099] Lenses were made from the formulation indicated in Table 7
in a process similar to that of Example 1.
TABLE-US-00007 TABLE 7 Component Wt % SiGMA 30 PVP (K90) 6 DMA 31
MPDMS 22 HEMA 8.5 Norbloc 1.5 EGDMA 0.8 Blue HEMA 0 CGI 819 0.2 %
Diluent* 40 Diluent 29/11 blend of t- amyl alcohol and 2,500 MW
PVP
[0100] The physical properties of the lenses (Dk, water content,
advancing dynamic contact angle, modulus, elongation and dynamic
coefficient of friction were measured and are shown in Table 9,
below.
EXAMPLE 6
[0101] The lenses of Example 5 were clinically evaluated against
Acuvue2.RTM. brand contact lenses. The clinical evaluation, was a
double masked, bilateral cross-over study with 43 patients. The
lenses were worn in a daily wear mode (nightly removal) for a
period of two weeks using Complete.RTM. cleaning and disinfection
system upon lens removal. After 30 minutes and two weeks of wear
for each lens, the patients were asked to rate the lenses for the
following: dryness, initial comfort, end of day comfort, overall
preference. Each attribute is rated on a visual analog
questionnaire form. The form consisted of a visual analog from 0 to
50 with verbal descriptions at specific intervals to explain the
scale to the subject (50=excellent, 0=very poor). Lenses, which
score above 42 on the scale, are considered good to excellent. A
mean difference of five units between the lens types is considered
clinically significant. Table 5 shows the preference results from
the clinical study.
TABLE-US-00008 TABLE 8 Ex. 5 v. Acuvue2 .RTM. contact Attribute
lenses Overall Preference 15:14 Initial Comfort 14:12 Dryness 12:8
End of Day Comfort 12:10
TABLE-US-00009 TABLE 9 Acuvue2 .RTM. contact Property Ex 5 lenses
Dk (barrer) 57 21 Center thickness 0.057-0.079 0.084 (mm) % H2O
47-49 58 DCA (.degree.) 33-66 82 Modulus (psi) 66 37 Elongation (%)
258 120 COF (@ 10 cm/s) 0.006
EXAMPLE 7
[0102] The lenses of Example 1 were compared to Focus Night &
Day.RTM. brand contact lenses (commercially available from Ciba
Vision) in a one week, daily wear, bilateral cross-over,
randomized, design study. There were 35 patients in the study. The
lenses were worn in a daily wear mode (nightly removal) for a
period of two weeks using ReNu MultiPlus Multi-Purpose Solution for
cleaning upon lens removal. After 30 minutes and one week of wear
for each lens, the patients were asked to rate the lenses for the
following: dryness, initial comfort, end of day comfort, overall
preference. Each attribute is rated on a visual analog
questionnaire form. The form consisted of a visual analog from 0 to
50 with verbal descriptions at specific intervals to explain the
scale to the subject (50=excellent, 0=very poor). Lenses, which
score above 42 on the scale, are considered good to excellent. A
mean difference of five units between the lens types is considered
clinically significant. Table 10 shows the preference results from
the clinical study. Table 11 shows a comparison of physical
properties between the lens of Example 1 and the Focus Night and
Day brand contact lens.
TABLE-US-00010 TABLE 10 Ex. 1 v. Focus Night and Attribute Day
.RTM. contact lenses Overall Preference 25:5 Initial Comfort 25:3
Dryness 18:3 End of Day Comfort 22:5
TABLE-US-00011 TABLE 12 Focus Night and Day .RTM. Property Ex 1
contact lenses Dk (barrer) 107 140 Center thickness 0.088-0.092 NM
(mm) % H2O 35-37 24 DCA (.degree.) 48-53 67 Modulus (psi) 86 238
Elongation (%) 250 178 COF (@ 10 cm/s) 0.005 0.049 NM = not
measured, but nominal center thickness was reported to be 0.08
EXAMPLE 8
[0103] The lenses of Example 1 were compared to PureVision.RTM.
brand contact lenses (commercially available from Bausch &
Lomb) in a one month, continuous wear, contarlateral, randomized
per eye study. There were 26 patients in the study. After 30
minutes and one week of wear for each lens, the patients were asked
to rate the lenses for the following: dryness, initial comfort, end
of day comfort, overall preference. Each attribute is rated on a
visual analog questionnaire form. The form consisted of a visual
analog from 0 to 50 with verbal descriptions at specific intervals
to explain the scale to the subject (50=excellent, 0=very poor).
Lenses, which score above 42 on the scale, are considered good to
excellent. A mean difference of five units between the lens types
is considered clinically significant. Table 12 shows the preference
results from the clinical study. Table 13 shows a comparison of
physical properties between the lens of Example 1 and the
PureVision and Day brand contact lens.
TABLE-US-00012 TABLE 12 Ex. 1 v. PureVision .RTM. contact Attribute
lenses Overall Preference 14:2 Initial Comfort 14:2 Dryness 11:2
End of Day Comfort 13:1
TABLE-US-00013 TABLE 13 PureVision .RTM. contact Property Ex 1
lenses Dk (barrer) 107 79 Center thickness 0.088-0.092 NM (mm) %
H2O 35-37 38 DCA (.degree.) 48-53 117 Modulus (psi) 86 155
Elongation (%) 250 286 COF (@ 10 cm/s) 0.005 0.020 NM = not
measured, but nominal center thickness was reported to be 0.09
EXAMPLE 9
[0104] A clinical study was conducted comparing patient response to
the lenses of Example 5, Focus Night and Day.RTM. contact lenses,
Acuvue.RTM.2 brand contact lenses and for redness, no contact lens
wear. The lenses were worn in a daily wear modality for four weeks.
The replacement interval for the Focus Night and Day.RTM. contact
lenses was four weeks and the replacement interval for the lenses
of Example 5 and the Acuvue.RTM.2 lenses was two weeks. Forty-eight
patients who had never worn contact lenses were recruited for the
study and randomly assigned to wear on of the three lenses being
studied, or no lenses at all. The subjects were not informed of the
brand of lens they were evaluated and did not see any lens product
packaging. The study was a four cell, parallel, randomized and
controlled double masked dispensing study. Optifree Express was
used as the lens care solution. For all visits one investigator
performed lens related assessments (such as lens fit) and removed
the contact lenses (if worn by the subject being evaluated) and
another performed redness and lid irritation assessments. In this
way, the lens identity was masked from the investigators performing
the performance evaluations. Photographs of the patients right eye
in each group were taken prior to dispensing the contact lenses and
after 1 month. Representative photographs are shown in FIGS. 1
through 4. In each Figure the photograph on the right was the
photograph taken prior to lens wear and the photograph on the left
was taken at the four month visit. Each visit was conducted at
least 2 hours after the patient had woke up that day. FIG. 1
contains the photographs from a blue eyed patient who wore
spectacle lenses throughout the study. As can be seen from
comparing the photographs in FIG. 1, there is no significant
difference in redness in the eyes of this patient.
[0105] FIG. 2 contains the photographs from a blue eyed patient who
wore lenses of Example 5 throughout the study. As can be seen from
comparing the photographs in FIG. 2, there is no significant
difference in redness in the eyes of this patient, even after
wearing contact lenses on a daily wear basis for a month.
[0106] FIG. 3 contains the photographs from a blue eyed patient who
wore Focus Night and Day.RTM. contact lenses throughout the study.
As can be seen from comparing the photographs in FIG. 3, and
particularly the area within the circle, there is a discernable
increase in general redness, which manifests itself as increased
and more pronounced visible capiliaries in the conjuctiva. General
redness, as shown here, may reflect irritation and/or dryness.
[0107] FIG. 4 contains the photographs from a blue eyed patient who
wore Acuvue.RTM.2 brand contact lenses throughout the study. As can
be seen from comparing the photographs in FIG. 4, and particularly
the area within the circles, there is a discernable increase in
general redness, which manifests itself as increased and more
pronounced visible capillaries in the conjuctiva (circles on the
right hand side of the slides). General redness, as shown here, may
reflect irritation and/or dryness. There is also an increase in
limbal redness, which is shown in the picture on the right as more
redness around the limbal ring (lower left circle). An increase in
limbal redness may reflect less than optimum concentrations of
oxygen is reaching the cornea.
[0108] Ratings for limbal redness, lid irritation and overall
redness were also collected by the masked investigator, and are
shown graphically in FIGS. 5 through 7, respectively. FIGS. 5-7
clearly show that the lenses of Example 5 are superior to Acuvue2
brand contact lenses in all three metrics, and superior to Focus
Night and Day.RTM. contact lenses with respect to lid irritation
and overall redness.
[0109] Survey information from the patients related to duration of
daily lens wear and the number of hours lens wear was comfortable,
was collected by an independent research organization by phone one
week after the initial visit and after the replacement interview (4
weeks for Focus Night and Day.RTM. contact lenses, and two weeks
for the lenses of Example 5 and Acuvue.RTM.2 contact lenses. The
results of the phone survey are shown in Table 14, below.
TABLE-US-00014 TABLE 14 % reporting comfortable Lens % wore lens
.gtoreq.9 hrs wear for .gtoreq.9 hrs Ex. 5 94 87 FND 91 69 AV2 90
77
EXAMPLE 10
[0110] 2.02 g 1-vinyl-2-pyrrolidnone (NVP), 0.03 g of
ethyleneglycol dimethacrylate (EGDMA), and 10 .mu.L of DAROCUR 1173
were combined. The blend was degassed by placing under vacuum for
30 minutes. Polymer was formed by placing 100 .mu.L of the blend
into a polypropylene molds under nitrogen and curing with UV light
from Phillip's TL20W/09 bulbs for about 45 minutes. The molds were
opened and polymer obtained was released into buffered saline
solution at 25.degree. C. The buffered saline was replaced with
fresh solution every 30 minutes for a total of three soakings. The
water content of the hydrated polymer was determined and is
reported in Table 15, below.
EXAMPLES 11-14
[0111] The procedure of Example 10 was repeated substituting the
monomers listed in Table 15 for NVP. The results are shown in Table
15.
TABLE-US-00015 TABLE 15 Ex. # Monomer H2O % 10
1-Vinyl-2-pyrrolidnone 90.1 .+-. 0.7 11 N'N-Dimethyl acrylamide
81.4 .+-. 0.0 12 Acrylic acid 78.4 .+-. 0.2 13
N-Methyl-N-vinylacetamide 94.7 .+-. 0.4 14 1.41 g HEMA/0.61 g MAA
78.0 .+-. 0.3
* * * * *