Yesterday, I received a letter sent by recorded delivery advising me that my name had been erased from the GOC register. I immediately emailed the GOC as I had simply forgotten that registering does come around this time of year, but had not received the usual application/retention form. The GOC informed me that not only had they sent me the form in late December 2007 (why they choose to send it around Christmas is beyond me), but they had also sent a reminder sometime later.
I have received no reply to my query as to why the GOC did not think it better to send the first letter by recorded delivery, because had they done that I no doubt would have received it and the GOC would not have had to send out a reminder, let alone a letter advising me of erasure by recorded delivery. Just think of the cost savings. Mind, my suggestion of two years ago to have registration on-line was also ignored, which really would save costs and dramatically cut down opticians being erased from the register by 'mistake'
My request to Vantage Technologies to explain what was meant by their advice that since 'erasure' my GOC number was 'locked' fared no better. The series of emails that followed really did beggar belief. Vantage Technologies told me to contact the GOC and the GOC told me to contact Vantage Technologies.
This farce has finally led me to the conclusion not to bother with restoration, which for some reason is more expensive then registration. No one at either the GOC or Vantage Technologies could explain why someone who (for whatever reason) did not wish to retain registration, should pay an additional fee should they decide at a later date (be it one month or five years) to apply for registration. I suppose I was just incredibly foolish to think that anyone could explain the reason for the additional fee, let alone justify it!
David Levy
Radlett
Having read with interest the article by Professor Carol Morris on ‘High technology contact lens materials and their biomimetic properties’ (Optician April 4) I was disappointed to note a number of misleading statements. ‘Biomimesis’ is defined as the abstraction of design from nature. Structures or materials produced in this way are described as ‘biomimetic’. The article seems to suggest that the association of biomimecry and contact lenses is a new one yet one of the first materials to contain a synthetic analogue of a naturally occurring phospholipid was the co-polymer omafilcon A which incorporates in its back bone phosphorylcholine (PC).1 This contact lens material was first marketed as Proclear in 1996 and has since demonstrated its biocompatibility with the ocular environment in a number of studies.2,3,4
The statement ‘lenses with higher water content dehydrate more rapidly than those with lower water content’ although generally assumed to be correct is very much dependent upon material characteristics. Proclear 1 Day lenses have a 60 per cent water content, high water by any measures. However, in vivo testing has shown omafilcon A possesses resistance to dehydration.5 These findings have been confirmed by clinical studies in which the Proclear family of lenses demonstrated less on-eye dehydration than both ionic and non-ionic materials of similar water content.3,4 Proclear’s clinical performance has shown that a high water, non-ionic material can possess dehydration characteristics equivalent to low water, non-ionic materials.6 All of this coupled with the relatively thin design of the Proclear 1 Day results in high oxygen transmissibility. Furthermore, reports suggest that resistance to on-eye dehydration would enable the lens material to sustain higher oxygen transmissibility throughout the day.7
Does a lens have to contain an additive which may ‘leach out’ of its structure to make it more comfortable? Dryness-related discomfort is one of the main causes of patients discontinuing contact lens wear and Proclear 1 Day contains no additives or wetting agents to resist a dry eye sensation; yet the PC material was the first to be approved in the US for use in dry eyes. The specific label claim allowed by the FDA is: ‘The lenses may provide comfort for contact lens wearers who experience mild discomfort or symptoms related to dryness during lens wear associated with evaporative tear deficiency or from aqueous tear deficiency (non-Sjögren’s only).’7
The author describes ‘the most common method of manufacturing’ as double-sided cast moulding which is true and then proceeds to explain how the moulds are closed and exposed to UV light. The use of UV light in this way is a unique system of manufacturing called Lightstream Technology and is a specific patented process of the CIBA Vision Corporation and not used by the majority of other manufacturers in the industry.
It is a pity that this CET article did not include Proclear 1 Day as an alternative approach to the very real issues that relate to the biocompatibility of contact lens materials and the ocular environment; and we would positively welcome the inclusion of Proclear 1 Day in any further studies relating to this issue. This otherwise excellent article concludes with the statement that lenses that release lubricants during the blink lower the co-efficient of friction and therefore possibly create the most biomimetic situation. Does this suggest that Professor Morris is not convinced?
References
-
Young G, Port M and Bowers R. Performance review of a biomimetic contact lens. Optician, 1995; No 5509 Vol 210.
-
Hall B, Jones S, Young G and Coleman S. The on-eye dehydration of Proclear Compatibles Lenses. CLAO J, 1999; 25(4):233-237.
-
Young G, Bowers R, Hall B and Port MJA. Clinical comparison of omafilcon A with four control materials. CLAO J, 1997; 23(4):249-258.
-
Young G, Bowers R, Hall B and Port MJA. A six-month clinical evaluation of a biomimetic hydrogel contact lens. CLAO J, 1997; 23(4)226-236.
-
Port MJA. The use of Proclear biomimetic materials in hyperthin soft lens design. Trans Brit Contact Lens Assoc, 1995; 18(4):131.
-
Lebow K and Bridgewater B. A performance comparison of two hydrogel lenses. CL Spectrum, 1998; April:45-48.
-
Hall B, Sulley A and Jones S. Clinical performance of biomimetic soft lenses. Optician, 2000; No 5753 Vol 219.
John R Rogers
European clinical affairs manager, CooperVision