editor's perspective

Claims

BY JOSEPH T. BARR, OD, MS, EDITOR
MARCH 1999

Over the years we've seen many claims made about contact lenses. These include PMMA lenses with holes (apertures or fenestrations for you experts) and grooves (comfort channels for you marketing types) that would prevent corneal edema, bifocal contact lenses with high success rates (typically 80 to 100 percent for you self-confident types), lens designs that defy the laws of physics (for those of you too lazy to look up your old optics texts) and soft contact lenses that would not develop deposits and not cause problems in extended wear. And of course "highly wettable, nondrying" lenses are sold. Yes, for those of you new to the field, all of these claims have been made. Of course the FDA entered the field, especially since the introduction of soft contact lenses in the early 1970s, and ensured us of safe and effective products we can depend upon. Right, and I've got a bridge I know you'd love to buy. Recently, the FDA has not only been concerned with reviewing safety and efficacy data, but also controlling brand names to prevent exaggerated implications and even proactively preventing some new methods of treatment with the intention of protecting our patients. Now before you (FDA types) start to investigate my personal activities, please know that I think you are doing your best under difficult circumstances, that you are well-intentioned and that you have the greater good as a guiding principle. It's just that we still see claims made by companies and practitioners that are not substantiated or poorly substantiated at best. And I really don't believe or expect that the FDA can control all of these claims, just like I don't think that our government can control guns or pornography.

Now you avid Contact Lens Spectrum types are thinking, sure Mr. Editor, but you let these practitioners and companies get away with these grandiose claims right in your own publication's pages. I admit we do, to some extent, but there is a review process where changes are made and attributions are ensured. We believe that you are sophisticated enough to sort out the reliable claims from the borderline claims, especially when we work so hard at presenting all sides of a story. This is not the New England Journal of Medicine, it's a place for people in the contact lens field to tell the story of contact lenses. All of the claims I mentioned in the first paragraph have been reported, and debunked, in our pages. Excellent clinical research is, of course, preferred.

We all need to make sure that the claims we make are as well-studied and as well-qualified as possible. The FDA will never be able to make everything right. It's up to us to police our own field. It's up to all of us, practitioner, corporation, small business, basic and clinical researcher alike, to avoid and challenge the junk claims which only result in short-term sales and no long-term benefits to our patients.