SIGNIFICANCE Visual demands today incorporate a significant amount of time using digital devices. Results of this randomized crossover study of spherical and toric contact lenses demonstrated that participants were able to read smaller print size more comfortably and preferred toric contact lenses when using digital devices. PURPOSE The purpose of this study was to assess how toric contact lens correction affects subjective and objective outcomes of astigmatic patients using real-world digital devices. METHODS Adult participants, aged between 20 and 38 years with −0.75 to −1.50 D of astigmatism were enrolled in this double-masked randomized crossover 10-day study of Alcon Dailies Aqua Comfort Plus Sphere and Toric (Alcon, Geneva, Switzerland) contact lenses. Electronic high- and low-contrast near logMAR visual acuity and contrast sensitivity were tested. Reading performance was assessed using custom iPad applications; one used a reading sentences test, whereas the other analyzed zoom, contrast, and distance with website-based articles. Participants completed the Near Activity Visual Questionnaire and stated their preferred contact lens correction. RESULTS Thirty seven participants were screened, 35 participants were enrolled, and 34 participants completed the study. Toric lens correction improved near high- and low-contrast visual acuity by 0.5 to 1 full line (P < .0001) and allowed participants to read one line smaller text on the iPad (P = .01). Participants increased the zoom 11% (P = .004) and the contrast 4% (P = .006) more with spherical lenses while reading articles. Participants held the iPad at approximately the same distance, about 33 cm (P = .63). Eighty five percent of participants preferred the toric correction (P < .0001). Participants reported improved satisfaction with toric lens correction (P = .0002) and noticed the most benefit with tasks such as reading small print and labels/instructions. CONCLUSIONS This study used digital devices to demonstrate realistic benefits of toric contact lens designs for astigmatic patients.

Objectives: Low-concentration atropine is commonly prescribed to slow myopia progression in children but is not Food and Drug Administration-approved for that indication and is only available in the United States from compounding pharmacies. The purpose of this study was to ascertain its reported compounding and labeling in the United States. Methods: US compounding pharmacies were identified through a survey of eye doctors, social media, conferences, and web search. Twenty-eight pharmacies were identified and contacted through telephone and asked a standard set of questions about their methods to compound and label lowconcentration atropine. Results: Twenty-six pharmacies across 19 states provided responses, with 21 answering all nine items (81%) and a mean of 8.7 of nine responses. The most frequently reported bottle size was 5 mL (interquartile range [IQR]: 3.5-10). For storage, 10 pharmacies (38%) recommended refrigeration and 16 (62%) stated room temperature was sufficient. The median beyond-use date provided was 65 days (IQR: 45-158). For preparation, 12 pharmacies (50%) used commercially available 1% solution, 9 (38%) used powdered atropine, 2 (8%) used both, and 1 (4%) stated their approach was proprietary. For the added excipients, 11 (42%) used artificial tears only, 6 (23%) added 0.9% saline only, 7 (27%) used more than one ingredient, and 2 (8%) were proprietary. Only two pharmacies mentioned adding boric acid and two mentioned "pH-adjusted" saline. Conclusions: There were a wide variety of formulation methods in the United States, which may affect atropine stability and potency. Similarly, there are a wide variety of storage and beyond-use recommendations. Further research is needed to assess how these variations may affect the efficacy and safety of low-concentration atropine and of myopia control.