Tear exchange beneath a contact lens facilitates ongoing fluid replenishment between the ocular surface and the lens. This exchange is considerably lower during the wear of soft lenses compared with rigid lenses. As a result, the accumulation of tear film debris and metabolic by-products between the cornea and a soft contact lens increases, potentially leading to complications. Lens design innovations have been proposed, but no substantial improvement in soft lens tear exchange has been reported. Researchers have determined post-lens tear exchange using several methods, notably fluorophotometry. However, due to technological limitations, little remains known about tear hydrodynamics around the lens and, to-date, true tear exchange with contact lenses has not been shown. Further knowledge regarding tear exchange could be vital in aiding better contact lens design, with the prospect of alleviating certain adverse ocular responses. This article reviews the literature to-date on the significance, implications and measurement of tear exchange with contact lenses.

Purpose: There is increasing clinical and research interest in the potential contribution of Demodex to ocular surface disease. The aim of this systematic review was to summarise and synthesise current clinical evidence relating to the aetiology, diagnosis and treatment of ocular Demodex . Recent findings: A comprehensive literature search was performed in OVID Medline, OVID Embase, and clinical trial registries, for studies published between 1990 and August 2019, examining Demodex on the ocular surface. The review included primary clinical research studies and systematic reviews of primary clinical research studies, where Demodex was considered in the context of the ocular surface and/or adnexa. Studies were categorised using the National Health and Medical Research Council evidence hierarchy. Risk of bias assessment was performed using validated tools for studies categorised as providing Level I or II evidence. A total of 87 studies were eligible for inclusion, including two systematic reviews. Most studies (60%) were observational, describing the prevalence of ocular Demodex in different clinical populations. There was a high degree of variability in the epidemiological data derived from cross‐sectional aetiology studies. There was mostly consistent evidence to support an association between ocular Demodex and chronic blepharitis. Seven diagnostic test‐accuracy studies were identified, which considered a range of techniques, including slit lamp examination for cylindrical eyelash collarettes and/or eyelash manipulation techniques, light microscopic evaluation of epilated eyelashes and in vivo confocal microscopy. There is currently no accepted gold‐standard diagnostic method for ocular Demodex. For intervention studies, there was one systematic review, 11 published randomised trials, six trial registry entries, and nine case series. Despite a number of recent trials, the appropriate treatment regimen for ocular Demodex (including the optimal criteria and timing of an intervention) is not clearly established. Conclusions: This comprehensive narrative synthesis has captured the landscape of clinical evidence relating to the prevalence, aetiology, diagnosis and treatment of ocular Demodex . There remain opportunities to enhance understanding of its role in ocular surface disease, best diagnostic approaches and optimal treatment protocols.