Preliminary studies on the amoebicidal efficacy of contact lens disinfection systems

Stapleton, Fiona; Harmis, Najat; Deshpande, Rajesh; Tran, David

doi:10.1111/j.1442-9071.1998.tb01369.x

Cited by 5 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…23 The studies concluded that H 2 O 2 was most effective at the shortest storage times against Acanthamoeba, while PQ-1 and PHMB were determined to be completely ineffective. 21,23,51 BAK and chlorhexidine-thimerosal were sufficient at killing both trophozoites and cysts depending on exposure time 21,23 but, as previously noted, these preservatives are no longer used in commercially available MPS due to toxicity.…”

mentioning

confidence: 84%

“…Studies have confirmed that PHMB solutions are completely ineffective against Acanthamoeba (five MPS tested with some overlap of MPS formulas in the studies). 10,[21][22][23]47,[51][52][53][54] While bacteria are much more common causative agents of MK, fungal or amoebal infections can quickly become sight-threatening and must also be considered.…”

Section: Modern High Molecular Weight Preservativesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Studies that assessed the efficacy of isolated PQ-1 alone found that it was not effective against Acanthamoeba. [21][22][23]51,54 Studies vary on the effectiveness of PQ-1 MPS against Acanthamoeba when combined with an additional preservative. Studies assessing the effectiveness of PQ-1 plus Aldox against Acanthamoeba show the combination is no more effective than PQ-1 alone.…”

Section: Modern High Molecular Weight Preservativesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Common Ophthalmic Preservatives in Soft Contact Lens Care Products: Benefits, Complications, and a Comparison to Non-Preserved Solutions

Bradley¹,

Sicks²,

Pucker³

2021

OPTO

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose: Preservatives are essential for preventing contact lens (CL)-related microbial keratitis (MK). The purpose of this review is to summarize the current knowledge related to the use of common ophthalmic preservatives in CL care products with respect to both safety and efficacy. Methods: Manuscripts written in English were obtained by searching PubMed.gov with the term contact lens plus antimicrobial, benzalkonium chloride, biguanide, Aldox, polyquaternium, preservative, thimerosal, EDTA (ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid), chlorhexidine, or blister pack. Results: This review found that first-generation preservatives are no longer used in CL multipurpose solutions (MPS) due to their high levels of ocular toxicity. Modern, highmolecular-weight preservatives, including polyquaternium-1 (PQ-1) and biguanides (PHMB), are generally effective against bacteria, minimally effective against fungi, and not effective against Acanthamoeba. PQ-1 and PHMB are likely safe when used with CLs, but they may cause ocular adverse events, with roughly equal risk between the two preservatives. Some CL MPS contain both PQ-1 and PHMB, but no increased risk of adverse events has been reported when combining the two. Hydrogen-peroxide (H 2 O 2 ) solutions are effective against all common ocular microbes, including Acanthamoeba, and they have been proven safe with proper compliance. Povidone-iodine (P-I) solutions are not currently commercially available in North America, but they have been shown in other countries to be safe and effective. Conclusion:Patients should be monitored when using PQ-1 or PHMB-containing solutions since they have been associated with ocular adverse events. If events are detected, patients should be switched to an alternative solution. H 2 O 2 or P-I solutions are preferred for any patient who may expose their CLs to water because they are the only solution categories effective against Acanthamoeba.

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 84%

Section: Modern High Molecular Weight Preservativesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Modern High Molecular Weight Preservativesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Common Ophthalmic Preservatives in Soft Contact Lens Care Products: Benefits, Complications, and a Comparison to Non-Preserved Solutions

Bradley¹,

Sicks²,

Pucker³

2021

OPTO

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Propyl‐betaine is a mild surfactant found in cosmetic formulations for skin, hair cleansing and conditioning . Polyhexanide has been used as a disinfectant in swimming pools to control contamination with various amoeboid and bacterial organisms, including Pseudomonas aeruginosa . Additionally, it is commonly found in no‐rinse products for cleansing contact lenses, including products marketed for use with ‘sensitive‐eyes’ .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effectiveness of a polyhexanide irrigation solution on methicillin‐resistant Staphylococcus aureus biofilms in a porcine wound model

Davis

Harding

Gil

et al. 2017

International Wound Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Irrigation and removal of necrotic debris can be beneficial for proper healing. It is becoming increasingly evident that wounds colonized with biofilm forming bacteria, such as Staphylococcus aureus (SA), can be more difficult to eradicate. Here we report our findings of the effects of an irrigation solution containing propyl-betaine and polyhexanide (PHMB) on methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) biofilms in a porcine wound model. Thirty-nine deep partial thickness wounds were created with six wounds assigned to one of six treatment groups: (i) PHMB, (ii) Ringer's solution, (iii) hypochlorous acid/sodium hypochlorite, (iv) sterile water, (v) octenidine dihydrochloride, and (vi) octenilin. Wounds were inoculated with MRSA and covered with a polyurethane dressing for 24 hours to allow biofilm formation. The dressings were then removed and the wounds were irrigated twice daily for 3 days with the appropriate solution. MRSA from four wounds were recovered from each treatment group at 3 days and 6 days hours after initial treatment. Irrigation of wounds with the PHMB solution resulted in 97·85% and 99·64% reductions of MRSA at the respective 3 days and 6 days assessment times when compared to the untreated group. Both of these reductions were statistically significant compared to all other treatment groups (P values <0·05).

show abstract

“…Stapleton et al 31 and Hughes et al 32 indicated that the higher efficacy of peroxide solutions is expected in the absence of neutralisation, as was the case in this study, which therefore must be interpreted with caution as neutralisation is an essential step when using peroxide disinfection systems. This is particularly so as with the one-step peroxide system, the neutralising platinum disc is introduced during the disinfection process and therefore may not show the same efficacy as found in this study.…”

Section: Average No Of Cfus Remainingmentioning

confidence: 50%

The influence of water content and ionicity on the efficacy of soft contact lens care regimens on Pseudomonas aeruginosa

Hansraj

Jhetam

Haridutt

et al. 2021

African Vision and Eye Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Contact lens care regimens appear to be prescribed based on familiarity or by matching contact lens brands rather than consideration to efficacy.Aim: This study compared the effectiveness of multipurpose and peroxide cleaning solutions on low- and high-water content ionic and non-ionic soft contact lenses, in removing Pseudomonas aeruginosa (P. aeruginosa).Setting: The laboratory work was conducted by health science students in a graduate level programme in the microbiology laboratory at a university in south-eastern South Africa.Methods: A quantitative analytical experimental design was used. Four groups (labelled I, II, III and IV) of soft contact lenses, varied ionicity and water content were inoculated with P. aeruginosa and then exposed to three solutions containing antimicrobial ingredients, polyaminopropyl biguanide (Dymed), hydrogen peroxide (H2O2) and polyquaternium-1 (Polyquad). Each group contained 14 soft contact lenses, with the exception of Group III in which eight lenses were used. Saline served as the control. After 18 h, the remaining colony-forming units were counted using visual inspection as an indicator of efficacy against P. aeruginosa.Results: The solution containing H2O2 was found to be the most effective in removing P. aeruginosa from all Food and Drug Administration (FDA) groups of contact lenses whilst Dymed was found to be comparatively ineffective for this organism. Water content and ionicity had no effect on the efficacy of the solutions.Conclusion: Practitioners should consider the efficacy of the active ingredients against microorganisms when dispensing contact lens solutions, particularly for contact lens wearers at risk for P. aeruginosa infections.

show abstract

Preliminary studies on the amoebicidal efficacy of contact lens disinfection systems

Abstract: Multipurpose systems have variable anti-amoeba activity and storage cases contaminated by bacteria may enhance amoeba survival.

Cited by 5 publications

References 16 publications

Common Ophthalmic Preservatives in Soft Contact Lens Care Products: Benefits, Complications, and a Comparison to Non-Preserved Solutions

Common Ophthalmic Preservatives in Soft Contact Lens Care Products: Benefits, Complications, and a Comparison to Non-Preserved Solutions

Effectiveness of a polyhexanide irrigation solution on methicillin‐resistant Staphylococcus aureus biofilms in a porcine wound model

The influence of water content and ionicity on the efficacy of soft contact lens care regimens on Pseudomonas aeruginosa

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About