Hume Emma B H, Flanagan Judith, Masoudi Simin, Zhu Hua, Cole Nerida, Willcox Mark D P
Institute for Eye Research, The School of Optometry and Vision Science, The University of New South Wales, Kensington, New South Wales, Australia.
Optom Vis Sci. 2009 May;86(5):415-9. doi: 10.1097/OPX.0b013e31819fa239.
To compare the disinfecting efficacy of five soft contact lens multipurpose disinfection solutions (MPDS) against Fusarium solani clinical isolates and the ISO standard ATCC 36031 strain.
Three commercially available and two recalled MPDS were tested using the ISO/CD 14,729 stand-alone test for contact lens care products against 10 ocular isolates of F. solani and the ATCC 36031 strain. The effect of filtering the fungal suspension before incubating in MPDS was also tested. An average log reduction in colony forming units at the manufacturer's minimum recommended disinfection time was determined and compared with criteria for stand-alone disinfection products for each MPDS against each strain.
No difference between filtered and unfiltered fungal suspensions was observed for the ISO standard, whereas in one MPDS the representative clinical isolate showed significantly increased resistance when unfiltered. All but one solution met the stand-alone criteria of 1.0-log reduction of colony forming units against the recommended ISO standard strain ATCC 36031. However, there was wide variation in the ability of MPDS to meet the ISO disinfection criteria when tested against clinical isolates. Among the commercially available MPDS, the two polyquaternium-based solutions showed a higher disinfecting efficacy than the biguanide-based solution. The two recalled solutions showed a lower disinfecting efficacy than the polyquaternium-based solutions. Further, the clinical isolates were significantly more resistant to disinfection than was the recommended ISO strain.
The effect of filtering the fungal suspension to remove hyphae seems to be relevant in the clinical isolate tested, but not in the ISO strain. Clinical isolates were significantly more resistant to disinfection than the recommended ISO strain in the presence of both the commercially available and the recalled MPDS. The use of clinical isolates in stand-alone disinfection testing is indicated. Because there were significant differences in increased resistance exhibited by clinical isolates and in a mixed (unfiltered) culture the use of a single laboratory strain may be insufficient to provide assurance that the disinfection solution will be effective against clinical isolates.
比较五种软性隐形眼镜多功能消毒护理液(MPDS)对茄病镰刀菌临床分离株和ISO标准ATCC 36031菌株的消毒效果。
使用针对隐形眼镜护理产品的ISO/CD 14729独立测试方法,对三种市售和两种召回的MPDS进行测试,以检测其对10株茄病镰刀菌眼部分离株和ATCC 36031菌株的消毒效果。同时还测试了在MPDS中孵育前过滤真菌悬液的效果。确定在制造商推荐的最短消毒时间时菌落形成单位的平均对数减少量,并将每种MPDS针对每种菌株的结果与独立消毒产品的标准进行比较。
对于ISO标准菌株,过滤和未过滤的真菌悬液之间未观察到差异,而在一种MPDS中,未过滤时代表性临床分离株显示出显著增加的抗性。除一种溶液外,所有溶液均符合针对推荐的ISO标准菌株ATCC 36031使菌落形成单位减少1.0对数的独立标准。然而,当针对临床分离株进行测试时,MPDS满足ISO消毒标准的能力存在很大差异。在市售的MPDS中,两种基于聚季铵盐的溶液显示出比基于双胍的溶液更高的消毒效果。两种召回的溶液显示出比基于聚季铵盐的溶液更低的消毒效果。此外,临床分离株对消毒的抗性明显高于推荐的ISO菌株。
过滤真菌悬液以去除菌丝的效果在测试的临床分离株中似乎是相关的,但在ISO菌株中并非如此。在市售和召回的MPDS存在的情况下,临床分离株对消毒的抗性明显高于推荐的ISO菌株。建议在独立消毒测试中使用临床分离株。由于临床分离株在抗性增加方面存在显著差异,并且在混合(未过滤)培养中使用单一实验室菌株可能不足以确保消毒溶液对临床分离株有效。