Rembe Julian-Dario, Thompson Vivian-Denise, Stuermer Ewa Klara
Department of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery, Medical Faculty and University Hospital Duesseldorf, Heinrich-Heine-University, Duesseldorf, North-Rhine Westphalia, Germany.
Chair for Translational Wound Research, Center for Biomedical Education and Research, Witten/Herdecke University, Witten, North-Rhine Westphalia, Germany.
AIMS Microbiol. 2022 Oct 24;8(4):372-387. doi: 10.3934/microbiol.2022026. eCollection 2022.
Concern about microbial tolerance and resistance to established antimicrobials drives research into alternatives for local antiseptic wound treatment. Precise efficacy profiles are thereby important in the evaluation of potential alternative antimicrobials, and protein interference ("protein error") is a key factor. Here, the antimicrobial efficacy of cetylpyridinium chloride (CPC) and miramistin (MST) was compared to the established antimicrobials octenidine (OCT), povidon-iodine (PVP-I), polyhexamethylene-biguanide (PHMB) and chlorhexidine (CHX). Efficacy was evaluated after 0.5, 1, 3, 5 and 10 min against , , and using an in vitro quantitative suspension method (based on DIN EN 13727). To investigate protein interference, 0.3% or 3% bovine albumin was used as the challenge. OCT and PVP-I demonstrated a significant efficacy within 0.5 min, regardless of the microbial organism and protein challenge ( < 0.01). CPC and MST showed no inferiority in efficacy, with only MST needing up to 3 min to achieve the same microbial reduction. PHMB and CHX also achieved significant reduction rates over the tested time-course, yet demonstrated a necessity for prolonged exposure (up to 10 min) for comparable reduction. A protein interference was predominantly observed for PHMB against , but without statistically significant differences in antimicrobial efficacy between the 0.3% and 3% protein challenges. All other tested agents showed no relevant interference with the presence of protein. CPC and MST proved to be non-inferior to established wound antiseptics agents in vitro. In fact, CPC showed a more efficient reduction than PHMB and CHX despite there being an introduced protein challenge. Both agents demonstrated no significant "protein error" under challenging conditions (3% albumin), posing them as valid potential candidates for alternative antimicrobials in wound management.
对微生物耐受性以及对现有抗菌药物耐药性的担忧推动了对局部抗菌伤口治疗替代方案的研究。因此,精确的疗效概况在评估潜在替代抗菌药物时很重要,而蛋白质干扰(“蛋白质误差”)是一个关键因素。在此,将西吡氯铵(CPC)和咪拉明(MST)的抗菌效果与已有的抗菌药物奥替尼啶(OCT)、聚维酮碘(PVP-I)、聚六亚甲基双胍(PHMB)和氯己定(CHX)进行了比较。采用体外定量悬浮法(基于DIN EN 13727),在0.5、1、3、5和10分钟后,针对金黄色葡萄球菌、大肠杆菌、铜绿假单胞菌和白色念珠菌评估疗效。为研究蛋白质干扰,使用0.3%或3%的牛血清白蛋白作为挑战因素。无论微生物种类和蛋白质挑战如何,OCT和PVP-I在0.5分钟内均显示出显著疗效(P<0.01)。CPC和MST的疗效并不逊色,只有MST需要长达3分钟才能实现相同程度的微生物减少。PHMB和CHX在测试的时间过程中也实现了显著的减少率,但显示需要延长暴露时间(长达10分钟)才能实现相当程度的减少。主要观察到PHMB对白色念珠菌存在蛋白质干扰,但在0.3%和3%蛋白质挑战之间,抗菌效果无统计学显著差异。所有其他测试药物在蛋白质存在时均未显示出相关干扰。CPC和MST在体外被证明不逊色于已有的伤口抗菌剂。事实上,尽管引入了蛋白质挑战,CPC仍比PHMB和CHX表现出更有效的减少效果。在具有挑战性的条件下(3%白蛋白),这两种药物均未显示出显著的“蛋白质误差”,使其成为伤口管理中替代抗菌药物的有效潜在候选者。