Literature DB >> 1559286

Comparative efficacy of contact lens disinfection solutions.

R Lowe1, V Vallas, N A Brennan.   

Abstract

Using the D value method of analysis, we evaluated the relative antimicrobial effectiveness of eight contact lens disinfection solutions against a standard population of challenge organisms as defined in the Microbiological Guidelines proposed by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Six bacteria (Escherichia coli, Staphylococcus aureus, S. epidermidis, Streptococcus pneumoniae, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, and Serratia marcescens) and two fungi (Aspergillus fumigatus, Candida albicans) were investigated. The disinfectants included hydrogen peroxide (AOSept, MiraSept, Oxysept), chlorine-based solutions (Aerotab and Softab), soaking solutions containing synthetic, high molecular weight preservatives (ReNu and Opti-Free) and a thimerosal preserved soaking solution (Hydrocare Cleaning and Soaking Solution). The one-step hydrogen peroxide system (AOSept) was evaluated both with and without the catalytic disk. To facilitate comparison of the disinfecting solutions, we defined a new measure of performance, namely "power" of solution. This has an advantage over the "safety factor" because the solution power is independent of the size of the initial inoculum. Because different approaches to analysis may yield a wide range of D values for one set of survival data we call for adoption of a standardized approach. Our results suggest that one of the chlorine-based solutions fails to meet the FDA recommendations for bacterial challenge. Most solutions performed poorly against mycotic challenge. However, when used over longer disinfecting periods, 3% hydrogen peroxide and the Hydrocare solution gave adequate performance against fungi.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  1992        PMID: 1559286

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  CLAO J        ISSN: 0733-8902


  8 in total

1.  Comparison of hydrogen peroxide contact lens disinfection systems and solutions against Acanthamoeba polyphaga.

Authors:  R Hughes; S Kilvington
Journal:  Antimicrob Agents Chemother       Date:  2001-07       Impact factor: 5.191

2.  Acanthamoeba and contact lens disinfection: should chlorine be discontinued?

Authors:  D V Seal; J Hay; P Devonshire; C M Kirkness
Journal:  Br J Ophthalmol       Date:  1993-02       Impact factor: 4.638

3.  Resistance of Pseudomonas aeruginosa isolates to hydrogel contact lens disinfection correlates with cytotoxic activity.

Authors:  C Lakkis; S M Fleiszig
Journal:  J Clin Microbiol       Date:  2001-04       Impact factor: 5.948

4.  Antiviral Activity of Contemporary Contact Lens Care Solutions against Two Human Seasonal Coronavirus Strains.

Authors:  Christiane Lourenco Nogueira; Scott Joseph Boegel; Manish Shukla; William Ngo; Lyndon Jones; Marc G Aucoin
Journal:  Pathogens       Date:  2022-04-15

5.  Adaptation and growth of Serratia marcescens in contact lens disinfectant solutions containing chlorhexidine gluconate.

Authors:  P A Gandhi; A D Sawant; L A Wilson; D G Ahearn
Journal:  Appl Environ Microbiol       Date:  1993-01       Impact factor: 4.792

6.  Risk factors for acanthamoeba keratitis in contact lens users: a case-control study.

Authors:  C F Radford; A S Bacon; J K Dart; D C Minassian
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1995-06-17

Review 7.  Common Ophthalmic Preservatives in Soft Contact Lens Care Products: Benefits, Complications, and a Comparison to Non-Preserved Solutions.

Authors:  Chelsea S Bradley; Lindsay A Sicks; Andrew D Pucker
Journal:  Clin Optom (Auckl)       Date:  2021-09-07

8.  In-vitro analysis of the microbicidal activity of 6 contact lens care solutions.

Authors:  Claudia Hildebrandt; Daniela Wagner; Thomas Kohlmann; Axel Kramer
Journal:  BMC Infect Dis       Date:  2012-10-03       Impact factor: 3.090

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.