PURPOSE: 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. METHODS: 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. RESULTS: 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. CONCLUSIONS: 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.
PURPOSE: 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. METHODS: 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. RESULTS: 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. CONCLUSIONS: 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.
Authors: M Mohammadinia; S Rahmani; G Eslami; M Ghassemi-Broumand; M Aghazadh Amiri; Gh Aghaie; S M Tabatabaee; S Taheri; A Behgozin Journal: Eye (Lond) Date: 2011-11-18 Impact factor: 3.775