S Harbarth1, S Tuan Soh2, C Horner3, M H Wilcox4. 1. Geneva University Hospitals and Medical School, Geneva, Switzerland. 2. Hospital Buloh, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. 3. Leeds Teaching Hospitals and University of Leeds, Leeds, UK. 4. Leeds Teaching Hospitals and University of Leeds, Leeds, UK. Electronic address: mark.wilcox@leedsth.nhs.uk.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Given the breadth and depth of antiseptic use, it is surprising how few large-scale studies have been undertaken into the consequences of their use, particularly in clinical practice. Depending on your point of view, this may either reflect an assurance that reduced susceptibility to antiseptics, and notably whether this confers cross-resistance to systemically administered antimicrobial agents, is not an issue of concern, or relative ignorance about the potential threat. AIM: This point/counterpoint review offers a differentiated perspective and possible answers to the question, 'Should we be worried about reduced susceptibility to disinfectants and antiseptics in healthcare settings?'. METHODS: This topic was the subject of a debate by MHW (point) and SH (counterpoint) during the SHEA Spring Conference 2013: Advancing healthcare epidemiology and the role of the environment, held in Atlanta, GA, USA on 4(th) May 2013. This review is a general representation of the main themes presented during the debate, rather than a systematic review of the literature. FINDINGS: There are examples of reduced susceptibility to antiseptics in clinical practice; however, to date, there is no strong evidence that reduced susceptibility to antiseptics is a major clinical problem. Given the growing number of potential indications for use of biocidal active ingredients, the potential for emergence of reduced susceptibility remains a concern. CONCLUSIONS: Changes in the clinical use of antiseptics should be matched with surveillance studies to understand whether there are unintended microbiological or clinical consequences, including the selection of bacterial strains that can survive exposure to antiseptics.
BACKGROUND: Given the breadth and depth of antiseptic use, it is surprising how few large-scale studies have been undertaken into the consequences of their use, particularly in clinical practice. Depending on your point of view, this may either reflect an assurance that reduced susceptibility to antiseptics, and notably whether this confers cross-resistance to systemically administered antimicrobial agents, is not an issue of concern, or relative ignorance about the potential threat. AIM: This point/counterpoint review offers a differentiated perspective and possible answers to the question, 'Should we be worried about reduced susceptibility to disinfectants and antiseptics in healthcare settings?'. METHODS: This topic was the subject of a debate by MHW (point) and SH (counterpoint) during the SHEA Spring Conference 2013: Advancing healthcare epidemiology and the role of the environment, held in Atlanta, GA, USA on 4(th) May 2013. This review is a general representation of the main themes presented during the debate, rather than a systematic review of the literature. FINDINGS: There are examples of reduced susceptibility to antiseptics in clinical practice; however, to date, there is no strong evidence that reduced susceptibility to antiseptics is a major clinical problem. Given the growing number of potential indications for use of biocidal active ingredients, the potential for emergence of reduced susceptibility remains a concern. CONCLUSIONS: Changes in the clinical use of antiseptics should be matched with surveillance studies to understand whether there are unintended microbiological or clinical consequences, including the selection of bacterial strains that can survive exposure to antiseptics.
Authors: Laura Knapp; Alejandro Amézquita; Peter McClure; Sara Stewart; Jean-Yves Maillard Journal: Appl Environ Microbiol Date: 2015-01-30 Impact factor: 4.792
Authors: Pauline Bleichert; Lucy Bütof; Christian Rückert; Martin Herzberg; Romeu Francisco; Paula V Morais; Gregor Grass; Jörn Kalinowski; Dietrich H Nies Journal: Appl Environ Microbiol Date: 2020-12-17 Impact factor: 4.792
Authors: Hajime Kanamori; William A Rutala; Maria F Gergen; Emily E Sickbert-Bennett; David J Weber Journal: Antimicrob Agents Chemother Date: 2018-06-26 Impact factor: 5.191
Authors: Claire Rondeau; Guillaume Chevet; Dominique S Blanc; Houssein Gbaguidi-Haore; Marie Decalonne; Sandra Dos Santos; Roland Quentin; Nathalie van der Mee-Marquet Journal: Front Microbiol Date: 2016-01-28 Impact factor: 5.640
Authors: Anna Różańska; Agnieszka Chmielarczyk; Dorota Romaniszyn; Agnieszka Sroka-Oleksiak; Małgorzata Bulanda; Monika Walkowicz; Piotr Osuch; Tadeusz Knych Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2017-07-20 Impact factor: 3.390