To investigate the hypothesis that reasonable levels of disinfection are achievable over relatively short exposure durations of microorganisms to multipurpose solutions, this study examined the stand-alone disinfection efficacy at 10, 20, and 30 min of five different multipurpose solutions products, each against five different pathogens eye care practitioners may encounter in their contact lens practice.
ReNu MultiPlus, ReNu Multi-Purpose, AQuify, OptiFree Express, and OptiFree RepleniSH were evaluated for their microbiocidal efficacy using the stand-alone method at 10, 20, and 30 min of exposure to either Fusarium solani, Candida albicans, Staphylococcus aureus, Serratia marcescens, or Pseudomonas aeruginosa.
Solutions which showed significantly higher rates of disinfection at 30 min were ReNu MultiPlus against Fusarium solani and Candida albicans, and both ReNu MultiPlus and AQuify against Staphylococcus aureus and Serratia marcescens. There were no statistically significant differences at 30 min amongst solutions against Pseudomonas aeruginosa.
The product attribute of rapid rate of disinfection may give a greater level of assurance to practitioners when patients are noncompliant and do not follow the recommended time period for lens disinfection. The results of this study, however, should not be interpreted as a recommendation to use any of the solutions tested for a disinfection period less than the recommended soak time. Patient compliance with recommended lens care regimens is essential in minimizing the risk of contamination of contact lenses and lens care accessories.
Data provided are for informational purposes only. Although carefully collected, accuracy cannot be guaranteed. The impact factor represents a rough estimation of the journal's impact factor and does not reflect the actual current impact factor. Publisher conditions are provided by RoMEO. Differing provisions from the publisher's actual policy or licence agreement may be applicable.
"In fact, CL disinfection is a complex process as it results from multiple interactions. Different microbial strains exhibit distinct susceptibilities to biocides  , adhered microbes are more resistance to biocides than in planktonic state  , and exopolysaccharides protect microbes against the biocidal action . The presence or absence of tear film affects disinfection; therefore, worn lenses may exhibit different disinfection scores than unworn ones . "
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: To assess the disinfection efficacy of multipurpose solutions (MPS) against different bacterial species adhered either to silicon hydrogel or to conventional hydrogel contact lenses (CLs). The influences of the MPS formulation and the chemical composition of the lens material were investigated.
This investigation followed the standard 14729, which establishes the guidelines for assessing CL disinfecting solutions. Two commercially available (Opti-Free(®) Express(®) and Renu(®) Multiplus) solutions and one recalled solution (Complete(®) MoisturePlus™) were used in this study. After disinfection, the number of survivors was estimated by the colony forming units' method.
The lens material appears to influence disinfection. The conventional hydrogel polymacon exhibited the highest disinfection scores, a fact that should be related with the lack of electrostatic attraction towards the biocides and its hydrophilicity. The MPS formulation appears to have influence in disinfection efficacy as well. For most adhered bacteria, Opti-Free(®) was capable of reducing cell concentration in 4-log.
Disinfection results from multivariate factors and this study confirmed that the lens material and the MPS play a very important role in the disinfection efficacy of CL.
Contact lens & anterior eye: the journal of the British Contact Lens Association 02/2011; 34(4):179-82. DOI:10.1016/j.clae.2011.02.002 · 1.37 Impact Factor
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: Contamination of contact lens cases has been associated with the production of adverse responses in the eye during contact lens wear. This study aimed to evaluate the contamination rate and types of microbes contaminating cases during use of contact lens disinfecting solutions and silicone hydrogel lenses.
Two hundred thirty-two participants were allocated to one or more groups. The participants wore one or more of three silicone hydrogel lenses and used one or more of four contact lens disinfecting solutions. Cases were collected after use for 1 month and sent for routine microbial testing. The rate of contamination of cases and the types of microbes contaminating cases were evaluated.
Between 76 and 92% of all cases were contaminated. Use of different contact lenses did not affect contamination rate or the types of microbes isolated from cases. Use of AQuify (PHMB as disinfectant) was associated with the highest contamination rate (92%; p = 0.015) of cases for any microbe. Level and type of contamination with use of ClearCare (H2O2) was similar to use of PHMB (polyhexamethylene biguanide)- or Polyquat/Aldox-containing solutions. There was no difference in contamination rate of cases by fungi or Gram-positive bacteria, but for Gram-negative bacteria, use of Opti-Free Express (Polyquat and Aldox as disinfectants) resulted in a lower contamination rate (7% vs. 29 to 45%; p < 0.001). The average number of microbes contaminating a case was significantly less for Opti-Free Express (223 +/- 1357 cfu/case) compared with Opti-Free RepleniSH (Polyquat and Aldox as disinfectants; 63,244 +/- 140,630 cfu/case; p < 0.001), driven mostly by differences in numbers of Gram-negative bacteria, particularly contamination by Delftia acidovorans in cases exposed to Opti-Free RepleniSH.
Different disinfecting solutions used during storage in cases result in different levels of contamination and contamination by different types of microbes. These differences are not simply because of the types of disinfectants used, suggesting that other excipients in, or formulation of, the solution affect contact lens storage case contamination.
Optometry and vision science: official publication of the American Academy of Optometry 04/2010; 87(7):456-64. DOI:10.1097/OPX.0b013e3181e19eda · 1.60 Impact Factor