The efficacy of povidone-iodine, hydrogen peroxide and a chemical multipurpose contact lens care system against Pseudomonas aeruginosa on various lens case surfaces

Antiviral activity of contact lens care solutions and rub-and-rinse regimen against adenovirus

SIGNIFICANCE

Although human adenoviruses are the leading cause of acute viral conjunctivitis, there is a lack of data surrounding the efficacy of contact lens care products against these viruses.

PURPOSE

This study investigates the antiviral activity of several commercially available contact lens care solutions against human adenovirus type 5 (Ad5).

METHODS

Six contact lens care solutions (Biotrue, Boston Simplus, OPTI-FREE Puremoist, Clear Care, cleadew, and cleadew GP) were investigated. Quantitative suspensions tests were conducted on Ad5 solutions after interaction with the different contact lens care solutions for 4 or 6 hours. For the hydrogen peroxide solution (Clear Care), interaction times of 0, 2, 4, and 6 hours prior to neutralization were also investigated. Finally, the impact of rubbing and rinsing of Ad5 contaminated contact lenses with the solutions was studied.

RESULTS

Solutions based on povidone-iodine demonstrated a more than 3-log reduction in virus after 4 and 6 hours of incubation. In contrast, hydrogen peroxide only demonstrated a 0.52-log reduction after 6 hours of incubation. Increasing the contact time with hydrogen peroxide increased Ad5 inactivation, with a 2.18-log reduction after 6 hours of incubation with the solution prior to neutralization. Nonoxidative systems did not demonstrate a significant log reduction after 4 hours of incubation. However, rubbing and rinsing of contact lenses using the nonoxidative systems reduced the virus counts from contaminated contact lenses to below the limit of quantification.

CONCLUSIONS

Povidone-iodine solutions have a significant effect on reducing the viability of Ad5. Hydrogen peroxide care solutions are effective only if unneutralized contact time is increased. Nonoxidative systems can be effective in combating contaminated lenses only with the addition of a rub-and-rinse step.

The efficacy of a device-based approach to microorganism disinfection and protein removal for orthokeratology lenses in varied clinical circumstances

PURPOSE

RigidCare is an electrolysis-based device that recently obtained approval from the US's FDA to sterilise microorganisms and remove proteins for orthokeratology (O-K) lenses. The study was conducted to investigate the device's performance in varied clinical circumstances.

METHODS

Trial lenses and private lenses were employed by O-K lens wearers from five hospitals for an evaluation of disinfection and sterilisation and an assessment of protein removal, respectively. Menicon multipurpose solution and protein remover were selected for use with the control group. Following the instructions, pre-cleaning lens samples, post-cleaning lens samples and residual solution samples of trial lenses of the experimental and control groups were collected for microorganism examinations by an experienced third-party testing organisation. The levels of protein deposition for these two approaches were rated by senior O-K experts. Categorical variables were analysed using statistical tests, such as the chi-squared test and Fisher's exact test.

RESULTS

The microbial positive rate detected from the pre-cleaning and post-cleaning lens samples and the residual solution of the trial lenses for the experimental and control group was 4/76 vs 1/74 (P = 0.37), 1/76 vs 0/74 (P = 1.00) and 0/76 vs 8/74 (P = 0.006), respectively. Following protein removal, the experimental group exhibited a significantly higher overall proportion of lenses rated as 'clean' or with a 'mild deposit' (96.4 %, 79/82) compared to the control group (85.7 %, 66/77), with a significant difference (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

This multi-center study demonstrated that RigidCare exhibited superior efficacy in disinfection, sterilisation and protein removal as compared to Menicon multipurpose solution and protein remover.

Advances in Contact Lens Care Solutions: PVP-I Disinfectant and HAD Wetting Agents From Japan

ABSTRACT

Half of the individuals who wear contact lenses use reusable lenses that require proper care. Improper contact lens (CL) care and using inadequate disinfecting solutions can lead to lens contamination, CL-related microbial keratitis, and Acanthamoeba keratitis. Oxidative disinfecting solutions, such as hydrogen peroxide, show higher efficacy than multipurpose solutions. Povidone-iodine (PVP-I), an oxidative disinfectant used in ophthalmic surgery, has been proven to be safe and effective. The PVP-I system, a CL disinfecting solution developed in Japan, has demonstrated excellent antimicrobial and antiviral properties. Although CL discomfort does not have a risk of ocular disorders with poor visual prognosis, such as keratitis, CL discomfort can still lead to lens dropout and thus needs to be addressed. To mitigate CL discomfort, it is essential to use disinfecting solutions containing surfactants and wetting agents that improve wettability of the lens surface. A CL solution containing hyaluronic acid derivatives (HADs) as wetting agents that permanently adhere to the lens surface to improve wettability of the lens surface was developed in Japan. There is potential for HAD to be integrated into various solutions. This article reviews the efficacy of novel PVP-I-based disinfecting solution and HAD wetting agents.

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

Background: Given that reports have suggested SARS-CoV-2 can be transmitted via conjunctiva, the ability of contact lens (CL) care products to reduce the infectiousness of two seasonal human coronavirus (HCoV) (HCoV-229E and HCoV-OC43) surrogates for SARS-CoV-2 was investigated. Methods: Biotrue and Boston Simplus (Bausch&Lomb), OPTI-FREE Puremoist and Clear Care (Alcon), and cleadew and cleadew GP (Ophtecs) were tested. Their ability to inactivate HCoV was evaluated using contact times of 4 and 6 h as well as 1% and 10% of virus inoculum. Results: Non-oxidative systems (Biotrue, Boston Simplus, and OPTI-FREE) did not exhibit a significant log10 reduction compared to controls for the two viral strains for either incubation time (all p > 0.05) when 10% tests were performed. For the 1% test, while Boston Simplus and OPTI-FREE exhibited a significant log10 reduction of both HCoV-229E (after 6 h) and HCoV-OC43 (after either 4 or 6 h incubation), those products showed less than 1 log10 reduction of the two infectious viruses. Oxidative systems based on hydrogen peroxide or povidone-iodine showed a significant log10 reduction compared with the controls for both HCoV-229E and HCoV-OC43 in all tested conditions (all p < 0.01). Clear Care led to virus inactivation to below the limit of quantification for tests performed with 1% of inoculum after 6 h incubation, while cleadew and cleadew GP led to inactivation of the two viruses to below the limit of quantification in all tested conditions. Conclusion: Oxidative CL disinfection systems showed significant virucidal activity against HCoV-229E and HCoV-OC43, while non-oxidative systems showed minimal ability to inactivate the HCoV species examined.

Effect of Hygiene Procedures on Lens Case Contamination with Povidone-Iodine or Multipurpose Disinfecting Solutions

SIGNIFICANCE

A multipurpose disinfecting solution (MPDS), which contains povidone-iodine (PI) as a disinfectant, has high disinfecting efficacy not only on planktonic bacterium but also on the case biofilms. The addition of case hygiene practice removed more bacteria from cases than MPDS alone.

PURPOSE

This study compared the ability of two MPDSs, one containing PI and another containing polyaminopropyl biguanide and polyquaternium, to reduce bacterial numbers in solution or adhered to the cases following case hygiene procedures.

METHODS

Bacterial strains (Delftia acidovorans, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Stenotrophomonas maltophilia, Serratia marcescens, Staphylococcus aureus, and Staphylococcus epidermidis) were exposed to the MPDSs for the recommended disinfection times, and the viable number evaluated according to ISO 14729. Cases were inoculated with bacterial strains and incubated for 24 hours to allow for biofilm formation. Cases were disinfected with both disinfecting solutions for 4 hours and rinsed, followed by recapping or air-drying, or tissue-wiping and air-drying for 18 hours. The number of survivors was counted using standard culture techniques.

RESULTS

Both products exceeded the recommended 3-log reduction against planktonic bacteria. Regarding biofilm, after rinsing and recapping wet, the numbers of D. acidovorans (mean difference [95% confidence interval] log10 colony-forming units per case, -2.9 [0.8 to -4.6], P < .01), P. aeruginosa (-2.0 [0.5 to -3.1], P < .01), S. marcescens (-1.7 [0.8 to -3.5], P < .05), and S. epidermidis (-2.1 [0.6 to -3.5], P < .05) in PI cases were significantly lower than in the dual-disinfectant MPDS storage cases. After air-drying, the PI storage cases had significantly lower numbers of S. maltophilia (-2.6 [0.6 to -4.0], P < .01), D. acidovorans (-1.6 [0.7 to -3.3], P < .05), and S. aureus (-1.6 [0.7 to -3.1], P < .05). The addition of tissue-wiping reduced the bacterial numbers in the MPDS storage cases to levels in the PI storage cases.

CONCLUSIONS

Contact lens users should be recommended to tissue-wipe and air-dry their lens storage cases after disinfection with regular MPDS.