Interlaboratory reproducibility of a test method following 4-field test methodology to evaluate the susceptibility of Clostridium difficile spores

BACKGROUND

Sporicidal surface disinfection is recommended to control transmission of Clostridium difficile in healthcare facilities. EN 17126 provides a method to determine the sporicidal activity in suspension and has been approved as a European standard. In addition, a sporicidal surface test has been proposed.

AIM

To determine the interlaboratory reproducibility of a test method for evaluating the susceptibility of a C. difficile spore preparation to a biocidal formulation following the 4-field test (EN 16615 methodology).

METHODS

Nine laboratories participated. C. difficile NCTC 13366 spores were used. Glutaraldehyde (1% and 6%; 15 min) and peracetic acid (PAA; 0.01% and 0.04%; 15 min) were used to determine the spores' susceptibility in suspension in triplicate.

FINDINGS

One-percent glutaraldehyde revealed a mean decimal log₁₀ reduction of 1.03 with variable results in the nine laboratories (0.37-1.49) and a reproducibility of 0.38. The effect of 6% glutaraldehyde was stronger (mean: 2.05; range: 0.96-4.29; reproducibility: 0.86). PAA revealed similar results. An exemplary biocidal formulation based on 5% PAA was used at 0.5% (non-effective concentration) and 4% (effective concentration) to determine the sporicidal efficacy (4-field test) under clean conditions in triplicate with a contact time of 15 min. When used at 0.5% it demonstrated an overall log₁₀ reduction of 2.68 (range: 2.35-3.57) and at 4% of 4.61 (range: 3.82-5.71). The residual contamination on the three primarily uncontaminated test fields was <50 cfu/25 cm² in one out of nine laboratories (0.5%) and in seven out of nine laboratories (4%).

CONCLUSION

The interlaboratory reproducibility seems to be robust.

Bactericidal and Virucidal Activity of Povidone-Iodine and Chlorhexidine Gluconate Cleansers in an In Vivo Hand Hygiene Clinical Simulation Study

Introduction

Standard in vitro and in vivo tests help demonstrate efficacy of hand hygiene products; however, there is no standard in vivo test method for viruses. We investigated the bactericidal and virucidal efficacy of povidone-iodine (PVP-I) 7.5% scalp and skin cleanser, chlorhexidine gluconate (CHG) 4% hand cleanser and the reference hand wash (soft soap) in 15 healthy volunteers following European Standard EN1499 (hygienic hand wash test method for bacteria), which was adapted for virucidal testing.

Methods

Separate test series were performed for bactericidal (Escherichia coli) and virucidal [murine norovirus (MNV)] testing. After pre-washing and artificial contamination of hands with test organisms, volunteers underwent testing with 3 and 5 mL of each product for contact times of 15, 30 and 60 s according to a Latin-square randomization. The number of test organisms released from fingertips into sampling fluids was assessed before and after hand washing and mean log₁₀ reduction factor (RF) was calculated. RFs (test-reference) were compared using a Wilcoxon–Wilcox multiple comparisons test per EN1499; efficacy was concluded if p ≤ 0.01.

Results

PVP-I 7.5% and CHG 4% cleansers both passed EN1499 requirements against E. coli, with statistically significantly greater (p ≤ 0.01) mean log₁₀ RFs compared with reference soft soap across all tests (PVP-I: 4.09–5.27; CHG: 4.12–5.22; soap: 2.75–3.11). The experimental design using EN1499 was applicable to testing with MNV as discriminatory and reproducible results were generated. Mean log₁₀ RFs of MNV were statistically significantly greater for PVP-I (1.57–2.57) compared with soft soap (1.24–1.62), while mean log₁₀ RFs with CHG (0.90–1.34) were lower than for soft soap across all tests.

Conclusion

PVP-I 7.5% cleanser showed superior efficacy against MNV compared to soft soap and CHG 4% cleanser, while both PVP-I and CHG were superior to soft soap against E. coli. The experimental set-up may be applicable to future testing for antiviral hand washes.

Funding

Mundipharma Manufacturing Pte Ltd.

Plain Language Summary

Plain language summary available for this article.

In Vitro Bactericidal and Virucidal Efficacy of Povidone-Iodine Gargle/Mouthwash Against Respiratory and Oral Tract Pathogens

Introduction

Recent virus epidemics and rising antibiotic resistance highlight the importance of hygiene measures to prevent and control outbreaks. We investigated the in vitro bactericidal and virucidal efficacy of povidone-iodine (PVP-I) 7% gargle/mouthwash at defined dilution against oral and respiratory tract pathogens.

Methods

PVP-I was tested against Klebsiella pneumoniae and Streptococcus pneumoniae according to bactericidal quantitative suspension test EN13727 and against severe acute respiratory syndrome and Middle East respiratory syndrome coronaviruses (SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV), rotavirus strain Wa and influenza virus A subtype H1N1 according to virucidal quantitative suspension test EN14476. PVP-I 7% gargle/mouthwash was diluted 1:30 with water to a concentration of 0.23% (the recommended concentration for “real-life” use in Japan) and tested at room temperature under clean conditions [0.3 g/l bovine serum albumin (BSA), viruses only] and dirty conditions (3.0 g/l BSA + 3.0 ml/l erythrocytes) as an interfering substance for defined contact times (minimum 15 s). Rotavirus was tested without protein load. A ≥ 5 log₁₀ (99.999%) decrease of bacteria and ≥ 4 log₁₀ (99.99%) reduction in viral titre represented effective bactericidal and virucidal activity, respectively, per European standards.

Results

PVP-I gargle/mouthwash diluted 1:30 (equivalent to a concentration of 0.23% PVP-I) showed effective bactericidal activity against Klebsiella pneumoniae and Streptococcus pneumoniae and rapidly inactivated SARS-CoV, MERS-CoV, influenza virus A (H1N1) and rotavirus after 15 s of exposure.

Conclusion

PVP-I 7% gargle/mouthwash showed rapid bactericidal activity and virucidal efficacy in vitro at a concentration of 0.23% PVP-I and may provide a protective oropharyngeal hygiene measure for individuals at high risk of exposure to oral and respiratory pathogens.

Funding

Mundipharma Research GmbH & Co. KG (MRG).

Antimicrobial efficacy of the combination of chlorhexidine digluconate and dexpanthenol

Objective: The objective of this standardised experimental study was to investigate the antimicrobial efficacy of the combination of chlorhexidine digluconate (CHX) and the anti-inflammatory pro-vitamin dexpanthenol, which stimulates wound-healing, in the form of Bepanthen^® Antiseptic Wound Cream, in order to rule out possible antagonistic combination effects of CHX and the alcohol analogue of pantothenic acid (vitamin B5) dexpanthenol.

Method: Testing was carried out using the quantitative suspension test at conditions simulating wound bio-burden. Test strains included Enterococcus hirae (ATCC 10541) and Candida albicans (ATCC 10231) in accordance with the standard methods of the German Hygiene and Microbiology Society with the following three organic challenges: i) cell culture medium MEM with Earle’s salts, L-glutamine and 10% foetal calf serum (CCM); ii) 10% sheep’s blood; iii) or a mixture of 4.5% albumin, 4.5% sheep’s blood and 1% mucin. For methodological reasons, the wound cream was tested as a 55% dilution, prepared with 1% Tween 80 (equivalent to a content of 0.275% CHX instead of 0.5% as in the original preparation). CHX 0.275% was tested as control in an aqueous solution and in 1% Tween 80. Additionally, 1% Tween 80 was tested in order to rule out an interfering effect of the dilution medium. A combination of 3% Tween 80, 3% saponin, 0.1% histidine, 0.3% lecithin, 0.5% Na-thiosulphate and 1% ether sulphate was identified as the most appropriate neutraliser during the experiments.

Results: Exposed to CCM or 10% sheep’s blood, the tested wound cream fulfilled the requirements for a wound antiseptic against both test species with ≥3 log reduction at 10 minutes. Even at the the worst-case challenge test with 4.5% albumin, 4.5% sheep’s blood and 1% mucin, the requirement for a ≥3 log reduction was met after 24 hours of exposure. Interestingly, the aqueous solution of 0.275% CHX tested as control did not achieve the antimicrobial efficacy of the combination of CHX and 5% dexpanthenol. 1% Tween 80 was ineffective against both test species.

Conclusion: Bepanthen^® Antiseptic Wound Cream achieves the in vitro bactericidal and fungicidal efficacy required for a wound antiseptic under three different challenges, despite dilution to 55% of the original preparation. So far, the addition of dexpanthenol was intended to support wound healing. However, our results indicate that the antiseptic efficacy of CHX is synergistically increased by adding 5% dexpanthenol. Acknowledging the antimicrobial and residual efficacy of CHX, and bearing in the mind the contraindications to CHX (allergy and anaphylaxis), the tested wound cream should be regarded as better suitable to be used as wound antiseptic than preparations on basis of CHX alone.