Factors Affecting Microbial Contamination on the Back Surface of Worn Soft Contact Lenses

Jacqueline Tan, Jaya Sowjanya Siddireddy, Katherine Wong, Qing Shen, Ajay Kumar Vijay, Fiona Stapleton, Jacqueline Tan, Jaya Sowjanya Siddireddy, Katherine Wong, Qing Shen, Ajay Kumar Vijay, Fiona Stapleton

Abstract

Significance: The results of this study demonstrate that Smart Touch Technology packaging, which is designed to reduce and simplify contact lens handling before insertion, is effective in reducing the frequency of bacterial contamination of the back surface of contact lenses after short-term wear.

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to investigate the effect of lens packaging type, chelating agent, and finger contamination on microbial contamination on the back surface of worn soft contact lenses.

Methods: Twenty-five subjects completed each contralateral lens wear comparison in this randomized study: Smart Touch Technology versus conventional blister packaging for (1) silicone hydrogel lenses with ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA) and (2) hydrogel lenses without EDTA in the packaging, and (3) silicone hydrogel lenses without EDTA versus hydrogel lenses with EDTA both in Smart Touch Technology packaging. Participants washed hands, underwent finger swabs, and inserted the lenses. After 45 minutes, lenses were removed aseptically and the posterior lens surfaces cultured.

Results: Thirty-eight subjects (average age, 30.9 ± 12.5 years) participated in this study. Overall, the level of back surface contamination was low for both lens materials, ranging from 0 to 43 colony-forming unit (CFU)/lens for the silicone hydrogel and 0 to 17 CFU/lens for the hydrogel lenses. The proportion of lenses with zero back surface contamination ranged from 16 to 64% for silicone hydrogel lenses and 28 to 64% for hydrogel lenses. Contact lenses from conventional packaging containing EDTA had 3.38 times increased risk (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.02 to 11.11; P = .05) of contamination being present compared with lenses from Smart Touch packaging with EDTA. Contact lenses from conventional packaging without EDTA had 3.4 times increased risk (95% CI, 1.02 to 11.36; P = .05) of contamination being present compared with Smart Touch packaging without EDTA, and silicone hydrogel lenses had a 6.28 times increased risk (95% CI, 1.65 to 23.81; P = .007) of contamination being present compared with hydrogels. The median (interquartile range) number of bacteria isolated from fingers used to perform lens insertion after handwashing but before lens insertion was not significantly different between the silicone hydrogel and hydrogel lenses (63.7 [204.2] vs. 59 [84.5], P = .09). Finger contamination was not significantly associated with lens contamination in the presence or absence of EDTA.

Conclusions: Smart Touch Technology packaging was effective in reducing the proportion of contaminated lenses. Although silicone hydrogel lenses were more likely to be contaminated, the presence of EDTA ameliorated this effect. Finger contamination was not associated with lens contamination.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03253393.

Conflict of interest statement

Conflict of Interest Disclosure: None of the authors have reported a financial conflict of interest. This research was partly funded by Menicon Co. Ltd.

Copyright © 2021 The Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. on behalf of the American Academy of Optometry.

Figures

FIGURE 1
FIGURE 1
Study visit flow diagram. EDTA = ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid.
FIGURE 2
FIGURE 2
Silicone hydrogel lens in Smart Touch packaging.
FIGURE 3
FIGURE 3
Hydrogel lens in Smart Touch packaging.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/instance/8132605/bin/ovs-98-512-g001.jpg

References

    1. Das S Sheorey H Taylor HR, et al. . Association between Cultures of Contact Lens and Corneal Scraping in Contact Lens Related Microbial Keratitis. Arch Ophthalmol 2007;125:1182–5.
    1. Mela EK Giannelou IP Koliopoulos JX, et al. . Ulcerative Keratitis in Contact Lens Wearers. Eye Contact Lens 2003;29:207–9.
    1. Szczotka-Flynn L Lass JH Sethi A, et al. . Risk Factors for Corneal Infiltrative Events during Continuous Wear of Silicone Hydrogel Contact Lenses. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2010;51:5421–30.
    1. Fonn D, Jones L. Hand Hygiene Is Linked to Microbial Keratitis and Corneal Inflammatory Events. Cont Lens Anterior Eye 2019;42:132–5.
    1. Dart JK Radford CF Minassian D, et al. . Risk Factors for Microbial Keratitis with Contemporary Contact Lenses: A Case-control Study. Ophthalmology 2008;115:1647–54, 1654.e1–3.
    1. Nomachi M Sakanishi K Ichijima H, et al. . Evaluation of Diminished Microbial Contamination in Handling of a Novel Daily Disposable Flat Pack Contact Lens. Eye Contact Lens 2013;39:234–8.
    1. Mowrey-McKee MF, Sampson HJ, Proskin HM. Microbial Contamination of Hydrophilic Contact Lenses. Part II: Quantitation of Microbes After Patient Handling and After Aseptic Removal from the Eye. CLAO J 1992;18:240–4.
    1. Hart DE Reindel W Proskin HM, et al. . Microbial Contamination of Hydrophilic Contact Lenses: Quantitation and Identification of Microorganisms Associated with Contact Lenses While on the Eye. Optom Vis Sci 1993;70:185–91.
    1. Gromacki SJ, Ward MA. Understanding Contemporary Contact Lens Care Products. Contact Lens Spectrum 2013;28(6):20–5.
    1. Miller MJ, Ahearn DG. Adherence of Pseudomonas aeruginosa to Hydrophilic Contact Lenses and Other Substrata. J Clin Microbiol 1987;25:1392–7.
    1. Bruinsma GM, van der Mei HC, Busscher HJ. Bacterial Adhesion to Surface Hydrophilic and Hydrophobic Contact Lenses. Biomaterials 2001;22:3217–24.
    1. Henriques M Sousa C Lira M, et al. . Adhesion of Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Staphylococcus epidermidis to Silicone-hydrogel Contact Lenses. Optom Vis Sci 2005;82:446–50.
    1. George M Ahearn D Pierce G, et al. . Interactions of Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Staphylococcus epidermidis in Adhesion to a Hydrogel. Eye Contact Lens 2003;29:S105–9.
    1. Santos L Rodrigues D Lira M, et al. . The Influence of Surface Treatment on Hydrophobicity, Protein Adsorption and Microbial Colonisation of Silicone Hydrogel Contact Lenses. Cont Lens Anterior Eye 2007;30:183–8.
    1. Szczotka-Flynn LB, Pearlman E, Ghannoum M. Microbial Contamination of Contact Lenses, Lens Care Solutions, and Their Accessories: A Literature Review. Eye Contact Lens 2010;36:116–29.
    1. Stapleton F Naduvilath T Keay L, et al. . Risk Factors and Causative Organisms in Microbial Keratitis in Daily Disposable Contact Lens Wear. PLoS One 2017;12:e0181343.
    1. Radford CF Minassian D Dart JK, et al. . Risk Factors for Nonulcerative Contact Lens Complications in an Ophthalmic Accident and Emergency Department: A Case-control Study. Ophthalmology 2009;116:385–92.
    1. Lim CH Carnt NA Farook M, et al. . Risk Factors for Contact Lens–related Microbial Keratitis in Singapore. Eye (Lond) 2016;30:447–55.
    1. Hovding G. The Conjunctival and Contact Lens Bacterial Flora During Lens Wear. Acta Ophthalmol 1981;59:387–401.
    1. Ozkan J Mandathara P Krishna P, et al. . Risk Factors for Corneal Inflammatory and Mechanical Events with Extended Wear Silicone Hydrogel Contact Lenses. Optom Vis Sci 2010;87:847–53.
    1. Banin E, Brady KM, Greenberg EP. Chelator-induced Dispersal and Killing of Pseudomonas aeruginosa Cells in a Biofilm. Appl Environ Microbiol 2006;72:2064–9.
    1. Lin L Kim J Chen H, et al. . Component Analysis of Multipurpose Contact Lens Solutions to Enhance Activity against Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Staphylococcus aureus. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2016;60:4259–63.
    1. Kilvington S, Shovlin J, Nikolic M. Identification and Susceptibility to Multipurpose Disinfectant Solutions of Bacteria Isolated from Contact Lens Storage Cases of Patients with Corneal Infiltrative Events. Cont Lens Anterior Eye 2013;36:294–8.
    1. Ozkan J Nielsen S Diez-Vives C, et al. . Temporal Stability and Composition of the Ocular Surface Microbiome. Sci Rep 2017;7:9880.

Source: PubMed

Sponsors en medewerkers

Medische omstandigheden

Geneesmiddelinterventies

3
Abonneren