ABSTRACT
PURPOSE: To evaluate contact lens (CL) storage case contamination when used with four different CL care solutions during daily wear of three different CL materials. METHODS: A parallel, prospective, bilateral, randomized clinical trial (n = 38) was conducted. Subjects were randomly assigned to use one of three CL materials (etafilcon A, senofilcon A, or galyfilcon A) on a daily wear basis. Subsequently, each subject randomly used one of four different CL care solutions (Biotrue, OPTI-FREE PureMoist, RevitaLens OcuTec, and CLEAR CARE) for 2 weeks, along with their respective storage cases. After every 2-week period, their storage cases were collected and the right and left wells of each storage case were randomized for two procedures: (1) microbial enumeration by swabbing the storage case surface and (2) evaluation of biofilm formation (multipurpose solution cases only) using a crystal violet staining assay. RESULTS: More than 80% of storage cases were contaminated when used in conjunction with the four CL care solutions, irrespective of the CL material worn. Storage cases maintained with CLEAR CARE (mean Log colony forming units (CFU)/well ± SD, 2.0 ± 1.0) revealed significantly (p < 0.001) greater levels of contamination, compared to those maintained with Biotrue (1.3 ± 0.8) and RevitaLens OcuTec (1.2 ± 0.8). Predominantly, storage cases were contaminated with Gram-positive bacteria (≥80%). There were significant differences (p = 0.013) for the levels of Gram-negative bacteria recovered from the storage cases maintained with different CL care solutions. Storage cases maintained with OPTI-FREE PureMoist (0.526 ± 0.629) showed significantly higher biofilm formation (p = 0.028) compared to those maintained with Biotrue (0.263 ± 0.197). CONCLUSIONS: Levels of contamination ranged from 0 to 6.4 Log CFU/storage case well, which varied significantly (p < 0.001) between different CL care solutions, and storage case contamination was not modulated by CL materials.
Subject(s)
Contact Lenses/microbiology , Equipment Contamination , Gram-Negative Bacteria/isolation & purification , Gram-Positive Bacteria/isolation & purification , Adolescent , Adult , Aged , Colony Count, Microbial , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Prospective Studies , Young AdultABSTRACT
Macrophages play an important role in the elimination of infections, the removal of debris and in tissue repair after infection and trauma. In vitro models that assess ocular biomaterials for toxicity typically focus on the effects of these materials on epithelial or fibroblast cells. This investigation evaluated known ocular toxins deposited on model materials for their effects on the viability and activation of macrophages. THP-1-derived macrophages were cultured onto silicone films (used as a base biomaterial) deposited with chemical toxins (benzalkonium chloride (BAK), zinc diethyldithiocarbamate (ZDEC) and lipopolysaccharide (LPS)). Utilizing three fluorescent dyes calcein, ethidium homodimer-1 (EthD-1) and annexin V, the viability of macrophages attached to the biomaterial was determined using confocal microscopy. Propidium iodide (PI) staining and alamarBlue® (resazurin) reduction were used to assess cell death and metabolic activity. CD14, CD16, CD33, CD45, and CD54 expression of adherent macrophages, were also evaluated to detect LPS activation of macrophages using flow cytometry. The sensitivity of this test battery was demonstrated as significant toxicity from treated surfaces with ZDEC (0.001-0.01%), and BAK (0.001%-0.1%) was detected. Also, macrophage activation could be detected by measuring CD54 expression after exposure to adsorbed LPS. These in vitro methods will be helpful in determining the toxicity potential of new ocular biomaterials.
