Next Article in Journal
Hagnosa longicapillata, gen. nov., sp. nov., a New Sordariaceous Ascomycete in the Indoor Environment, and the Proposal of Hagnosaceae fam. nov.
Next Article in Special Issue
Atypical Mycobacteriosis Due to Mycobacterium abscessus subsp. massiliense: Our Experince
Previous Article in Journal
The GP-45 Protein, a Highly Variable Antigen from Babesia bigemina, Contains Conserved B-Cell Epitopes in Geographically Distant Isolates
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Microbial Contamination of Preservative-Free Artificial Tears Based on Instillation Techniques

Department of Ophthalmology, Sanggye Paik Hospital, Inje University College of Medicine, Seoul 01757, Korea
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
These authors contributed equally to this work.
Submission received: 29 March 2022 / Revised: 17 May 2022 / Accepted: 17 May 2022 / Published: 18 May 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Microorganisms Living in the Skin)

Abstract

:
Preservative-free artificial tears eliminate the side effects of preservatives but are prone to microbial contamination. This study evaluates the incidence of microbial contaminations in single-use vials of preservative-free 0.1% hyaluronate artificial tears. Based on what touched the vial tip during its first use, 60 unit-dose vials (0.5 mL) were divided into groups A (no touch, n = 20), B (fingertip, n = 20), and C (lid margin, n = 20). The vials were recapped after the first use, and the residual solution was cultured 24 h later. The solution from 20 aseptically opened and unused vials was also cultured (group D). Microbial contamination rates were compared between the groups using the Fisher’s exact test. Groups B and C contained 45% (9/20) and 10% (2/20) contaminations while groups A and D contained undetected microbial growth. The culture positivity rates were significantly different between groups A and B (p = 0.001) and groups B and C (p = 0.013) but not between groups A and C (p = 0.487). We demonstrate a significantly higher risk of contamination when fingertips touch the vial mouth. Therefore, users should avoid the vial tip touching the fingers or eyelid during instillation to prevent contamination of the eye drops.

1. Introduction

Artificial tears are a widely used lubricant for treating dry eye syndrome. Surfactant preservatives, such as benzalkonium chloride (BAK), added to these multidose eye drops help maintain their sterility after opening the cap. However, the preservatives can cause ocular irritation, punctate keratitis, toxicity to the corneal epithelial cells, and allergic reactions [1,2]. These side effects must be considered in patients with poor ocular surface integrity, as in dry eye syndrome. Therefore, preservative-free artificial tears have been introduced as an alternative to those with preservatives.
Preservative-free artificial tears are packed in unit-dose containers and recommended for a single use. Several studies have reported microbial contamination of preservative-free artificial tears with extended use in multidose [3,4] and unit-dose [5] containers. If the lid, conjunctiva, globe, or fingertip touch the vial mouth during instillation, it can lead to contamination [6,7,8]. This study compared the contamination rates in reclosable unit-dose vials of preservative-free artificial tears based on the instillation methods.

2. Results

Eighty single-use vials were evaluated, with 20 vials each in groups A, B, C, and D. In group B, 9/20 (45%) vials contained bacterial contamination, and the causative organisms were Staphylococcus aureus (n = 6, 30%) and Staphylococcus epidermidis (n = 3, 15%). In group C, 2/20 (10%) vials were contaminated with Staphylococcus capitis (n = 1, 5%) and Staphylococcus caprae (n = 1, 5%). No microbial contaminations were seen in groups A and D (Table 1).
Significant differences were seen in the culture positivity rates between groups A and B (p = 0.001) and groups B and C (p = 0.013) but not between groups A and C (p = 0.487) (Figure 1).

3. Discussion

Ophthalmic solutions are commonly contaminated with repeated use, and the administration of contaminated eye drops can cause severe ocular infections. Infectious keratitis, conjunctivitis, and even endophthalmitis have been reported due to bacterial growth [9,10,11,12,13]. Preservative-free eye drops are prone to microbial contamination once the vial is opened. Preservative-free, nonantibacterial eye drops are at an even higher risk of microbial contamination [5,14].
A few studies have examined the contamination of preservative-free artificial tears [5]. There is a risk of contamination at any point during the eye drop instillation [6,7,8] caused by the lid, conjunctiva, globe, or fingertip touching the vial’s mouth. In this study, we compared the incidence of microbial contamination in the residual eye drop solution depending on what touched the mouth of the unit-dose vial. Bacterial contamination was seen in 11/60 (18%) vials tested. While 9/20 (45%) vials in group B (fingertip touch) were contaminated with Staphylococcus aureus and Staphylococcus epidermidis growth, 2/20 (10%) vials in group C (eyelid touch) were contaminated with Staphylococcus capitis and Staphylococcus caprae. Kim et al. reported a 3.9% contamination rate using preservative-free hyaluronic acid 0.1% [5], which was lower than that of the current study. This is probably due to the shorter duration between first opening the vial and culturing the residual solution (10 h).
Group B had a significantly higher contamination rate than groups A and C, demonstrating that the fingertip touching the mouth of the vial is a major cause of contamination. Our findings are consistent with those of Kim et al., who reported that advanced age and fingertip touch are statistically significant risk factors for microbial contamination based on multivariate analysis [5].
Of the four identified microorganisms that caused contaminations in our study, three were Gram-positive, coagulase-negative Staphylococcus (CNS). CNS is a resident flora in the conjunctiva, eyelid, and skin, suggesting that eye drops can become contaminated when they contact the user’s hands, eyelid, or conjunctiva.
Preservative-free artificial tears in unit-dose vials are usually recommended to be used once and then discarded. However, since the vial usually contains more solution than is required for one application, users tend to reuse it multiple times by recapping it. Preservative-free artificial tears are especially susceptible to microbial contamination when a finger or hand touches the vial tip. Therefore, users need to be educated on the precise administration technique. Avoiding contact between the vial tip and any part of the eyelid, cilia, and hand will help reduce contamination of eye drops. Moreover, instilling eye drops at 90 degrees instead of 45 degrees also helps reduce contamination [15].
The study has some limitations, the first being the small sample size of this study. Second, the state of hand hygiene of the patients was not considered. Since hand hygiene can affect the microbial contamination rate, further study on this aspect is warranted. Third, quantitative measurements of bacterial loads were not performed.

4. Methods

This study analyzed eighty single-use vials containing 0.5 mL of preservative-free hyaluronic acid 0.1% (Hyalein Mini 0.1%®, Santen, Osaka, Japan). Participants who visited the Sanggye Paik Hospital Eye Clinic from January 2020 to June 2020, not diagnosed with conjunctivokeratitis or blepharitis, were each given an unopened single-use vial of hyaluronic acid 0.1%. They were asked to instill the eye drops as they usually did. Based on what touched the vial tip during opening and instillation, the vials were divided into group A (no touch, n = 20), group B (fingertips, n = 20), and group C (lid margin, n = 20). Patients between 20 and 40 years old of age who personally use eyedrops were included in the study. When the tips of eyedrops touched the patients’ hands or eyelids while applying them, the participants were instructed by the observer to immediately refrain from using the eyedrops and were guided in closing the eyedrop caps. Subsequently, the vials were brought to the clinic in a sealed container under observer guidance. When the number of participants in each group reached 20, participant recruitment was stopped. The vials were recapped and kept in the clinic at room temperature for 24 h, and any remaining fluid in the vials was cultured. Uninstilled preservative-free hyaluronic acid 0.1% was also cultured immediately after opening a vial (group D, n = 20). Aseptic sample handling was performed in the biosafety cabinet (BSC). The sample was placed in a liquid enrichment medium (thioglycolate broth) and kept in a 35 °C; incubator. Bacterial growth was observed with the naked eye every day during incubation. The incubation period was 14 days. The liquid medium turned turbid during bacterial growth; the liquid medium, which was suspicious of bacterial growth, was subcultured in the plate medium to check the presence of bacterial growth. On the 10th day of incubation, the suspected negative thioglycolate broth was incubated for 48 to 72 h by performing blind subcultivation on the biplate medium (BAP/MacConkey) agar, chocolate agar, and brucella agar. When the bacteria was cultured, Gram staining and identification was performed. When the bacteria was not cultured for 14 days, it was reported as “no growth.”
The study was approved by the Institutional Review Board (IRB) of the Sanggye Paik Hospital (NON2022-002). Informed consent was waived because the study evaluated the eye drops and not the patients. The contamination rates in the different groups were compared using Fisher’s exact test, and the p-value < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Statistical analysis was performed using PASW Statistics ver. 18 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA).

5. Conclusions

A fingertip touching the mouth of the vial significantly increases the risk of contaminating the contents of the vial. The most frequently identified microorganisms were Gram-positive CNS, which comprises the normal flora of the skin. Therefore, to avoid microbial contamination of preservative-free artificial tears, users should ensure that the tip of the vial does not touch the fingers or the eyelid during instillation. Furthermore, patients should be instructed in hand hygiene to reduce the likelihood of contamination. Unit-dose vials are recommended to be used only once after they are opened.

Author Contributions

Conception and study design: J.-H.H. and J.-H.L.; drafting of the manuscript: J.-H.L.and H.-E.S.; critical revision of the manuscript: M.-J.K. and H.-E.S. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was approved by the Institutional Review Board at Sanggye Paik Hospital. The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki.

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all participants involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

The datasets used and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

References

  1. Epstein, S.P.; Ahdoot, M.; Marcus, E.; Asbell, P.A. Comparative Toxicity of Preservatives on Immortalized Corneal and Conjunctival Epithelial Cells. J. Ocul. Pharmacol. Ther. 2009, 25, 113–119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Furrer, P.; Mayer, J.M.; Gurny, R. Ocular Tolerance of Preservatives and Alternatives. Eur. J. Pharm. Biopharm. 2002, 53, 263–280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Oldham, G.B.; Andrews, V. Control of Microbial Contamination in Unpreserved Eyedrops. Br. J. Ophthalmol. 1996, 80, 588–591. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  4. Rahman, M.Q.; Tejwani, D.; Wilson, J.A.; Butcher, I.; Ramaesh, K. Microbial Contamination of Preservative Free Eye Drops in Multiple Application Containers. Br. J. Ophthalmol. 2006, 90, 139–141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  5. Kim, M.S.; Choi, C.Y.; Kim, J.M.; Chang, H.R.; Woo, H.Y. Microbial Contamination of Multiply Used Preservative-Free Artificial Tears Packed in Reclosable Containers. Br. J. Ophthalmol. 2008, 92, 1518–1521. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Clark, P.J.; Ong, B.; Stanley, C.B. Contamination of Diagnostic Ophthalmic Solutions in Primary Eye Care Settings. Mil. Med. 1997, 162, 501–506. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  7. Tatham, A.J.; Sarodia, U.; Gatrad, F.; Awan, A. Eye Drop Instillation Technique in Patients with Glaucoma. Eye 2013, 27, 1293–1298. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  8. Tsegaw, A.; Tsegaw, A.; Abula, T.; Assefa, Y. Bacterial Contamination of Multi-Dose Eye Drops at Ophthalmology Department, University of Gondar, Northwest Ethiopia. Middle East Afr. J. Ophthalmol. 2017, 24, 81–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  9. Mayo, M.S.; Schlitzer, R.L.; Ward, M.A.; Wilson, L.A.; Ahearn, D.G. Association of Pseudomonas and Serratia Corneal Ulcers with Use of Contaminated Solutions. J. Clin. Microbiol. 1987, 25, 1398–1400. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  10. Schein, O.D.; Wasson, P.J.; Boruchoff, S.A.; Kenyon, K.R. Microbial Keratitis Associated with Contaminated Ocular Medications. Am. J. Ophthalmol. 1988, 105, 361–365. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  11. Stevens, J.D.; Matheson, M.M. Survey of the Contamination of Eyedrops of Hospital Inpatients and Recommendations for the Changing of Current Practice in Eyedrop Dispensing. Br. J. Ophthalmol. 1992, 76, 36–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  12. Templeton, W.C., 3rd; Eiferman, R.A.; Snyder, J.W.; Melo, J.C.; Raff, M.J. Serratia Keratitis Transmitted by Contaminated Eyedroppers. Am. J. Ophthalmol. 1982, 93, 723–726. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Teuchner, B.; Wagner, J.; Bechrakis, N.E.; Orth-Höller, D.; Nagl, M. Microbial Contamination of Glaucoma Eyedrops Used by Patients Compared with Ocular Medications Used in the Hospital. Medicine 2015, 94, e583. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Kim, M.S.; Kim, H.K.; Kim, J.M.; Choi, C.Y. Comparison of Contamination Rates between Preserved and Preservative-Free Fluoroquinolone Eyedrops. Graefes Arch. Clin. Exp. Ophthalmol. 2013, 251, 817–824. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Da Costa, A.X.; Yu, M.C.Z.; de Freitas, D.; Cristovam, P.C.; LaMonica, L.C.; Dos Santos, V.R.; Gomes, J.A.P. Microbial Cross-Contamination in Multidose Eyedrops: The Impact of Instillation Angle and Bottle Geometry. Transl. Vis. Sci. Technol. 2020, 9, 7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Figure 1. Contamination rates in the different groups. Microbial contamination rates were significantly different between groups A and B and groups B and C. However, no significant differences were seen between groups A and C (* p-value < 0.05). Group A: no-touch; Group B: fingertip touch; Group C: lid margin touch; Group D: uninstilled vial.
Figure 1. Contamination rates in the different groups. Microbial contamination rates were significantly different between groups A and B and groups B and C. However, no significant differences were seen between groups A and C (* p-value < 0.05). Group A: no-touch; Group B: fingertip touch; Group C: lid margin touch; Group D: uninstilled vial.
Pathogens 11 00592 g001
Table 1. Microbial contamination of preservative-free artificial tears based on what touched the vial tip.
Table 1. Microbial contamination of preservative-free artificial tears based on what touched the vial tip.
Group nContaminated (n, %)Identified Microorganisms (n)
A200 (0)
B209 (45)Staphylococcus aureus (6)
Staphylococcus epidermidis (3)
C202 (10)Staphylococcus capitis (1)
Staphylococcus caprae (1)
D200 (0)
Total60 *11 (18)
Group A: no-touch; Group B: fingertip touch; Group C: lid margin touch; Group D: uninstilled vial. * Group D was excluded because the vials in this group were not instilled.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Lee, J.-H.; Kang, M.-J.; Sim, H.-E.; Hwang, J.-H. Microbial Contamination of Preservative-Free Artificial Tears Based on Instillation Techniques. Pathogens 2022, 11, 592. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/pathogens11050592

AMA Style

Lee J-H, Kang M-J, Sim H-E, Hwang J-H. Microbial Contamination of Preservative-Free Artificial Tears Based on Instillation Techniques. Pathogens. 2022; 11(5):592. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/pathogens11050592

Chicago/Turabian Style

Lee, Jee-Hye, Min-Ji Kang, Ha-Eun Sim, and Je-Hyung Hwang. 2022. "Microbial Contamination of Preservative-Free Artificial Tears Based on Instillation Techniques" Pathogens 11, no. 5: 592. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/pathogens11050592

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop