Efficacy of five 'sporicidal' surface disinfectants against Clostridioides difficile spores in suspension tests and 4-field tests.

BACKGROUND: A sporicidal surface disinfection is recommended both for the outbreak and the endemic setting but a comparative evaluation on the efficacy of 'sporicidal' surface disinfectants using suspension tests and 4-field tests has not been performed. AIM: To determine the efficacy of five 'sporicidal' surface disinfectants (three ready-to-use wipes (A, B, E), two concentrates (C, D) based on peroxides or aldehydes against C. difficile spores. METHODS: The efficacy was determined under clean conditions using a suspension test and the 4-field test. Each test was performed in duplicate in two separate laboratories. Wipes were wrung to collect the solution for the suspension tests. RESULTS: Product A (peracetic acid; 5 min), product C (peracetic acid; 2% solution in 15 min or 1% solution in 30 min) and product D (peracetic acid; only 2% solution in 15 min) were effective with at least a 4 log10-reduction of C. difficile spores in suspension and on surfaces. Product B (hydrogen peroxide) was not effective in suspension (0.9 log10 after 15 min; 3.2 log10 after 1 h) and on surfaces (2.8 log10 after 15 and 60 min). Product E based on glutaraldehyde, (ethylendioxy)dimethanol and DDAC demonstrated 0.9 log10 after 4 h in suspension and 4.5 log10 after 4 h on surfaces. CONCLUSIONS: Not all surface disinfectants with a sporicidal claim were effective against C. difficile spores in standardized suspension tests and in the 4-field test. In clinical practice preference should be given to products that reliably pass the efficacy criteria of both types of tests.

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.