Suitable Disinfectants with Proven Efficacy for Genetically Modified Viruses and Viral Vectors.

Viral disinfection is important for medical facilities, the food industry, and the veterinary field, especially in terms of controlling virus outbreaks. Therefore, standardized methods and activity levels are available for these areas. Usually, disinfectants used in these areas are characterized by their activity against test organisms (i.e., viruses, bacteria, and/or yeasts). This activity is usually determined using a suspension test in which the test organism is incubated with the respective disinfectant in solution to assess its bactericidal, yeasticidal, or virucidal activity. In addition, carrier methods that more closely reflect real-world applications have been developed, in which microorganisms are applied to the surface of a carrier (e.g., stainless steel frosted glass, or polyvinyl chloride (PVC)) and then dried. However, to date, no standardized methods have become available for addressing genetically modified vectors or disinfection-resistant oncolytic viruses such as the H1-parvovirus. Particularly, such non-enveloped viruses, which are highly resistant to disinfectants, are not taken into account in European standards. This article proposes a new activity claim known as "virucidal activity PLUS", summarizes the available methods for evaluating the virucidal activity of chemical disinfectants against genetically modified organisms (GMOs) using current European standards, including the activity against highly resistant parvoviridae such as the adeno-associated virus (AAV), and provides guidance on the selection of disinfectants for pharmaceutical manufacturers, laboratories, and clinical users.

Ethanol is indispensable for virucidal hand antisepsis: memorandum from the alcohol-based hand rub (ABHR) Task Force, WHO Collaborating Centre on Patient Safety, and the Commission for Hospital Hygiene and Infection Prevention (KRINKO), Robert Koch Institute, Berlin, Germany.

BACKGROUND: The approval of ethanol by the Biocidal Products Regulation has been under evaluation since 2007. This follows concern over alcohol uptake from ethanol-based hand rubs (EBHR). If ethanol is classified as carcinogenic, mutagenic, or reprotoxic by the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA), then this would affect infection prevention and control practices. AIM: A review was performed to prove that ethanol is toxicological uncritical and indispensable for hand antisepsis because of its unique activity against non-enveloped viruses and thus the resulting lack of alternatives. Therefore, the following main points are analyzed: The effectiveness of ethanol in hand hygiene, the evidence of ethanol at blood/tissue levels through hand hygiene in healthcare, and the evidence of toxicity of different blood/tissue ethanol levels and the non-comparability with alcoholic consumption and industrial exposure. RESULTS: EBHR are essential for preventing infections caused by non-enveloped viruses, especially in healthcare, nursing homes, food industry and other areas. Propanols are effective against enveloped viruses as opposed to non-enveloped viruses but there are no other alternatives for virucidal hand antisepsis. Long-term ingestion of ethanol in the form of alcoholic beverages can cause tumours. However, lifetime exposure to ethanol from occupational exposure < 500 ppm does not significantly contribute to the cancer risk. Mutagenic effects were observed only at doses within the toxic range in animal studies. While reprotoxicity is linked with abuse of alcoholic beverages, there is no epidemiological evidence for this from EBHR use in healthcare facilities or from products containing ethanol in non-healthcare settings. CONCLUSION: The body of evidence shows EBHRs have strong efficacy in killing non-enveloped viruses, whereas 1-propanol and 2-propanol do not kill non-enveloped viruses, that pose significant risk of infection. Ethanol absorbed through the skin during hand hygiene is similar to consumption of beverages with hidden ethanol content (< 0.5% v/v), such as apple juice or kefir. There is no risk of carcinogenicity, mutagenicity or reprotoxicity from repeated use of EBHR. Hence, the WHO Task Force strongly recommend retaining ethanol as an essential constituent in hand rubs for healthcare.

Tolerance of biofilm of a carbapenem-resistant Klebsiella pneumoniae involved in a duodenoscopy-associated outbreak to the disinfectant used in reprocessing.

BACKGROUND: One possible transmission route for nosocomial pathogens is contaminated medical devices. Formation of biofilms can exacerbate the problem. We report on a carbapenemase-producing Klebsiella pneumoniae that had caused an outbreak linked to contaminated duodenoscopes. To determine whether increased tolerance to disinfectants may have contributed to the outbreak, we investigated the susceptibility of the outbreak strain to disinfectants commonly used for duodenoscope reprocessing. Disinfection efficacy was tested on planktonic bacteria and on biofilm. METHODS: Disinfectant efficacy testing was performed for planktonic bacteria according to EN standards 13727 and 14561 and for biofilm using the Bead Assay for Biofilms. Disinfection was defined as ≥ 5log10 reduction in recoverable colony forming units (CFU). RESULTS: The outbreak strain was an OXA-48 carbapenemase-producing K. pneumoniae of sequence type 101. We found a slightly increased tolerance of the outbreak strain in planktonic form to peracetic acid (PAA), but not to other disinfectants tested. Since PAA was the disinfectant used for duodenoscope reprocessing, we investigated the effect of PAA on biofilm of the outbreak strain. Remarkably, disinfection of biofilm of the outbreak strain could not be achieved by the standard PAA concentration used for duodenoscope reprocessing at the time of outbreak. An increased tolerance to PAA was not observed in a K. pneumoniae type strain tested in parallel. CONCLUSIONS: Biofilm of the K. pneumoniae outbreak strain was tolerant to standard disinfection during duodenoscope reprocessing. This study establishes for the first time a direct link between biofilm formation, increased tolerance to disinfectants, reprocessing failure of duodenoscopes and nosocomial transmission of carbapenem-resistant K. pneumoniae.

Evaluation of virus inactivation by formaldehyde to enhance biosafety of diagnostic electron microscopy.

Formaldehyde (FA) fixation of infectious samples is a well-established protocol in diagnostic electron microscopy of viruses. However, published experimental data that demonstrate virus inactivation by these fixation procedures are lacking. Usually, fixation is performed immediately before the sample preparation for microscopy. The fixation procedure should transform viruses in a non-infectious but nonetheless structurally intact form in order to allow a proper diagnosis based on morphology. FA provides an essential advantage in comparison to other disinfectants, because it preserves the ultrastructure of biological material without interfering significantly with the preparation (i.e., the negative staining) and the detection of viruses. To examine the efficiency of FA inactivation, we used Vaccinia virus, Human adenovirus and Murine norovirus as models and treated them with FA under various conditions. Critical parameters for the inactivation efficiency were the temperature, the duration of the FA treatment, and the resistance of the virus in question. Our results show that FA inactivation at low temperature (4 °C) bears a high risk of incomplete inactivation. Higher temperatures (25 °C) are more efficient, although they still require rather long incubation times to fully inactivate a complex and highly robust virus like Vaccinia. A protocol, which applied 2% buffered FA for 60 min and a temperature-shift from 25 to 37 °C after 30 min was efficient for the complete inactivation of all test viruses, and therefore has the potential to improve both biosafety and speed of diagnostic electron microscopy.

Evaluation of a virucidal quantitative carrier test for surface disinfectants.

Surface disinfectants are part of broader preventive strategies preventing the transmission of bacteria, fungi and viruses in medical institutions. To evaluate their virucidal efficacy, these products must be tested with appropriate model viruses with different physico-chemical properties under conditions representing practical application in hospitals. The aim of this study was to evaluate a quantitative carrier assay. Furthermore, different putative model viruses like adenovirus type 5 (AdV-5) and different animal parvoviruses were evaluated with respect to their tenacity and practicability in laboratory handling. To evaluate the robustness of the method, some of the viruses were tested in parallel in different laboratories in a multi-center study. Different biocides, which are common active ingredients of surface disinfectants, were used in the test. After drying on stainless steel discs as the carrier, model viruses were exposed to different concentrations of three alcohols, peracetic acid (PAA) or glutaraldehyde (GDA), with a fixed exposure time of 5 minutes. Residual virus was determined after treatment by endpoint titration. All parvoviruses exhibited a similar stability with respect to GDA, while AdV-5 was more susceptible. For PAA, the porcine parvovirus was more sensitive than the other parvoviruses, and again, AdV-5 presented a higher susceptibility than the parvoviruses. All parvoviruses were resistant to alcohols, while AdV-5 was only stable when treated with 2-propanol. The analysis of the results of the multi-center study showed a high reproducibility of this test system. In conclusion, two viruses with different physico-chemical properties can be recommended as appropriate model viruses for the evaluation of the virucidal efficacy of surface disinfectants: AdV-5, which has a high clinical impact, and murine parvovirus (MVM) with the highest practicability among the parvoviruses tested.