Povidone Iodine: Properties, Mechanisms of Action, and Role in Infection Control and Staphylococcus aureus Decolonization.

Nasal decolonization is an integral part of the strategies used to control and prevent the spread of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) infections. The two most commonly used agents for decolonization are intranasal mupirocin 2% ointment and chlorhexidine wash, but the increasing emergence of resistance and treatment failure has underscored the need for alternative therapies. This article discusses povidone iodine (PVP-I) as an alternative decolonization agent and is based on literature reviewed during an expert's workshop on resistance and MRSA decolonization. Compared to chlorhexidine and mupirocin, respectively, PVP-I 10 and 7.5% solutions demonstrated rapid and superior bactericidal activity against MRSA in in vitro and ex vivo studies. Notably, PVP-I 10 and 5% solutions were also active against both chlorhexidine-resistant and mupirocin-resistant strains, respectively. Unlike chlorhexidine and mupirocin, available reports have not observed a link between PVP-I and the induction of bacterial resistance or cross-resistance to antiseptics and antibiotics. These preclinical findings also translate into clinical decolonization, where intranasal PVP-I significantly improved the efficacy of chlorhexidine wash and was as effective as mupirocin in reducing surgical site infection in orthopedic surgery. Overall, these qualities of PVP-I make it a useful alternative decolonizing agent for the prevention of S. aureus infections, but additional experimental and clinical data are required to further evaluate the use of PVP-I in this setting.

The role of surface disinfection in infection prevention.

BACKGROUND: The Rudolf Schuelke Foundation addresses topics related to hygiene, infection prevention and public health. In this context a panel of scientists from various European countries discussed "The Role of Surface Disinfection in Infection Prevention". The most important findings and conclusions of this meeting are summarised in the present consensus paper. AIM: Although the relevance of surface disinfection is increasingly being accepted, there are still a number of issues which remain controversial. In particular, the following topics were addressed: Transferral of microbes from surface to patients as a cause of infection, requirements for surface disinfectants, biocidal resistance and toxicity, future challenges. METHODS AND FINDINGS: After discussion and review of current scientific literature the authors agreed that contaminated surfaces contribute to the transmission of pathogens and may thus pose an infection hazard. Targeted surface disinfection based on a risk profile is seen as an indispensable constituent in a multibarrier approach of universal infection control precautions. Resistance and cross-resistance depend on the disinfectant agent as well as on the microbial species. Prudent implementation of surface disinfection regimens tested to be effective can prevent or minimize adverse effects. CONCLUSIONS: Disinfection must be viewed as a holistic process. There is a need for defining standard principles for cleaning and disinfection, for ensuring compliance with these principles by measures such as written standard operating procedures, adequate training and suitable audit systems. Also, test procedures must be set up in order to demonstrate the efficacy of disinfectants including new application methods such as pre-soaked wipes for surface disinfection.