The Impact of Cellular Debris on Pseudomonas aeruginosa Adherence to Silicone Hydrogel Contact Lenses and Contact Lens Storage Cases

Burnham, Geoffrey W.; Cavanagh, Harrison D; Robertson, Danielle M.

doi:10.1097/icl.0b013e31823bad0e

Cited by 25 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 44 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…12, 13 Lens-attached bacteria can readily form biofilms with enhanced resistance to antimicrobials, 14 and P. aeruginosa biofilms formed on contact lenses show greater density and viable bacteria when formed in the presence of phagocytic cells or corneal epithelial debris. 15, 16 These data are consistent with our studies using a contact lens wear in vivo rodent model of Pseudomonas keratitis which showed extensive biofilm formation on posterior lens surfaces associated with the development of microbial keratitis 17 . These infections occurred after several days of continuous lens wear suggesting that bacterial adaptation was needed to the ocular environment in order for infection to occur.…”

Section: Lens Materials and Bacterial Colonization Of The Contact Lenssupporting

confidence: 88%

Microbial Keratitis

Evans

Fleiszig

2013

Eye &Amp; Contact Lens: Science &Amp; Clinical Practice

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Microbial keratitis is a sight-threatening complication associated with contact lenses. The introduction of silicone hydrogel lens materials with increased oxygen transmission to the ocular surface has not significantly altered the incidence of microbial keratitis. These data suggest that alternate, or additional, predisposing factors involving lens wear must be addressed to reduce or eliminate these infections. The contact lens can provide a surface for microbial growth in situ, and can also influence ocular surface homeostasis through effects on the tear fluid and corneal epithelium. Thus, it is intuitive that future contact lens materials could make a significant contribution to preventing microbial keratitis. Design of the “right” material to prevent microbial keratitis requires understanding the effects of current materials on bacterial virulence in the cornea, and on ocular surface innate defenses. Current knowledge in each of these areas will be presented, with a discussion of future directions needed to understand the influence of lens material on the pathogenesis of microbial keratitis.

show abstract

Section: Lens Materials and Bacterial Colonization Of The Contact Lenssupporting

confidence: 88%

Microbial Keratitis

Evans

Fleiszig

2013

Eye &Amp; Contact Lens: Science &Amp; Clinical Practice

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Therefore while tears contain a plethora of antimicrobial molecules few/none may be effective against organisms in a biofilm on a contact lens placed on to the eye. In keeping with this S.marcescens biofilms on etafilcon A lenses were resistant to phagocytosis by neutrophils (Hume et al, 2003) and some P. aeruginosa strains show enhanced biofilm formation in the presence of neutrophils (Burnham et al, 2012). …”

Section: Modulation Of Tear Antimicrobialsmentioning

confidence: 55%

Antimicrobial compounds in tears

McDermott

2013

Experimental Eye Research

241

171

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The tear film coats the cornea and conjunctiva and serves several important functions. It provides lubrication, prevents drying of the ocular surface epithelia, helps provide a smooth surface for refracting light, supplies oxygen and is an important component of the innate defense system of the eye providing protection against a range of potential pathogens. This review describes both classic antimicrobial compounds found in tears such as lysozyme and some more recently identified such as members of the cationic antimicrobial peptide family and surfactant protein-D as well as potential new candidate molecules that may contribute to antimicrobial protection. As is readily evident from the literature review herein, tears, like all mucosal fluids, contain a plethora of molecules with known antimicrobial effects. That all of these are active in vivo is debatable as many are present in low concentrations, may be influenced by other tear components such as the ionic environment, and antimicrobial action may be only one of several activities ascribed to the molecule. However, there are many studies showing synergistic/additive interactions between several of the tear antimicrobials and it is highly likely that cooperativity between molecules is the primary way tears are able to afford significant antimicrobial protection to the ocular surface in vivo. In addition to effects on pathogen growth and survival some tear components prevent epithelial cell invasion and promote the epithelial expression of innate defense molecules. Given the protective role of tears a number of scenarios can be envisaged that may affect the amount and/or activity of tear antimicrobials and hence compromise tear immunity. Two such situations, dry eye disease and contact lens wear, are discussed here.

show abstract

“…7,13 Factors that may be ameliorated by single-use daily disposable (DD) lenses Copyright 2015 The Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology, Inc. www.iovs.org j ISSN: 1552-5783 compared to reusable lenses are 5.43 higher risk due to infrequent lens storage case replacement, 19 6.43 higher risk with poor case hygiene, 19 bioburden on the SCL, 18 and bioburden of the SCL storage case. [20][21][22] Compared to use of reusable contact lenses, DD lenses were associated with a 12.53 lower risk of CIEs when worn on a DW basis in a large US case-control study, 13 but in an earlier UK case-control study, one brand was associated with a 2.73 increased risk of sterile keratitis (CIEs). 15 In the United States, DD lenses have an increasing market share, with a trend from approximately 10% in 2006 to approximately 25% of all SCL fits from 2008 forward.…”

mentioning

confidence: 96%