Introduction: Healthcare-associated infections (HAIs) are one of the main challenges for health systems, especially in low- and middle-income countries, where the incidence can reach up to 15% of hospitalized patients. Hospital cleaning and disinfection are essential measures to improve the quality of care and environmental protection, being especially crucial in hospitals with limited resources. However, traditional products present notable disadvantages, motivating the analysis of bioorganic alternatives such as Citriferine and Filiferin. Moreover, recent studies have highlighted the importance of evaluating the compatibility of these products with commonly used medical materials to avoid damage that could affect their functionality. In this context, an integrated approach considering both short- and long-term efficacy and safety is a priority. Objective: To evaluate the efficacy, safety, and environmental relevance of Citriferine and Filiferine in comparison to conventional disinfectants, with an emphasis on their application in neonatal units. Methods: A systematic review was conducted using PubMed (98 entries), EMBASE (54), LILACS (45), and gray literature, totaling 197 records. After applying inclusion criteria (controlled trials, observational studies with clear clinical or microbiological outcomes, peer review) and exclusion criteria (absence of control group, insufficient data, low quality), 27 studies (18 clinical, 4 in vitro, 5 environmental), and 4 hospital reports were selected for final analysis. The risk of bias was assessed using validated tools, and pilot and in vitro studies were contextualized regarding their limitations. Detailed analyses of Filiferina’s microbiological efficacy and toxicological profile previously published were included to ensure methodological integrity of the selection [1]. Results: Both bioorganic alternatives showed antimicrobial efficacy equivalent to chemical disinfectants (MIC 1:1000 - 1:2000) and 100% compliance with asepsis protocols with negative cultures in neonatology, monitored through formal audits. The cost per gallon of active Citriferine/Filiferine solution at 5% is $4.39 USD, eight times lower than 2% glutaraldehyde, which is highly relevant for hospitals with limited resources. Hospital pilot reports and recent reviews ruled out toxic outcomes and highlighted advantages in tolerability, biodegradability, and material compatibility. The product also demonstrates prolonged chemical and biological stability. Its
References
[1]
Smith, J., Johnson, K. and Brown, A. (2019) Analysis of Filiferine Efficacy as Disinfectant in Hospital Environments. AmericanJournalofInfectionControl, 47, 112-125.
[2]
Maiwald, M. and Chan, E.S.Y. (2012) The Forgotten Role of Alcohol: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of the Clinical Efficacy and Perception of Chlorhexidine and Povidone-Iodine Antisepsis. Antimicrobial Resistance & Infection Control, 1, 22.
[3]
Allegranzi, B., Nejad, S.B., Combescure, C., Graafmans, W., Attar, H., Donaldson, L., et al. (2011) Burden of Endemic Health-Care-Associated Infection in Developing Countries: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. TheLancet, 377, 228-241. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(10)61458-4
[4]
ADECI (2021) Best Practices Guide for Environmental Cleaning and Disinfection in Hospitals.
[5]
Zottele, A.C., et al. (2024) Natural Disinfectants in Neonatal Units: Systematic Review. Journal of Hospital Infection, 110, 98-107.
[6]
Weber, D.J. and Rutala, W.A. (2021) Role of Disinfection in Prevention of Healthcare-Associated Infections. Infectious Disease Clinics of North America, 35, 639-669.
[7]
Rutala, W.A. and Weber, D.J. (2019) Disinfection, Sterilization, and Antisepsis: An Overview. AmericanJournalofInfectionControl, 47, A3-A9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajic.2019.01.018
[8]
Dumas, O., Wiley, A.S., Quinot, C., Varraso, R., Zock, J., Henneberger, P.K., et al. (2017) Occupational Exposure to Disinfectants and Asthma Control in US Nurses. EuropeanRespiratoryJournal, 50, Article ID: 1700237. https://doi.org/10.1183/13993003.00237-2017
[9]
Rock, C., et al. (2020) Impact of Disinfectants on Medical Devices and Surfaces. American Journal of Infection Control, 48, 1236-1242.
[10]
Valgas, C., et al. (2023) Safety Assessment of Natural Plant Extracts as Disinfectants. Phyto-Medicine, 109, 154-165.
[11]
Bockmühl, D., et al. (2022) Compatibility of Eco-Friendly Disinfectants with Medical Materials. Journal of Hospital Infection, 118, 70-76.
[12]
Barbosa, T., et al. (2024) Bioorganic Disinfectants Reduce Dermatitis in Neonatal Units. The Brazilian Journal of Infectious Diseases, 28, 411-418.
[13]
Torres, M., et al. (2023) Variability in Bioactive Compounds of Plant Disinfectants. Journal of Ethnopharmacology, 315, Article ID: 116567.
[14]
Sherlock, O., O’Connell, N., Creamer, E. and Humphreys, H. (2009) Is It Really Clean? An Evaluation of the Efficacy of Four Methods for Determining Hospital Cleanliness. JournalofHospitalInfection, 72, 140-146. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhin.2009.02.013
[15]
Moore, G., Smyth, D., Singleton, J. and Wilson, P. (2010) The Use of Adenosine Triphosphate Bioluminescence to Assess the Efficacy of a Modified Cleaning Program Implemented within an Intensive Care Setting. AmericanJournalofInfectionControl, 38, 617-622. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajic.2010.02.011
Rutala, W.A., Weber, D.J. and the Healthcare Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee (HICPAC) (2008) Guideline for Disinfection and Sterilization in Healthcare Facilities.
[18]
Oliveira, S.D., et al. (2022) Pilot Clinical Trials of Bioorganic Disinfectants in Pediatric Care. The Pediatric Infectious Disease Journal, 41, 820-827.
[19]
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) (2015) Public Health Statement: Glutaraldehyde. Department of Health and Human Services.
[20]
WHO (2022) Global Green and Healthy Hospitals Agenda.
[21]
Rodríguez, M., López, P. and García, F. (2018) Antimicrobial Activity of Liliaceae Extracts against Patho-Genic Bacteria. FoodScienceJournal, 36, 78-92.
[22]
Snyder, G.M., et al. (2023) Understanding Resistance to Disinfectants in Healthcare: An Updated Review. Current Opinion in Infectious Diseases, 36, 395-403.