Drug – bio-affecting and body treating compositions – Enzyme or coenzyme containing – Oxidoreductases
Reexamination Certificate
1994-07-07
2001-09-25
Naff, David M. (Department: 1651)
Drug, bio-affecting and body treating compositions
Enzyme or coenzyme containing
Oxidoreductases
C435S192000
Reexamination Certificate
active
06294168
ABSTRACT:
FIELD OF THE INVENTION
The present invention relates to methods and compositions for the treatment of infection and control of flora composition. More particularly, the present invention relates to antiseptic methods and compositions using haloperoxidase microbicidal activity.
BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION
Historical Background
The use of oxidizing antiseptics and disinfectants has an interesting development dating back to the late eighteenth century. Because of the relevance of hypohalite and peroxide antiseptics to the present invention, their abbreviated histories are presented. In 1788, the French chemist Berthollet described the disinfecting and bleaching properties of a solution prepared from aqueous alkali and chlorine, and in 1792 a potassium-based preparation of similar composition, eau de Javel, was sold commercially as a disinfectant. In 1820 Labarraque prepared a solution from aqueous sodium carbonate and chlorine. This liqueur de Labarraque was well known for its disinfectant and deodorizer qualities. In 1846 Semmelweis used chloride of lime, a calcium hypochlorite solution, to successfully control the spread of puerperal sepsis, and in 1881 Koch reported his results on the bactericidal action of hypochlorite.
In 1818 Thenard synthesized hydrogen peroxide (H
2
O
2
) by reacting dilute acid with barium dioxide to yield a 3 to 4% solution of H
2
O
2
that was relatively unstable. The disinfectant properties of H
2
O
2
were recognized by the mid nineteenth century. “Its application has been advocated for rendering water and milk safe, for disinfection of sewage; it has been applied in medicine, surgery, dentistry, hair-dressing etc” (Heinemann, 1913,
J.A.M.A.
60: 1603-1606). However, its antiseptic capacity is relatively poor in comparison with hypochlorites.
The antiseptic action of dyes was also known and used prior to and during the First World War. In 1900 Raab reported that the dye acridine killed living cells (i.e., paramecia) only in the presence of light (
Z. Biol.
39: 524 et seq.), and in 1905 Jodlbauer and von Tappeiner demonstrated that O
2
was required for the dye-sensitized photokilling of bacteria (
Deut.Arch.Klin.Med.
82: 520-546). Dye-sensitized, O
2
-dependent photooxidation and photooxygenation reactivity is commonly referred to as photodynamic activity (Blum, 1941,
Photodynamic Action and Diseases Caused by Light,
Reinhold, New York). Dyes, such as flavine and brilliant green, were effective as antiseptic agents even when employed at relatively high dilutions in serous medium. Unfortunately, in addition to their potent antimicrobial action, these dyes also produce host damage, i.e., leukocyte killing (Fleming, 1919,
Brit.J.Surg.
7: 99-129).
Research in the area of antiseptic action was accelerated by the First World War. During this period the previously described potency of hypochlorite-based antiseptics (Andrewes and Orton, 1904,
Zentrabl.Bakteriol
.(
Orig.A
) 35: 811-816) was firmly established, and preparations, such as Eusol (Smith et al., 1915,
Brit.Med.J.
2: 129-136) and Dakin's solution (Dakin, 1915,
Brit.Med.J.
2: 318-320) supplanted the Initially favored carbolic acid and iodine antiseptics.
Alexander Fleming's 1919 Hunterian lecture (supra), entitled, “The Action of Chemical and Physiological Antiseptics in a Septic Wound” provides an excellent exposition of the subject of antisepsis that is relevant to this day. Fleming described two schools of thought regarding the treatment of wounds: (1) the physiological school which directed “their efforts to aiding the natural protective agencies of the body against infection”, and (2) the antiseptic school which directed their efforts to killing the wound microbes with chemical agents.
The physiologic school maintained that the greatest protection against infection was obtained by aiding the physiological agencies: (1) blood and humoral defense mechanisms, and (2) phagocytic leukocytes. It was known that leukocytes collected in the walls and emigrate into the cavity of the wound, ultimately forming the cellular elements of pus. Fleming noted that the phagocytic leukocytes of “fresh pus” exert potent antimicrobial effect, but that “stale pus” (i.e., pus from an unopened furuncle), as well as heat-treated or antiseptic-treated “fresh pus”, lack microbe killing capacity.
The Nonspecific Nature of Antiseptic Treatment
The basic problem of the chemical approach to antisepsis is that chemical antiseptics react non-specifically. “Disinfection is a chemical reaction in which the reactive agent acts not only on bacteria but upon the media in which they are found” (Dakin, 1915,
Brit.Med.J.
2: 809-810). Antiseptic solutions produce maximum microbe killing when the organisms are suspended in an aqueous medium, but germicidal action is greatly decreased by competitive reaction with the organic matter present in serous fluid or blood.
Antiseptics can non-specifically react with and inhibit normal immunophysiologic defense mechanisms. Germicidal concentrations of antiseptics inhibit the antimicrobial function of phagocytic leukocytes. “The leukocytes are more sensitive to the action of chemical antiseptics than are the bacteria, and, in view of this, it is unlikely that any of these antiseptics have the power of penetrating into the tissues and destroying the bacteria without first killing the tissues themselves. The natural antiseptic powers of the pus are done away with, but the microbes are not completely destroyed, and those which are left are allowed to grow unhindered until such time as fresh pus-cells can emigrate to keep them in check. A consideration of the leucocidal property of antiseptics will show us that certain antiseptics are suitable for washing of a wound, while others are bad. If we desire, therefore, an antiseptic solution with which to wash out a wound, we should choose one which loses its antileucocytic power rapidly and which exercises its antiseptic action very quickly. We then have the washing effect of the fluid without doing much damage to the wound. One great advantage of eusol and Dakin's solution is that they disappear as active chemical agents in a few minutes and do not have any lasting deleterious effect on the leukocytes” (Fleming, 1919).
Mechanism of Action
Many of the early workers believed that hypochlorite microbicidal action was dependent on the nascent oxygen liberated as a product of hypochlorous acid autoprotolysis, and that the liberated oxygen combined with the unsaturated components in the cell protoplasm to effect killing. This view was challenged early in this century by Dakin. “It has been repeatedly stated that the antiseptic action of hypochlorous acid was due to the liberation of oxygen. I have been unable to find any evidence to support this statement.” He went on to propose a more direct chlorination mechanism. “It appears that when hypochlorous acid and hypochlorites act upon organic matter of bacterial or other origin some of the (NH) groups of the proteins are converted into (NCl) groups. The products thus formed—belonging to the group of chloramines—I have found to possess approximately the same antiseptic action as the original hypochlorite, and it appears more probable that the antiseptic action of the hypochlorites is conditioned by the formation of these chloramines rather than by any decomposition with liberation of oxygen” (Dakin, 1915). Furthermore, it was known that “oxygen from sources other than chlorine does not kill bacteria as readily as does the amount of chlorine theoretically necessary to yield an equivalent amount of nascent oxygen” (Mercer and Somers, 1957,
Adv.Food Res.
7: 129-160).
Dakin's position on the direct microbicidal action of chlorine, which persists to the present, is also problematic. “Experimental proof is lacking also for other hypotheses advanced to explain the bactericidal action of chlorine. These include suggestions that bacterial proteins are precipitated by chlorine; that cell membranes are altered by chlorine to allow diffusion of cell contents; and that cell membranes are mecha
Christensen O'Connor Johnson & Kindness PLLC
ExOxEmis, Inc.
Meller Mike
Naff David M.
LandOfFree
Method for inhibiting pathogenic microbes in an animal using... does not yet have a rating. At this time, there are no reviews or comments for this patent.
If you have personal experience with Method for inhibiting pathogenic microbes in an animal using..., we encourage you to share that experience with our LandOfFree.com community. Your opinion is very important and Method for inhibiting pathogenic microbes in an animal using... will most certainly appreciate the feedback.
Profile ID: LFUS-PAI-O-2543076