Skip to main content
Download PDF

Can probiotics trigger a paradigm shift for cleaning healthcare environments? A narrative review

Antimicrobial Resistance & Infection Control volume 13, Article number: 119 (2024) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

The environment of healthcare institutions plays a major role in the transmission of multidrug resistant organisms (MDRO) and likely in subsequent healthcare-associated infections (HAIs). Probiotic cleaning products are a novel option for environmental cleaning. They represent a sustainable and biodegradable alternative to conventional chemical disinfectants for controlling microbial bioburden, and preventing pathogen transmission in hospital environments. High-quality studies including randomized clinical trials (RCT) triggered a summary with expert recommendations until further studies allow a critical review and meta-analysis of the data.

Methods

Infection control experts from five European countries summarized available data as of June 2023. Authors presented their published RCTs, reviewed the existing literature on probiotic cleaning, summarized the results and identified knowledge gaps and subsequent research needs.

Results

Probiotic cleaning was similarly effective for reducing HAI-related pathogens, enveloped viruses such as SARS-CoV-2 and MDRO in environmental samples compared to conventional chemical disinfectants. More importantly, probiotic cleaning was non-inferior to disinfectants in terms of preventing HAI in a large RCT. In addition, probiotic cleaning has also been shown to reduce antimicrobial resistance genes (ARG), costs and antimicrobial consumption in other hospital trials. They are biodegradable, do not require any protection for chemical hazards, and are compliant with occupational health. A paradigm shift, however, requires a very strong evidence to justify for such a change. In the past, this evidence was limited by the heterogeneity of study design, products, protocols, and few studies on clinical outcomes used in the trials. Furthermore, the regulatory, safety, and quality aspects of probiotic cleaning products are not, yet, completely defined and require clearing by authorities.

Conclusion

To date, probiotic cleaning is a breakthrough technology and a biological alternative for chemical disinfectant when treating hospital environment. It may also have a positive effect on MDRO transmission. However, the different compositions of probiotic products will require standardization, and more robust data should be generated to support these promising results on different compositions. This may trigger a paradigm shift in cleaning of healthcare institutions from chemical to biological control of the hospital environment.

Background

Patients in healthcare institutions including hospitals are at risk of acquiring healthcare-associated infections (HAI) and multi-drug resistant organisms (MDRO). Infection control primarily aims to prevent HAIs and MDRO transmission by various measures such as hand hygiene, isolation of MDRO carriers, and decontamination of the hospital environment by surface cleaning and disinfection [1,2,3]. The coronavirus-disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic brought the importance of environmental cleaning and disinfection back to public focus. Further, the number of reports on prolonged contamination of the hospital environment with MDRO, plasmids carrying antimicrobial resistance genes (ARG) and newly emerging pathogens such as Candida auris has risen [4, 5]. Gram-positive bacteria such as vancomycin-resistant Enterocococcus faecium (VRE) and fungi like Candida subspecies (ssp.) can survive on surfaces for days and weeks, and are difficult to eliminate from the environment [6, 7]. Additionally, multidrug-resistant Gram-negative bacteria (MDRGN) producing carbapenemases like New Delhi metallo-beta lactamase (NDM) or Oxacillinases β-Lactamases (OXA) are increasing in European hospitals [8,9,10,11]. This increase has been driven by NDM- or OXA-producing Klebsiella pneumoniae even leading to severe hospital outbreaks [1, 8, 9, 11]. Patient rooms not properly disinfected may threaten patients by exposure of the residual contaminated patient room without any direct contact [12]. Hands can be equally contaminated by shaking hands or touching surfaces, while hand hygiene often suffers from poor compliance due to several barriers such as insufficient time, high workload, and understaffing [13, 14]. Universal gloving has also failed to reduce acquisition of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus or VRE [15].

Thus, alternatives to current cleaning practices such as automated decontamination devices, UV (ultra violet) light decontamination, novel disinfectants and probiotic-based cleaning has become increasingly attractive to prevent environmental contamination, in particular with MDRO and Clostridoides (C.) difficile. New studies provide some encouraging evidence that probiotic-based cleaning have beneficial effects not only on environmental control, but also on HAI and dissemination of ARG. Various probiotic cleaning products are cleared to the market and have been used for animal breeding, catering, cleaning in public buildings and private households [16,17,18,19,20]. However, appropriateness and safety of probiotic products for routine application in hospitals have not, yet, been fully determined, although some studies report promising data on their genetic stability and lack of infectious potential in hospitalized patients [21, 22].

In 2022, the Commission for Hospital Hygiene and Infection Prevention (KRINKO) at the German national public health institute (Robert-Koch Institute, RKI) published new recommendations on cleaning and disinfection of surfaces in healthcare institutions [23]. Use of probiotic cleaning in hospitals was not yet recommended, as the existing evidence was considered insufficient at the time. While chemical disinfection was acknowledged as indispensable, probiotic cleaning was explicitly mentioned as an interesting approach for healthcare institutions. This assessment is justified by the potential of probiotic bacteria to establish a long-term stable microbiome, partly also replacing nosocomial pathogens. Additionally, most disinfectants only have short-term effects, can lead – also rarely - to resistances to disinfectants and cross-resistances to antibiotics, and may pose risks to both humans and the environment [23].

An expert group, mainly authors of publications on this topic, reviewed the current literature to provide a narrative review with emphasis on the most recent randomized controlled clinical trials (see supplemental material for more details). They also focused on regulatory affairs of probiotic cleaning products. Staff from the cleaning services were involved to cover practical aspects and pitfalls for implementation of probiotic cleaning in a hospital. The objectives of this narrative were set as follows:

  1. 1.

    To compare pros and cons of commonly used, commercially available products for environmental cleaning/disinfection in healthcare institutions, in particular detergents, chemical disinfectants and probiotics.

  2. 2.

    To discuss existing literature on probiotic cleaning and positioning of the technology.

  3. 3.

    To share experiences, knowledge and data on probiotic cleaning in different European hospitals.

  4. 4.

    To define knowledge gaps to be addressed by future research.

Probiotics: concepts and mechanisms

Critical illness is known to be associated with the loss of “health-promoting” commensal microorganisms and the overgrowth of pathogenic bacteria, a process being called dysbiosis [24, 25]. Beneficial effects by a high biological diversity were reported for the human microbiome of patients, but also for the hospital microbiome [26,27,28,29]. Disinfectants work not selectively by reducing/ eliminating all microorganisms on hospital surfaces. During re-colonization after disinfection, non-desirable microorganisms such as pathogens and MDRO may benefit from a lower competitive pressure for resources in the habitat. In consequence, they may outcompete harmless microorganisms [23, 30]. In contrast, the principle of probiotics is based on competitive exclusion. As a biological paradigm, species competing for the same limited resources are not able to coexist in the same biological niche [23, 31]. Probiotics colonizing the hospital environment compete with potential pathogens and MDRO for nutrients and the habitat. Some probiotic bacteria can even secrete secondary metabolites that provide them with a survival advantage. Thus, probiotic cleaning offers an eco-friendly and effective method for maintaining cleanliness and hygiene in various healthcare settings by harnessing the natural competition between beneficial bacteria and harmful pathogens.

Mostly, probiotic cleaning products not only contain probiotic species, but also prebiotics for growth promotion (e.g. inulin) and detergents. Commonly used microorganisms for probiotic formulations are Bacillus subspecies (ssp.), Lactobacillus ssp., Streptococcus ssp., Bifidobacterium ssp. and the yeast Saccharomyces ssp [1, 12]. The mechanisms resulting in probiotic cleaning effects have not been fully ascertained. The technical concepts are envisioned as follows: (i) probiotic cleaning regimens use beneficial microorganisms to clean surfaces in accordance with their biological and metabolic activities; (ii) Probiotic strains inhibit expansion and survival of potential harmful viable pathogens by competitive exclusion [1, 13, 14]. This can be achieved by direct or indirect mechanisms including lowering pH, generating compounds that inhibit the growth of pathogens or compete for nutrients [12, 13, 15]. Beyond that, probiotic strains can produce extracellular enzymes (e.g. proteases, cellulases, amylases, ureases) that are capable of metabolizing and degrading dirt, food and soil. Metabolites generated by protein degradation, fatty acids and other organic compounds can be further broken down into smaller products. These processes might be advantageous for odour control, e.g. by preventing their production or by disrupting odour-intense compounds like H2S or NH3 [12]. Some probiotic-based formulations appear to have long-lasting effects. This is shown by spore-forming bacteria like Bacillus spp. that remain on surfaces even after the cleaning process has been completed. Spores have the potential to germinate, which provides vegetative cells that are able to proliferate and prevent re-contamination by harmful microorganisms [12, 15]. This reduces the overall pathogenic bioburden and can even target MDROs. Furthermore, some probiotic species might be able to hinder pathogens from forming biofilm by reducing pathogen adhesion, co-aggregation, disrupting cell metabolism and/or interfering with quorum sensing [13].

Summary of studies on probiotics for environmental cleaning in hospitals

Reviewing existing data on probiotic cleaning in hospitals

The results of published cleaning intervention trials using probiotics are summarized in Table 1.

Table 1 Overview of publications on cleaning intervention trials included in this narrative review. CFU, colony forming units., PCHS, Probiotic Cleaning Hygiene System. spp., subspecies
Full size table

At the Charité University Medicine hospital in Berlin, Germany, two trials were conducted with the probiotic cleaning product SYNBIO® (HeiQ Chrisal NV, Lommel, Belgium) containing five different Bacillus species, i.e. B. subtilis, B. megaterium, B. licheniformis, B. pumilus and B. amyloliquefaciens. In the first trial, one neurological ward was subsequently cleaned with the probiotic product, detergents or disinfectants (for 3 month each) [28]. The study showed significant increases in biological diversity metrics (alpha-diversity) compared with disinfection in the floor (p < 0.001) and the sink samples (p < 0.01). For the door handle samples, however, alpha-diversity was significantly more diverse (p < 0.05) for detergents (compared with disinfection). Further, the probiotic cleaning product reduced the occurrence of Pseudomonas spp. in environmental samples compared with chemical disinfection [28]. In addition, the study also demonstrated a reduction of antimicrobial resistance genes (ARG) in environmental samples after cleaning hospital rooms with probiotic cleaning products compared with chemical disinfectants [28], in particular mecA resistance genes present in methicillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) [28]. The second study focused on the questions whether these effects on the hospital environment may translate into clinically relevant outcomes such as HAI or MDRO incidence. The study question was addressed by a cluster randomized controlled trial (cRCT) with cross-over design conducted in 18 non-intensive care units (non-ICUs) [32]. Disinfectants, detergents and probiotics were similarly effective for environmental cleaning as well as preventing HAI or HAI with MDRO [32].

In one Belgian and five Italian hospitals, a probiotic cleaning hygiene system (PCHS®, Copma scrl, Ferrara, Italy) was introduced [22, 33,34,35,36,37,38]. This probiotic-based sanitation is a cleaning procedure involving a probiotic product provided by HeiQ Chrisal NV (Lommel, Belgium) with three Bacillus species (B. subtilis, B. pumilus and B. megaterium) as previously described [38]. In hospital environmental samples, PCHS significantly reduced the abundance of HAI-related pathogens [22, 37, 38] and the presence of ARG [22, 34, 35, 37] compared with chemical disinfection. Parallel independent studies confirmed the reduction of contamination with pathogenic microorganisms [39, 40]. Another Italian trial conducted in a children’s hospital emergency ward suggested that PCHS cleaning was as effective as chlorine-based chemical disinfection for elimination of Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). This enveloped virus was neither detectable after PCHS cleaning nor after chemical disinfection with chlorine [37]. However, it has been shown that SARS-CoV-2 can also be effectively removed from hard, non-porous surfaces by hard-water damped wiping only [41]. PCHS was associated with a significant reduction of cumulative HAI from 4.8 to 2.3% (OR = 0.44; CI95% 0.35–0.54), a result not observed in the German cRCT [35]. Such considerable impact of PCHS may not be reproduced in other settings as limited proportion of HAI are considered preventable [42, 43]. A systematic review and meta-analysis calculated the preventable proportion of HAI to be 35 – 55% with data from 2005 to 2016 in different economic settings [43]. Similar estimations from Germany vary between 13% and 45% of HAI [42]. Antimicrobial consumption and costs were further analysed in two studies [33, 36]. PCHS saved more than 60% of HAI-related antibiotic consumption and more than 70% of associated costs [36]. These results, however, are based on 398 patients with HAI selected from the before-after trial by Caselli et al. [35]. Tarricone and colleagues estimated that 14 million Euro might be saved if PCHS use was increased from 5 to 50% over a period of five years [33]. However, the expert group questioned that these results are transferable to other hospitals given the different hospital settings, study designs, control groups and interventions applied. The German trial used a more robust study design (cross over cRCT) but was a single-center study. In contrast, the Italian trial used a study design more prone to bias (before-after design), but was multi-centered. Cleaning protocols and disinfectants varied with 2-phenoxyethanol, 3-aminopropyldodecylamine, benzalkonium chloride (Indicin Pro®) in Germany versus chlorine-products in Italy. Most importantly, the German trial was conducted in a setting with 1.6% HAI incidence compared to the Italian trial with 4.6%. However, both products were provided by the same company. The probiotic product used in the German trial contained five different Bacillus species (B. subtilis (ATCC6051), B. megaterium (ATCC14581), B. licheniformis (ATCC12713), B. pumilus (ATCC14884) and B. amyloliquefaciens (DSL13563-0)). For the Italian trial, a patented cleaning concept (PCHS®) was implemented that included probiotic detergent with three Bacillus species (B. subtilis, B. pumilus and B. megaterium). Further, the duration of intervention was different (4 months in the German trial versus 6 months in the Italian trial), as well as timing of sampling. In the Italian trial, sampling was always performed seven hours after cleaning (thus allowing recontamination) whereas in the German study the sampling time was variable and resulting data could be affected by residual action of disinfectants in the chemical sanitation arm. Furthermore, the German study results might be limited by the fact that probiotic cleaning was interrupted by terminal and / or targeted disinfection, in particular if patient rooms were occupied with carriers of MDROs or other notifiable pathogens. Emergency chemical disinfection also occurred in the Italian studies, where only continuous usage of sporicidal disinfectants was shown to prevent probiotic sanitation effects [44, 45]. A limitation that might have occurred in both trials was cross-contamination by shoes or hands of healthcare workers between study arms or wards participating in the trials and those not.

Hospital cleaning is considered an important part of infection control [29, 46,47,48,49]. Appropriate cleaning practices require a number of careful decisions, e.g. cleaning frequencies, materials, techniques, equipment and agents used as well as identification of critical- und non-critical areas. At the same time, the amount of research on basic cleaning is limited [29]. Evidence-based decision making in this field is challenging as, to date, there is no standard methodology for measuring microbial bioburden on surfaces, nor are there international benchmark standards for surface bioburden levels indicating potential infection risks [29, 50]. Indeed, understanding the difference between the terms ‘cleaning and ‘cleanliness’ remains an issue and is crucial when sharing expertise on this topic. While ‘cleaning‘ represents the physical process of removing surface soil, ‘cleanliness‘ is defined as residual soil on surfaces after the cleaning process [29]. Assessment of cleanliness is possible by identification and quantification of indicator organisms that pose a high risk to patients (< 1 cfu/cm²) such as C. difficile or S. aureus. This can be performed alongside quantitative assessment of organisms on hand-touch sites using microbiological sampling (< 2.5–5.0 cfu/cm²) or adenosine triphosphate (ATP) counts using ATP bioluminescence systems as surrogate markers for bioburden [48, 50]. In contrast, fluorescent markers and ATP bioluminescence systems as well as direct supervision, observation and education of housekeeping staff are used to monitor the cleaning process [48]. Both surrogate markers do not necessarily correlated with the bioburden. A prospective cross-over trial conducted on two hospital wards in the United Kingdom (UK) demonstrated that enhanced cleaning was associated with a reduction of microbial contamination at hand-touch sites by 32.5% and reduced the number of new MRSA infections by 26.6% [51]. Cost savings were estimated between 30,000–70,000 pounds in this trial [51]. Enhanced cleaning was performed with detergents and included one additional cleaner per ward who focused on high-touch surfaces such as door handles, infusion pumps and computer keyboards. Disinfectants were not routinely used on these wards other than bleach (sodium hypochlorite) for bathrooms [51]. Thus, enhanced cleaning without changing any substances but increasing staff and cleaning frequencies reduced more than 25% of new MRSA infections compared with the standard cleaning protocol [51]. This supports the argument that physical removal of surface bioburden might be more important than the substances applied. It is possible that microfiber and water by themselves may be sufficient for routine cleaning in most cases. Despite the variations of the probiotic trials discussed above, there is consensus that probiotic cleaning was non-inferior compared with disinfectants in both trials [32, 35].

What is the added value of probiotic cleaning for the decontamination of the hospital environment?

Many healthcare institutions still do not prioritize environmental cleaning as essential measure for patient safety [52]. The impact of environmental control on HAI incidences is difficult to assess, as multiple factors such as failure with hand hygiene, susceptible patients, and infectious material (inoculum) are required to induce infection. Recently, awareness for this topic has grown due to an increasing number of studies that link interventions in the hospital with lower HAI rates and/ or patient colonization [52]. Further, a RCT emphasized the importance of cleaning / disinfecting the hospital room before the next patient is admitted [12].

Some evidence exists on the fact that probiotic cleaning may have additional benefits concerning sustainability, cost-effectiveness, occupational safety, sustaining a biologically diverse hospital microbiome, and odor control, compared with chemical disinfection. Chemical disinfectants have been used for decades, especially in high-risk areas such as intensive care units (ICUs). Even highly effective substances were shown to have limited impact, as re-colonization rapidly occurred after disinfection [53]. MDROs were found in dry surface biofilms from ICU surfaces despite terminal cleaning with disinfectants, e.g. with chlorine solution [54, 55]. Similarly, terminal chemical disinfection is frequently insufficient to eradicate Candida auris [4].

It is not known whether probiotic cleaning might be an adequate supplement to fill this gap as suggested by some trials analysing environmental samples [22, 28, 35], or whether additional procedures such as UV decontamination are required to safely remove MDROs.

Heavy and repetitive use of antiseptics and disinfectants are associated with reduced tolerances of clinical isolates to these agents, development of cross-resistance to antibiotics and other potentially detrimental effects on health and environment [1, 56, 57]. As an example, emergence of resistance to glutaraldehyde has been observed [58]. Another worrisome trend is the occurrence of cross-resistances among disinfectants and antimicrobials [59]. In addition, chemical disinfectants are harmful to the environment and their handling is potentially hazardous to health of cleaning staff and healthcare workers. More specifically, currently used chemical disinfectants such as glucoprotamin, aldehydes, and quaternary ammonium compounds may form phenolics and aldehyde toxic fumes that are problematic for health and the environment. Further, the use of glucoprotamin in its concentrated form requires specific carefulness and personal protective equipment by hospital staff [60].

Therefore, new technologies and compounds are required to add to the currently available disinfectants that are at least equally effective, but less harmful to the environment and wellbeing of healthcare workers and cleaning staff.

Advantages and disadvantages of three cleaning regimens - detergents, disinfectants and probiotics - identified by the expert group are summarized in Table 2. The most important priority is patient safety, but other aspects such as sustainability, costs, occupational safety, effects on the environmental microbiome and applicability must also be considered and weighed up against each other.

Table 2 Characteristics of cleaning regimes stratified by advantages (pro) and disadvantages (contra) as discussed during the workshop. Results presented here represent consensus of all workshop participants
Full size table

Defining knowledge gaps that need to be addressed by future research

This narrative review does not discuss bacteriophage preparations such as probiotic-phage sanitation (PCHSϕ) [61]. The latter contains probiotic detergents and bacteriophage preparations (e.g. a mixture of selected lytic phages directed against Staphylococcus spp., Streptococcus spp., Proteus spp., E. coli and Pseudomonas (P.) aeruginosa) that are commercially available by the Eliava Institute (Staphylococcal phage and Pyophage; GA, USA). This is beyond the scope of this work, as clinical outcome studies are not yet published.

Some trials showed the effect of probiotic cleaning products against enveloped viruses such as SARS-CoV-2 in controlled laboratory conditions, in hospital (emergency room of a children’s hospital) and non-hospital settings [37, 45, 62]. However, data on non-enveloped viruses, e.g. noroviruses, are lacking.

Another question concerns the best composition of probiotic detergents. Various in vitro studies show that probiotic species such as Bacillus and Lactobacillus spp. may be used for biofilm control of relevant pathogens in hospitals including Enterococcus faecium, S. aureus, Klebsiella pneumoniae, Acinetobacter baumannii, P. aeruginosa, Enterobacter species, and Escherichia coli [63]. Molecular analyses revealed that probiotic-based products reduced the antimicrobial resistance (AMR) related gene expression in K. pneumoniae, but not in A. baumanii [1]. Another in vitro study compared hospital surfaces that were treated for eight months either with disinfectants (3.5% sodium hypochlorite), soap (saponified vegetable extract, essential oils, natural gum) or a probiotic cleaner (Bacterrorist non-toxic all-purpose cleaner) containing spores of Bacillus spp. [64]. Subsequently, in vitro experiments investigated whether the “resident microbiome” established during the 8-months-cleaning regimens with either disinfectants, soap or a probiotic cleaner could be overwhelmed by the pathogens E. coli, S. aureus and biofilm-generating P. aeruginosa. Resident microbiomes of surfaces treated with soap and probiotic cleaning but not disinfectants successfully outcompeted E. coli and S. aureus. At the same time, the resident microbiome overwhelmed P. aeruginosa on surfaces treated with soap, while the resident microbiome on surfaces treated with probiotic cleansers failed to completely replace P. aeruginosa. Thus, not only the mass of microbial cells but also a higher diversity of microbial species seems to be critical to outcompete certain pathogens including biofilm-forming P. aeruginosa. The resident microbiome on surfaces treated with disinfectants (sodium hypochlorite) were totally overwhelmed by biofilm-forming P. aeruginosa [64].

Routine and widespread application of probiotic cleaning products in hospitals require regulations, safety standards and quality controls that need to be determined, followed and monitored by public authorities to ensure patient safety. Such quality regulations and their clearance by public authorities are essential on the international, but also on the national level. They could represent a crucial step to overcome hurdles that currently prevent this novel option from achieving its breakthrough. These regulations must be realistic and safe, but flexible enough to enable further innovation. The European Union (EU) has already addressed products containing microorganisms, i.e. probiotics, in its “Proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on detergents and surfactants, amending Regulation (EU) 2019/1020 and repealing Regulation (EC) No 648/2004 (COM(2023)217) [65]. Herein, the authors determine that microorganisms intentionally added to detergents, “shall have an American Type Culture Collection (ATCC) number, belong to a collection of an International Depository Authority (IDA) or have had their DNA identified in accordance with a “Strain identification protocol” (using 16S ribosomal DNA sequencing or an equivalent method) […]” [65]. It should be noted that methods applied for strain identification in this context such as 16S ribosomal DNA sequencing must have sufficient accuracy to discriminate between bacterial species. It is not sufficient to aim at the genus level as different species of the same genus can be highly diverse. In general, all living organisms added to detergents that are used in healthcare environments including hospitals must be well characterized preferably by whole genome sequencing.

Despite the fact that some trials demonstrated the reduction of ARG in environmental samples after probiotic cleaning compared with disinfectants [22, 28, 35], there is no evidence for the reduction of newly acquired MDRO by patients after probiotic cleaning [32]. Thus, the potential of probiotic cleaning to reduce antimicrobial resistance genes in the environment, newly acquired MDRO and HAI among patients needs to be addressed in future research. Such trials need to be sufficiently powered, use a robust study design and should, if possible, also include conventional detergent as a control group [29].

Conclusions

In conclusion, probiotic cleaning is a promising and innovative technology to treat healthcare environments. Current data provide strong evidence to continue researching on probiotic cleaning and gather practical experiences. It has been found to increase biological diversity, reduce the occurrence of certain pathogens, and decrease the presence of ARG in environmental samples. However, the evidence is still not yet sufficient for a paradigm shift to its routine use in hospitals. Currently, the products may show additional benefits at similar cost in areas, where environmental cleaning with detergents was standard of care. High-quality, multi-national, multi-center RCTs with sufficient statistical power are necessary to evaluate the effect of probiotic cleaning on HAI and MDRO acquisition in hospitals. Effectiveness and sustainability are crucial considerations for any new cleaning practices in healthcare institutions. These practices should align with the overall goal of preventing HAIs and controlling the spread of MDRO. While this narrative review summarizes and evaluates the current evidence, further studies and meta-analyses are needed to definitively determine if and where probiotic cleaning can replace or supplement conventional chemical disinfection. Fully understanding the benefits and limitations of probiotic cleaning is essential before considering a paradigm shift toward this environmentally safe approach for cleaning healthcare environments.

Data availability

No datasets were generated or analysed during the current study.

References

  1. Hu J, Shuai W, Sumner JT, Moghadam AA, Hartmann EM. Clinically relevant pathogens on surfaces display differences in survival and transcriptomic response in relation to probiotic and traditional cleaning strategies. NPJ Biofilms Microbiomes. 2022;8(1):72.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Pittet D, Hugonnet S, Harbarth S, Mourouga P, Sauvan V, Touveneau S, Perneger TV. Effectiveness of a hospital-wide programme to improve compliance with hand hygiene. Infect Control Programme Lancet. 2000;356(9238):1307–12.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Tacconelli E, Cataldo MA, Dancer SJ, De Angelis G, Falcone M, Frank U, et al. ESCMID guidelines for the management of the infection control measures to reduce transmission of multidrug-resistant Gram-negative bacteria in hospitalized patients. Clin Microbiol Infect. 2014;20(Suppl 1):1–55.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Sansom SE, Gussin GM, Schoeny M, Singh RD, Adil H, Bell P, et al. Rapid Environmental Contamination with Candida Auris and Multidrug-resistant bacterial pathogens near colonized patients. Clinical infectious diseases: an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America; 2023.

    Google Scholar 

  5. de Man TJB, Yaffee AQ, Zhu W, Batra D, Alyanak E, Rowe LA, et al. Multispecies Outbreak of Verona Integron-Encoded Metallo-ß-Lactamase-Producing Multidrug Resistant Bacteria Driven by a promiscuous incompatibility Group A/C2 plasmid. Clin Infect Diseases: Official Publication Infect Dis Soc Am. 2021;72(3):414–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Kramer A, Assadian O. Survival of microorganisms on inanimate surfaces. Use Biocidal Surfaces for Reduction of Healthcare Acquired Infections. 2014;7–26.

  7. Wendt C, Wiesenthal B, Dietz E, Rüden H. Survival of Vancomycin-resistant and Vancomycin-susceptible enterococci on dry surfaces. J Clin Microbiol. 1998;36(12):3734–6.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Benulič K, Pirš M, Couto N, Chlebowicz M, Rossen JWA, Zorec TM, et al. Whole genome sequencing characterization of Slovenian carbapenem-resistant Klebsiella pneumoniae, including OXA-48 and NDM-1 producing outbreak isolates. PLoS ONE. 2020;15(4):e0231503.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Emeraud C, Birer A, Girlich D, Jousset AB, Creton E, Naas T, et al. Polyclonal dissemination of OXA-232 carbapenemase-producing Klebsiella pneumoniae, France, 2013–2021. Emerg Infect Dis. 2022;28(11):2304–7.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Ludden C, Lötsch F, Alm E, Kumar N, Johansson K, Albiger B et al. Cross-border spread of bla(NDM-1)- and bla(OXA-48)-positive Klebsiella pneumoniae: a European collaborative analysis of whole genome sequencing and epidemiological data, 2014 to 2019. Euro Surveill. 2020;25(20).

  11. Sandfort M, Hans JB, Fischer MA, Reichert F, Cremanns M, Eisfeld J et al. Increase in NDM-1 and NDM-1/OXA-48-producing Klebsiella pneumoniae in Germany associated with the war in Ukraine, 2022. Euro Surveill. 2022;27(50).

  12. Anderson DJ, Chen LF, Weber DJ, Moehring RW, Lewis SS, Triplett PF, et al. Enhanced terminal room disinfection and acquisition and infection caused by multidrug-resistant organisms and Clostridium difficile (the benefits of enhanced terminal room disinfection study): a cluster-randomised, multicentre, crossover study. Lancet. 2017;389(10071):805–14.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Thom KA, Rock C, Robinson GL, Reisinger HS, Baloh J, Li S, et al. Direct gloving vs Hand Hygiene before donning gloves in adherence to hospital infection Control practices: a Cluster Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA Netw Open. 2023;6(10):e2336758.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Stiefel U, Cadnum JL, Eckstein BC, Guerrero DM, Tima MA, Donskey CJ. Contamination of hands with methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus after contact with environmental surfaces and after contact with the skin of colonized patients. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2011;32(2):185–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Harris AD, Pineles L, Belton B, Johnson JK, Shardell M, Loeb M, et al. Universal glove and gown use and acquisition of antibiotic-resistant bacteria in the ICU: a randomized trial. JAMA. 2013;310(15):1571–80.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. BETCO and Environzyme. Betco® Launches New Probiotic Cleaning Program and Products [ https://www.betco.com/about/betco-news/blog/2022/10/07/betco-launches-new-probiotic-cleaning-program-and-products

  17. Chrisal HEIQ. Synbiotics. 2023 [ https://www.heiq.com/inside-heiq/heiq-chrisal/

  18. Ingenious Probiotics. Denaa + Sanitary Cleaner - Probiotic commercial cleaning [ https://ingenious-probiotics.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/DENAA-Probiotic-Commercial-Cleaning-Range-05.21.pdf

  19. Novozymes. Microvia TM Pro [ https://www.novozymes.com/en/products/microbial-cleaning/microvia-pro

  20. Pollet Cleaning and Hygiene Solutions. Probiotics - PolVita [ https://en.pollet.eu/about-us/expertise/probiotics/

  21. Caselli E, Antonioli P, Mazzacane S. Safety of probiotics used for hospital environmental sanitation. J Hosp Infect. 2016;94(2):193–4.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Caselli E, D’Accolti M, Vandini A, Lanzoni L, Camerada MT, Coccagna M, et al. Impact of a probiotic-based cleaning intervention on the Microbiota Ecosystem of the Hospital surfaces: Focus on the Resistome Remodulation. PLoS ONE. 2016;11(2):e0148857.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. Kommission für Krankenhaushygiene. Und Infektionsprävention (KRINKO) beim Robert Koch-Institut. Anforderungen an die Hygiene Bei Der Reinigung Und Desinfektion Von Flächen: Empfehlung Der Kommission für krankenhaushygiene und Infektionsprävention (KRINKO) beim Robert Koch-Institut. Bundesgesundheitsblatt Gesundheitsforschung Gesundheitsschutz. 2022;65(10):1074–115.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. McDonald D, Ackermann G, Khailova L, Baird C, Heyland D, Kozar R et al. Extreme Dysbiosis Microbiome Crit Illn mSphere. 2016;1(4).

  25. Klassert TE, Zubiria-Barrera C, Denkel L, Neubert R, Schneegans A, Kulle A, et al. Skin dysbiosis and loss of microbiome site specificity in critically ill patients. Microbiol Spectr. 2024;12(3):e0307823.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Arnold C. Rethinking sterile: the hospital microbiome. Environ Health Perspect. 2014;122(7):A182–7.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. Christoff AP, Sereia AF, Hernandes C, de Oliveira LF. Uncovering the hidden microbiota in hospital and built environments: new approaches and solutions. Exp Biol Med (Maywood). 2019;244(6):534–42.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Klassert TE, Zubiria-Barrera C, Neubert R, Stock M, Schneegans A, López M, et al. Comparative analysis of surface sanitization protocols on the bacterial community structures in the hospital environment. Clin Microbiol Infect. 2022;28(8):1105–1112.

  29. Dancer SJ. Hospital cleaning: past, present, and future. Antimicrob Resist Infect Control. 2023;12(1):80.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  30. Hibbing ME, Fuqua C, Parsek MR, Peterson SB. Bacterial competition: surviving and thriving in the microbial jungle. Nat Rev Microbiol. 2010;8(1):15–25.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Abt MC, Pamer EG. Commensal bacteria mediated defenses against pathogens. Curr Opin Immunol. 2014;29:16–22.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Leistner R, Kohlmorgen B, Brodzinski A, Schwab F, Lemke E, Zakonsky G, Gastmeier P. Environmental cleaning to prevent hospital-acquired infections on non-intensive care units: a pragmatic, single-centre, cluster randomized controlled, crossover trial comparing soap-based, disinfection and probiotic cleaning. EClinicalMedicine. 2023;59:101958.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  33. Tarricone R, Rognoni C, Arnoldo L, Mazzacane S, Caselli E. A probiotic-based Sanitation System for the Reduction of Healthcare Associated Infections and Antimicrobial resistances: a Budget Impact Analysis. Pathogens. 2020;9(6).

  34. Caselli E, Arnoldo L, Rognoni C, D’Accolti M, Soffritti I, Lanzoni L, et al. Impact of a probiotic-based hospital sanitation on antimicrobial resistance and HAI-associated antimicrobial consumption and costs: a multicenter study. Infect Drug Resist. 2019;12:501–10.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Caselli E, Brusaferro S, Coccagna M, Arnoldo L, Berloco F, Antonioli P, et al. Reducing healthcare-associated infections incidence by a probiotic-based sanitation system: a multicentre, prospective, intervention study. PLoS ONE. 2018;13(7):e0199616.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  36. Caselli E, D’Accolti M, Soffritti I, Lanzoni L, Bisi M, Volta A, et al. An innovative strategy for the effective reduction of MDR pathogens from the nosocomial environment. Adv Exp Med Biol. 2019;1214:79–91.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Soffritti I, D’Accolti M, Cason C, Lanzoni L, Bisi M, Volta A, et al. Introduction of probiotic-based sanitation in the Emergency Ward of a children’s Hospital during the COVID-19 pandemic. Infect Drug Resist. 2022;15:1399–410.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Vandini A, Temmerman R, Frabetti A, Caselli E, Antonioli P, Balboni PG, et al. Hard surface biocontrol in hospitals using microbial-based cleaning products. PLoS ONE. 2014;9(9):e108598.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  39. Al-Marzooq F, Bayat SA, Sayyar F, Ishaq H, Nasralla H, Koutaich R, Kawas SA. Can probiotic cleaning solutions replace chemical disinfectants in dental clinics? Eur J Dent. 2018;12(4):532–9.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  40. Fauci Vl, Costa G, Anastasi F, Facciolà A, Grillo O, Squeri R. An innovative approach to hospital sanitization using probiotics: in vitro and field trials. J Microb Biochem Technol. 2015;7:3

  41. Nelson SW, Hardison RL, Limmer R, Marx J, Taylor BM, James RR et al. Efficacy of detergent-based cleaning and wiping against SARS-CoV-2 on high-touch surfaces. Lett Appl Microbiol. 2023;76(3).

  42. Gastmeier P, Brunkhorst F, Schrappe M, Kern W, Geffers C. [How many nosocomial infections are avoidable?]. Dtsch Med Wochenschr. 2010;135(3):91–3.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  43. Schreiber PW, Sax H, Wolfensberger A, Clack L, Kuster SP. The preventable proportion of healthcare-associated infections 2005–2016: systematic review and meta-analysis. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2018;39(11):1277–95.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. D’Accolti M, Soffritti I, Bini F, Mazziga E, Arnoldo L, Volta A et al. Potential Use of a Combined Bacteriophage-Probiotic Sanitation System to Control Microbial Contamination and AMR in Healthcare Settings: A Pre-Post Intervention Study. Int J Mol Sci. 2023;24(7).

  45. D’Accolti M, Soffritti I, Bini F, Mazziga E, Cason C, Comar M, et al. Shaping the subway microbiome through probiotic-based sanitation during the COVID-19 emergency: a pre-post case-control study. Microbiome. 2023;11(1):64–83.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  46. Dancer SJ. Mopping up hospital infection. J Hosp Infect. 1999;43(2):85–100.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  47. Dancer SJ. Importance of the environment in meticillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus acquisition: the case for hospital cleaning. Lancet Infect Dis. 2008;8(2):101–13.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Dancer SJ. Controlling hospital-acquired infection: focus on the role of the environment and new technologies for decontamination. Clin Microbiol Rev. 2014;27(4):665–90.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  49. Dancer SJ. Dos and don’ts for hospital cleaning. Curr Opin Infect Dis. 2016;29(4):415–23.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Dancer SJ. How do we assess hospital cleaning? A proposal for microbiological standards for surface hygiene in hospitals. J Hosp Infect. 2004;56(1):10–5.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  51. Dancer SJ, White LF, Lamb J, Girvan EK, Robertson C. Measuring the effect of enhanced cleaning in a UK hospital: a prospective cross-over study. BMC Med. 2009;7:28.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  52. Peters A, Schmid MN, Parneix P, Lebowitz D, de Kraker M, Sauser J, et al. Impact of environmental hygiene interventions on healthcare-associated infections and patient colonization: a systematic review. Antimicrob Resist Infect Control. 2022;11(1):38.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  53. Meinke R, Meyer B, Frei R, Passweg J, Widmer AF. Equal efficacy of glucoprotamin and an aldehyde product for environmental disinfection in a hematologic transplant unit: a prospective crossover trial. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2012;33(11):1077–80.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Hu H, Johani K, Gosbell IB, Jacombs AS, Almatroudi A, Whiteley GS, et al. Intensive care unit environmental surfaces are contaminated by multidrug-resistant bacteria in biofilms: combined results of conventional culture, pyrosequencing, scanning electron microscopy, and confocal laser microscopy. J Hosp Infect. 2015;91(1):35–44.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  55. Vickery K, Deva A, Jacombs A, Allan J, Valente P, Gosbell IB. Presence of biofilm containing viable multiresistant organisms despite terminal cleaning on clinical surfaces in an intensive care unit. J Hosp Infect. 2012;80(1):52–5.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  56. Hardy K, Sunnucks K, Gil H, Shabir S, Trampari E, Hawkey P, Webber M. Increased usage of Antiseptics is Associated with reduced susceptibility in clinical isolates of Staphylococcus aureus. mBio. 2018;9(3).

  57. Htun HL, Hon PY, Holden MTG, Ang B, Chow A. Chlorhexidine and octenidine use, carriage of qac genes, and reduced antiseptic susceptibility in methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus isolates from a healthcare network. Clin Microbiol Infect. 2019;25(9):1154.e1-.e7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Tschudin-Sutter S, Frei R, Kampf G, Tamm M, Pflimlin E, Battegay M, Widmer AF. Emergence of glutaraldehyde-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2011;32(12):1173–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Chuanchuen R, Beinlich K, Hoang TT, Becher A, Karkhoff-Schweizer RR, Schweizer HP. Cross-resistance between triclosan and antibiotics in Pseudomonas aeruginosa is mediated by multidrug efflux pumps: exposure of a susceptible mutant strain to triclosan selects nfxB mutants overexpressing MexCD-OprJ. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2001;45(2):428–32.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  60. Widmer AE, Frei R. Antimicrobial activity of glucoprotamin: a clinical study of a new disinfectant for instruments. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2003;24(10):762–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. D’Accolti M, Soffritti I, Piffanelli M, Bisi M, Mazzacane S, Caselli E. Efficient removal of hospital pathogens from hard surfaces by a combined use of bacteriophages and probiotics: potential as sanitizing agents. Infect Drug Resist. 2018;11:1015–26.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  62. D’Accolti M, Soffritti I, Bonfante F, Ricciardi W, Mazzacane S, Caselli E. Potential of an Eco-sustainable Probiotic-Cleaning Formulation in reducing infectivity of enveloped viruses. Viruses. 2021;13(11).

  63. Neidhöfer C, Rathore K, Parčina M, Sieber MA. ESKAPEE Pathogen Biofilm Control on surfaces with Probiotic Lactobacillaceae and Bacillus species. Antibiot (Basel). 2023;12(5).

  64. Stone W, Tolmay J, Tucker K, Wolfaardt GM. Disinfectant, soap or Probiotic Cleaning? Surface Microbiome Diversity and Biofilm Competitive Exclusion. Microorganisms. 2020;8(11).

  65. Regulations of the European parliament and of the council on detergents and surfactants, amending Regulation (EU) 2019/1020 and repealing Regulation (EC) No 648/2004. (2024).

Download references

Funding

The workshop held to generate this narrative review was funded by the company Chrisal / Heiq.

Open Access funding enabled and organized by Projekt DEAL.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute of Hygiene and Environmental Medicine, Charité Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Corporate Member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin and Berlin Institute of Health, Hindenburgdamm 27, 12203, Berlin, Germany

    Luisa A. Denkel, Rasmus Leistner & Petra Gastmeier

  2. National Reference Center for the Surveillance of Nosocomial Infections, Charité Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Corporate Member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin and Berlin Institute of Health, Berlin, Germany

    Luisa A. Denkel, Rasmus Leistner & Petra Gastmeier

  3. Department of Medical Microbiology and Infection Control, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands

    Andreas Voss

  4. Section of Microbiology, Department of Chemical, Pharmaceutical, and Agricultural Sciences, University of Ferrara, Ferrara, Italy

    Elisabetta Caselli

  5. NHS Lanarkshire & Edinburgh Napier University, Edinburgh, UK

    Stephanie J. Dancer

  6. Department of Gastroenterology, Infectious Diseases and Rheumatology, Charité Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Corporate Member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin and Berlin Institute of Health, Berlin, Germany

    Rasmus Leistner

  7. Faculty of Medicine, University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland

    Andreas F. Widmer

  8. Swissnoso – Swiss National Center for Infection Prevention, Bern, Switzerland

    Andreas F. Widmer

Authors
  1. Luisa A. Denkel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  2. Andreas Voss
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  3. Elisabetta Caselli
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  4. Stephanie J. Dancer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  5. Rasmus Leistner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  6. Petra Gastmeier
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  7. Andreas F. Widmer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Conceptualization, supervision and workshop moderation were provided by P.G. and A.W. All authors attended a joint workshop. R.L., S.D, E.C., and L.A.D. gave oral presentations during this workshop. L.A.D. wrote the main manuscript text and prepared all tables. All authors reviewed and edited the main manuscript text and tables.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Luisa A. Denkel.

Ethics declarations

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Use of artificial intelligence (AI) technologies

Microsoft Copilot (2024) was used to write the abstract and conclusion of this narrative review. Subsequently to using these technologies, the first author reviewed and edited the content as needed and takes full responsibility for this work. All authors have reviewed and edited all versions generated by the first author.

Competing interests

Conflicts of interest to declare: This workshop was financially supported by Chrisal / Heiq. LAD and AW are members of the editorial board of the journal Antimicrobial Resistance & Infection Control. On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author states that there are no further conflicts of interest.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary Material 1

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Denkel, L.A., Voss, A., Caselli, E. et al. Can probiotics trigger a paradigm shift for cleaning healthcare environments? A narrative review. Antimicrob Resist Infect Control 13, 119 (2024). https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1186/s13756-024-01474-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1186/s13756-024-01474-6

Keywords

Antimicrobial Resistance & Infection Control

ISSN: 2047-2994

Contact us