Closed-system drug-transfer devices plus safe handling of hazardous drugs versus safe handling alone for reducing exposure to infusional hazardous drugs in healthcare staff

Evaluation of the risk of occupational exposure to antineoplastic drugs in healthcare sector: part I - medical gloves

Antineoplastic drugs (ADs) are essential tools in cancer treatment, but their cytotoxicity poses a risk to workers involved in their handling. In a hospital environment fundamental strategies for minimising exposure involve proper use of safety cabinets and closed-circuit transfer devices, along with personnel training and increased awareness of risks. However, medical gloves remain the first line of defence. In this respect the evaluation of glove materials and best choices can improve hospital safety management and prevent potential hazards and long-term consequences. The aim of this study was to assess contamination of gloves in samples taken from AD administration and preparation units of nine Italian hospitals and to raise awareness of the importance of evaluating chemico-physical properties of gloves. Our findings show that 33 % of the analysed gloves were positive for at least one AD, with contaminations ranging from 0.6 to 20,729 pg/ cm2. We proposed the alert glove values (AGVs) for each AD as a limit value for contamination assessment and good practice evaluation. Our findings also point to multiple AD contamination (43 % of positive findings in preparation units), calculated as total AGV (AGV-T), and confirm that gloves should be replaced after 30 min of AD handling, based on cumulative permeation and area under the curve (AUC), to maintain safety and limit dermal exposure.

A simple approach to assess the cancer risk of occupational exposure to genotoxic drugs in healthcare settings

Background

Several drugs for human use possess genotoxic properties as a necessary consequence of their intended therapeutic effect (e.g. antineoplastics). Health workers may be exposed to these chemicals in various occupational settings such as dose preparation and administration. To date, there are no quantitative risk assessment models to estimate the cancer risk of health workers due to the handling of genotoxic drugs. We therefore developed a quantitative risk assessment model to assess the cancer risk of occupational exposure to genotoxic drugs in healthcare settings based on the threshold of toxicological concern (TTC) concept. This model was used to evaluate the cancer risk of health workers due to the handling of genotoxic drugs in modern health care facilities.

Methods

We modified the threshold of toxicological concern (TTC) concept to fit the purpose of occupational cancer risk assessment. The risk model underlying ICH guideline M7 (R1): “assessment and control of DNA reactive (mutagenic) impurities in pharmaceuticals to limit potential carcinogenic risk” was used as a starting point for our model. We conducted a short review of studies on the occupational exposure of health workers to genotoxic drugs. These occupational exposure data were compared to the acceptable exposure levels resulting from our TTC based risk model.

Results

Based on the threshold of toxicological concern (TTC) concept, we defined an acceptable daily intake (ADI) of 4 μg/day as threshold of no concern for the exposure of health workers to genotoxic drugs. Regarding the dermal exposure of health workers to genotoxic drugs, we derived a corresponding acceptable surface contamination level (ASCL) of 20 ng/cm². Both ADI and ASCL are usually not exceeded in modern healthcare settings. Current safety precautions provide sufficient protection to health workers.

Conclusions

The application of our model indicates that workers in modern healthcare facilities are not at risk of developing work related cancer above widely accepted cancer risk levels due to the occupational exposure to genotoxic drugs. Hence, the present study may assist employers and public authorities to make informed decisions concerning the need for (further) protective measures and during risk communication to health workers.

Exposure to Antineoplastic Drugs in Occupational Settings: A Systematic Review of Biological Monitoring Data

The high toxicity of antineoplastic drugs (ADs) makes them dangerous not only for patients, but also for exposed workers. Therefore, the aim of this review was to provide an updated overview of the biological monitoring of occupational AD exposure in order to extrapolate information useful to improve risk assessment and management strategies in workplaces. Several studies demonstrated that remarkable portions of healthcare workers may have traces of these substances or their metabolites in biological fluids, although with some conflicting results. Nurses, directly engaged in AD handling, were the occupational category at higher risk of contamination, although, in some cases, personnel not involved in AD-related tasks also showed quantifiable internal doses. Overall, further research carried out on greater sample sizes appears necessary to gain deeper insight into the variability retrieved in the reported results. This may be important to understand the impact of the extent of ADs use, different handling, procedures, and cleaning practices, spill occurrence, training of the workforce, as well as the adoption of adequate collective and personal protective equipment in affecting the occupational exposure levels. This may support the achievement of the greatest clinical efficiency of such therapies while assuring the health and safety of involved workers.

Occupational exposure to antineoplastic drugs: what about hospital sanitation personnel?

OBJECTIVE

Occupational exposure to antineoplastic drugs (ANPs) occurs mainly through dermal contact. Our study was set up to assess the potential exposure of hospital sanitation (HS) personnel, for whom almost no data are available, through contamination of surfaces they regularly touch.

METHODS

In the oncology departments of two hospitals around Montreal, surface wipe samples of 120-2000 cm² were taken at 10 sites cleaned by the HS personnel and five other sites frequently touched by nursing and pharmacy personnel. A few hand wipe samples were collected to explore skin contamination. Wipes were analyzed by ultra-performance liquid chromatography tandem-mass spectrometry for 10 ANPs.

RESULTS

Overall, 60.9% of 212 surface samples presented at least one ANP above the limits of detection (LOD). Cyclophosphamide and gemcitabine were most often detected (52% and 31% of samples respectively), followed by 5-fluorouracil and irinotecan (15% each). Highest concentrations of five ANPs were found in outpatient clinics on toilet floors (5-fluorouracil, 49 ng/cm²; irinotecan, 3.6 ng/cm²), a perfusion pump (cyclophosphamide, 19.6 ng/cm²) and on a cytotoxic waste bin cover (gemcitabine, 4.97 ng/cm²). Floors in patient rooms had highest levels of cytarabine (0.12 ng/cm²) and methotrexate (6.38 ng/cm²). Hand wipes were positive for two of 12 samples taken on HS personnel, seven of 18 samples on nurses, and two of 14 samples on pharmacy personnel.

CONCLUSIONS

A notable proportion of surfaces showed measurable levels of ANPs, with highest concentrations found on surfaces cleaned by HS personnel, who would benefit from appropriate preventive training. As potential sources of worker exposure, several hospital surfaces need to be regularly monitored to evaluate environmental contamination and efficacy of cleaning.

Evaluation of a safe infusion device on reducing occupational exposure of nurses to antineoplastic drugs: a comparative prospective study. Contamoins-1

PURPOSE

Despite the decreasing of environmental contamination throughout the anticancer drug circuit, the administration of chemotherapies remains at risk of occupational exposure for nurses. Many medical devices aim at securing administration, but none have been scientifically evaluated to verify the actual improvement.

METHODS

A monocentric comparative before/after study was carried out in an oncology day hospital to evaluate the efficacy of Safe Infusion Devices in reducing drug exposure compared to usual infusion practices. The rate of nurses' gloves contamination was estimated. To avoid false negatives and to ensure sampling reproducibility, each sample of gloves was contaminated with a drop of topotecan. Association between contamination and other variables was investigated using a multivariate logistic regression analysis.

RESULTS

The usual practice led to a rate of 58.3% of contaminated samples while Safe Infusion Devices to a rate of 15%: Safe Infusion Devices reduced the risk of gloves contamination by 85% in multivariate analysis (Odds ratio = 0.15; 95% confidence interval = 0.05-0.46; p < 0.001). Topotecan was identified in 100% of the samples. Only one case of cross-contamination has occurred.

CONCLUSION

Despite the current practice of using neutral solvent-purged infusers, the occupational exposure remains high for nurses and Safe Infusion Devices significantly reduced this risk of exposure. However, glove contamination is only a surrogate endpoint. The results confirmed that the disconnection of empty bags resulted in occupational exposure. Except a contamination due to the leakage of a bag, no cross-contamination was detected. Safe Infusion Devices were highly effective but did not completely eliminate exposure.

Advanced Medical Devices for Preparation and Administration of Chemotherapeutic Agents: Results from a Multi-Dimensional Evaluation

Purpose

To evaluate the incremental benefits concerning the implementation of closed-system medical devices for the preparation and administration of chemotherapy agents (integrated or not with traceable workflow), within an Italian clinical practice, in which the use of such technologies is not standardized.

Methodology

Four Scenarios, implying different levels of technologies introduction, were analyzed, based on the presence and/or absence of closed systems and traceable workflow, in the preparation and in the administration phase. A literature review was conducted, in order to retrieve efficacy and safety measures. Economic and organizational benefits, assuming a hospitals perspective, were assessed by means of health-economics tools, considering 27,660 (±695.86) drugs on average prepared, on an annual basis, by 12 hospitals involved. The typology of medical devices and other devices/equipment used, the human resources involved, and the time spent for the preparation and administration phases were collected.

Results

Literature stated that the introduction of advanced technologies (CSTDs in the preparation phase, closed-system in the administration phase, both integrated by a traceable workflow) could: i) decrease surface contamination (12.24% vs 26.39%, P<0.001) and ii) improve the capability to identify dosage errors (7% vs 0.096%, P<0.05). The above technologies presented the best trade-off between cost sustained and efficacy gained. Despite marginal investments (ranging from +1% to +6%) being required for their acquisition, an organizational saving equal to more than 1,000 working hours emerged, which could be spent on other hospital activities.

Conclusion

The implementation of closed systems, integrated with a traceable workflow grounding on gravimetric control, may be considered a valid technological alternative within the investigated setting. The marginal incremental costs could be absorbed already in the first year after their introduction, in particular, because of the potential time saving in using closed systems in both the preparation and administration phases, demonstrating the sustainability and feasibility of such advanced technologies.

Review of economic data on closed system transfer drug for preparation and administration of hazardous drugs

OBJECTIVES

The objectives of this study were to review economic data on the use of closed system drug transfer devices (CSTDs) for preparing and administering hazardous drugs, and to evaluate the quality of data reporting as defined by the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS).

METHODS

All references from a recent Cochrane review about CSTDs were evaluated for inclusion. A literature review was also conducted. Articles containing economic data about the use of CSTDs were retained for analysis. Two researchers independently graded the articles according to the 24-item CHEERS checklist.

RESULTS

Of the 138 articles identified initially, 12 were retained for analysis. Nine of these studies did not report acquisition costs or did not detail acquisition costs. Six studies reported economic benefits associated with the used of CSTDs, all related to extending the beyond-use date. The mean number of CHEERS criteria fulfilled by the included articles was 9.2 (SD 2.4).

CONCLUSIONS

CSTDs are costly to acquire. However, few studies have examined the economic impact of these devices, and the existing studies are incomplete. As a result, hospitals planning to implement these devices will be unable to make a sound economic evaluation. Robust economic evaluation of CSTDs is needed.

Occupational exposure of pharmacy technicians and cleaning staff to cytotoxic drugs in Dutch hospitals

Many studies into surface contamination of hospital environments have demonstrated that occupational exposure to cytotoxics through the dermal route remains a possible risk. In this study, we assess the actual dermal exposure of the hands of pharmacy technicians and cleaning personnel in a panel of hospitals performing tasks that pose a risk of exposure. We compare the dermal exposure to a tentative limit value for cyclophosphamide. Pharmacy technicians and cleaning personnel were asked for hand rinsing after performance of nine tasks previously identified as posing a risk of occupational exposure. All samples were analyzed for the presence and quantity of eight antineoplastic drugs. By using data on both the frequency of the performance of the tasks and the measured dermal contamination during these tasks, weekly exposure to the marker drug (cyclophosphamide) was calculated. In five Dutch hospitals, 70 hand rinse samples and 8 blanks were collected. These were analyzed and results were used to calculate weekly exposure. The tentative limit value used was 0.74 µg of cyclophosphamide. For cleaning personnel, all results remained below this threshold value. For pharmacy technicians, the compounding itself also remained well below the limit; however, the task involving preparatory work, as well as the checking of compounded drugs, had a 13% chance of exceeding the limit. All of the highest values were found when employees were not wearing gloves on these tasks. Cleaning personnel and pharmacy technicians compounding cytotoxic drugs in our study were sufficiently protected from occupational exposure. In contrast, pharmacy technicians who perform preparatory and finishing tasks (before and after the actual compounding) are not protected enough when they do not wear gloves.

Quantification of healthcare workers' exposure to cyclophosphamide, ifosfamide, methotrexate, and 5-fluorouracil by 24-h urine assay: A descriptive pilot study

PURPOSE

The objective of this pilot study was to determine the frequency of urination and the concentration of four hazardous drugs (cyclophosphamide, ifosfamide, methotrexate, and fluorouracil) in workers' 24-h urine samples in relation to exposure to traces with hazardous drugs.

METHODS

The study was conducted in three healthcare centers in the region of Montréal, Quebec, Canada. We recruited healthcare workers (nurses and pharmacy technicians) assigned to the hematology-oncology department. Each participant was asked to collect all urine voided during a 24-h period, to fill out an activity journal documenting tasks performed and to document the use of personal protective equipment. Samples were analyzed for cyclophosphamide, ifosfamide, methotrexate, and alpha-fluoro-beta-alanine (FBAL, the main urinary metabolite of 5-fluorouracil). Drugs were quantified by ultra-performance liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (positive electrospray MRM mode).

RESULTS

Eighteen healthcare workers (10 nurses and 8 technicians) were recruited and provided consent to participate. Urine samples were obtained between 1 September and 30 September 2019. The number of urinations over the 24-h collection period ranged from 3 to 11 per participant. A total of 128 urine samples were analyzed for the 18 workers. All urine samples were negative for the four antineoplastics tested.

CONCLUSION

No traces of cyclophosphamide, ifosfamide, methotrexate, or FBAL were found in the 24-h urine samples of 18 healthcare workers practicing in three healthcare facilities in Quebec. Although it was feasible to collect 24-h urine samples in this research project, it appears unrealistic to do so recurrently as part of a large-scale surveillance program.

Analyse de minimisation de coût des fournitures utilisées pour la préparation et l’administration d’une dose d’antinéoplasique en établissement de santé

BACKGROUND

Many strategies aim to reduce the risk of work-related exposure to hazardous drugs for health care workers; these strategies include the use of specific systems to prepare and administer these drugs.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the cost of supplies used for preparing and administering one IV dose of antineoplastic in an adult health care facility in Canada between the traditional approach and one using a closed-system drug transfer device (CSTD).

METHOD

This study was a cost reduction analysis conducted from the perspective of a typical university health care facility. The assessment focused only on the cost of supplies used to prepare and administer one IV dose of antineoplastic. It was not necessary to account for discounting. We developed 12 scenarios involving some of the 11 possible steps in preparing and administering one IV dose of antineoplastic.

RESULTS

The cost of supplies used to prepare and administer one IV dose of antineoplastic ranged between $9.89 and $22.37 per dose with the classical system, and between $12.34 and $64.19 per dose for systems involving a CSTD. The annual average extra cost of systems involving a CSTD was 1.63 to 3.15 higher than the cost with the classical system and represents extra spending of between $363 566 and $1 238 072 each year for a typical adult health care institution.

CONCLUSION

This cost reduction analysis presents original data relating to the preparation and administration of IV antineoplastics. Given the significant costs associated with preparing and administering antineoplastic drugs, decision-makers should perform a thorough analysis of costs and consequences to allow informed decisions to be made.

Closed-system drug-transfer devices plus safe handling of hazardous drugs versus safe handling alone for reducing exposure to infusional hazardous drugs in healthcare staff

BACKGROUND

Occupational exposure to hazardous drugs can decrease fertility and result in miscarriages, stillbirths, and cancers in healthcare staff. Several recommended practices aim to reduce this exposure, including protective clothing, gloves, and biological safety cabinets ('safe handling'). There is significant uncertainty as to whether using closed-system drug-transfer devices (CSTD) in addition to safe handling decreases the contamination and risk of staff exposure to infusional hazardous drugs compared to safe handling alone.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of closed-system drug-transfer of infusional hazardous drugs plus safe handling versus safe handling alone for reducing staff exposure to infusional hazardous drugs and risk of staff contamination.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, OSH-UPDATE, CINAHL, Science Citation Index Expanded, economic evaluation databases, the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and ClinicalTrials.gov to October 2017.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included comparative studies of any study design (irrespective of language, blinding, or publication status) that compared CSTD plus safe handling versus safe handling alone for infusional hazardous drugs.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently identified trials and extracted data. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) and mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) using both fixed-effect and random-effects models. We assessed risk of bias according to the risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions (ROBINS-I) tool, used an intracluster correlation coefficient of 0.10, and we assessed the quality of the evidence using GRADE.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 23 observational cluster studies (358 hospitals) in this review. We did not find any randomised controlled trials or formal economic evaluations. In 21 studies, the people who used the intervention (CSTD plus safe handling) and control (safe handling alone) were pharmacists or pharmacy technicians; in the other two studies, the people who used the intervention and control were nurses, pharmacists, or pharmacy technicians. The CSTD used in the studies were PhaSeal (13 studies), Tevadaptor (1 study), SpikeSwan (1 study), PhaSeal and Tevadaptor (1 study), varied (5 studies), and not stated (2 studies). The studies' descriptions of the control groups were varied. Twenty-one studies provide data on one or more outcomes for this systematic review. All the studies are at serious risk of bias. The quality of evidence is very low for all the outcomes.There is no evidence of differences in the proportion of people with positive urine tests for exposure between the CSTD and control groups for cyclophosphamide alone (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.46 to 1.52; I² = 12%; 2 studies; 2 hospitals; 20 participants; CSTD: 76.1% versus control: 91.7%); cyclophosphamide or ifosfamide (RR 0.09, 95% CI 0.00 to 2.79; 1 study; 1 hospital; 14 participants; CSTD: 6.4% versus control: 71.4%); and cyclophosphamide, ifosfamide, or gemcitabine (RR not estimable; 1 study; 1 hospital; 36 participants; 0% in both groups).There is no evidence of a difference in the proportion of surface samples contaminated in the pharmacy areas or patient-care areas for any of the drugs except 5-fluorouracil, which was lower in the CSTD group than in the control (RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.97; 3 studies, 106 hospitals, 1008 samples; CSTD: 9% versus control: 13.9%).The amount of cyclophosphamide was lower in pharmacy areas in the CSTD group than in the control group (MD -49.34 pg/cm², 95% CI -84.11 to -14.56, I² = 0%, 7 studies; 282 hospitals, 1793 surface samples). Additionally, one interrupted time-series study (3 hospitals; 342 samples) demonstrated a change in the slope between pre-CSTD and CSTD (3.9439 pg/cm², 95% CI 1.2303 to 6.6576; P = 0.010), but not between CSTD and post-CSTD withdrawal (-1.9331 pg/cm², 95% CI -5.1260 to 1.2598; P = 0.20). There is no evidence of difference in the amount of the other drugs between CSTD and control groups in the pharmacy areas or patient-care areas.None of the studies report on atmospheric contamination, blood tests, or other measures of exposure to infusional hazardous drugs such as urine mutagenicity, chromosomal aberrations, sister chromatid exchanges, or micronuclei induction.None of the studies report short-term health benefits such as reduction in skin rashes, medium-term reproductive health benefits such as fertility and parity, or long-term health benefits related to the development of any type of cancer or adverse events.Five studies (six hospitals) report the potential cost savings through the use of CSTD. The studies used different methods of calculating the costs, and the results were not reported in a format that could be pooled via meta-analysis. There is significant variability between the studies in terms of whether CSTD resulted in cost savings (the point estimates of the average potential cost savings ranged from (2017) USD -642,656 to (2017) USD 221,818).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is currently no evidence to support or refute the routine use of closed-system drug transfer devices in addition to safe handling of infusional hazardous drugs, as there is no evidence of differences in exposure or financial benefits between CSTD plus safe handling versus safe handling alone (very low-quality evidence). None of the studies report health benefits.Well-designed multicentre randomised controlled trials may be feasible depending upon the proportion of people with exposure. The next best study design is interrupted time-series. This design is likely to provide a better estimate than uncontrolled before-after studies or cross-sectional studies. Future studies may involve other alternate ways of reducing exposure in addition to safe handling as one intervention group in a multi-arm parallel design or factorial design trial. Future studies should have designs that decrease the risk of bias and enable measurement of direct health benefits in addition to exposure. Studies using exposure should be tested for a relevant selection of hazardous drugs used in the hospital to provide an estimate of the exposure and health benefits of using CSTD. Steps should be undertaken to ensure that there are no other differences between CSTD and control groups, so that one can obtain a reasonable estimate of the health benefits of using CSTD.