Pre and post intervention study of antiblastic drugs contamination surface levels at a Pharmacy Department Compounding Area using a closed system drug transfer device and a decontamination process

Safe handling of hazardous drugs

Background: This evidence-based practice guideline was developed to update and address new issues in the handling of hazardous drugs including being compliant with NAPRA (National Association of Pharmacy Regulatory Authorities) and USP 800 (United States Pharmacopeia) standards, the use of personal protective equipment and treatment in diverse settings including in the home setting. Methods: This guideline was developed from an adaptation and endorsement of existing guidelines and from three systematic reviews. Prior to publication, this guideline underwent a series of peer, patient, methodological and external reviews to gather feedback. All comments were addressed and the guideline was amended when required. This guideline applies to and is intended for all health care workers who may come into contact with hazardous drugs at any point in the medication circuit. Results: The recommendations represent a reasonable and practical set of procedures that the intended users of this guideline should implement to minimize the opportunity for accidental exposure. These recommendations are not limited to just the point of care, but cover the entire chain of handling of cytotoxics from the time they enter the institution until they leave in the patient or as waste. Conclusions: Decreasing the likelihood of accidental exposure to cytotoxic agents within the medication circuit is the main objective of this evidenced-based guideline. The recommendations differ slightly from previous guidelines due to new evidence.

A LC-MS/MS based methodology for the environmental monitoring of healthcare settings contaminated with antineoplastic agents

Background

Adverse health events associated with the exposure of healthcare workers to antineoplastic drugs are well documented in literature and are often related to the chemical contamination of work surfaces. It is therefore crucial for healthcare professionals to validate the efficiency of safety procedures by periodic biological and environmental monitoring activities where the main methodological limitations are related to the complexity, in terms of chemical-physical features and chemical-biological stability, of the drugs analyzed.

Materials and methods

Here we describe the evaluation and application of a UHPLC-MS/MS based protocol for the environmental monitoring of hospital working areas potentially contaminated with methotrexate, iphosphamide, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, irinotecan, and paclitaxel. This methodology was used to evaluate working areas devoted to the preparation of chemotherapeutics and combination regimens at the University Hospital "San Giovanni di Dio e Ruggi d'Aragona" in Salerno (Italy).

Results

Our analyses allowed to uncover critical aspects in both working protocols and workspace organization, which highlighted, among others, cyclophosphamide and iphosphamide contamination. Suitable adjustments adopted after our environmental monitoring campaign significantly reduced the exposure risk for healthcare workers employed in the unit analyzed.

Conclusion

The use of sensitive analytical approaches such as LC-MS/MS coupled to an accurate wiping procedure in routine environmental monitoring allows to effectively improve chemical safety for exposed workers.

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.

Analysis of chemical contamination by hazardous drugs with BD HD Check® system in a tertiary hospital

The presence of contamination in the healthcare work environment by one of the types of hazardous drugs, cytostatics, has been found in multiple international studies. Recent studies and guidelines recommend surface monitoring for risk assessment of healthcare professionals' exposure. The availability of detection techniques is critical to successfully carry out this type of monitoring. The use of new semi-quantitative techniques allows quicker results. The main objective of this study was to determine the existence of hazardous drugs on the working surfaces in different locations of a tertiary hospital using the BD HD Check^® semi-quantitative device. The presence of methotrexate, doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide was analysed at 80, 89 and 82 locations in 10, 13 and 11 clinical units, respectively. A total of 251 samples were analysed. The monitoring results were positive for 13.1% of the analysed samples, with 36.3% of the methotrexate samples, 0% of the doxorubicin samples and 4.9% of the cyclophosphamide samples. Mapping the presence of HD in our hospital has allowed us to evaluate the effectiveness of controls established in the hospital to minimise the exposure of healthcare professionals to hazardous drugs. The speed in obtaining results has enabled immediate corrective actions in cases where contaminated surfaces were detected.

Use and handling safety of Mini-Spike 2® chemo and puresite for safe chemotherapy compounding in a hospital pharmacy

We wanted to evaluate the impact of Mini-Spike 2^® Chemo + Puresite (MSCP) use on contamination surface levels, professionals' satisfaction and compounding time at pharmacy compared with Phaseal™. Presence of cyclophosphamide (CYP) and 5-fluorouracil (5FU) was evaluated at three sampling times: baseline; after a decontamination procedure and six months after MSCP use for CYP and 5FU compounding. Testing was carried out using an independent laboratory and wipe testing kit. To test compounding time, four different nurses followed the same compounding protocol with each device. We also developed a questionnaire to obtain feedback from the nurses. We did not find statistically significant differences in the median contamination surface levels between basal and final sampling time, CYP (0.140; 95% CI -1.135, 1.601), 5FU (-0.506; 95% CI -1.756, 0.287). We observed a difference of 10 s on compounding times between the two devices tested (p < 0.001) favoring MSCP. Finally, eight nurses answered the survey, with the best valued aspect as the aspiration/injection flow and resistance, and the worst value the comfort using Puresite and valve connection. MSCP maintains low surface contamination levels in our setting assuring compounding time standards. Satisfaction survey let us know which were the major advantages and disadvantages of the device.