Surface contamination of chemotherapy drug vials and evaluation of new vial-cleaning techniques: results of three studies

Pilot study: External surface contamination of gemcitabine and 5-fluorouracil on drug packaging

INTRODUCTION

Antineoplastic drugs (ADs) are commonly used pharmaceuticals for anticancer treatments. It has previously been shown that the external surface of drug vials frequently is contaminated with ADs. More than a decade ago methods to prevent occupational exposure were introduced by using plastic coverage of the glass vials or packing vials in a secondary plastic container. The aim of the pilot study was to determine contamination levels of ADs on different parts of AD packaging of two different commercially available drug vials on the Swedish market and to investigate the occurrence of cross contamination of ADs.

METHODS

Packagings of gemcitabine (GEM) and 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) were tested by wipe sampling. Five ADs; GEM, 5-FU, cyclophosphamide (CP), ifosfamide and etoposide were quantified using liquid chromatography mass spectrometry.

RESULTS

AD contaminations were detected in 69% and 60% of the GEM and 5-FU packaging samples. Highest levels, up to approximately 5 µg/sample, were observed on the glass vials. The protective shrink-wrap of 5-FU vials and the plastic container of GEM were contaminated with low levels of 5-FU and GEM, respectively, and furthermore the 5-FU vials with shrink-wrap were cross-contaminated with GEM. Cross-contamination of CP and GEM was detected on 5-FU vials with plastic shrink-wrap removed.

CONCLUSIONS

External contamination of ADs are still present at primary drug packagings on the Swedish market. Protection of AD vials by plastic shrink-wrap or a secondary plastic container does not remove the external contamination levels completely. The presence of cross contamination of ADs on drug packagings was also observed.

Residual contamination in antineoplastic drug packaging

INTRODUCTION

The handling of antineoplastic drugs should follow strict supervision and safety rules to minimize the occupational exposure risks to professionals involved. The external surface contamination of drug vials is recognized as a health risk. So, our goal was to determine if there is residual contamination on the vials and containers surface of the antineoplastic drugs doxorubicin (DOX) and cyclophosphamide (CP).

METHODS

A cross-sectional study was conducted. Samples were collected using a uniform sampling procedure on the inner surfaces of the packages/boxes and the outer surfaces of the vials. The analyzes were executed by high-performance liquid chromatography/mass spectrometry (UHPLC-MS/MS).

RESULTS

A total of 209 samples were analyzed, 66 of CP and 143 of DOX. CP levels were detected in nine samples (13.63%), three were below the lower limit of quantification (LLQ) and the other six had contamination levels ranging from 1.24 to 28.04 ng/filter. DOX levels were detected in 36 samples (25.17%), two were below the LLQ and the others had levels between 1.32 and 664.84 ng/filter. The majority of samples with residual contamination were in vials (80.0%), however, boxes also showed contamination.

CONCLUSIONS

The results revealed the presence of residual contamination in the vials and packages of CP and DOX drugs. Although the residues found in each sample are small, special care should be taken in the handling and disposal of the antineoplastic drugs. The use of personal protective equipment is fundamental while handling the vials and packaging of cytotoxic drugs.

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.

Application of an Environmental Monitoring to Assess the Practices and Control the Risk of Occupational Exposure to Cyclophosphamide in Two Sites of a French Comprehensive Cancer Center

OBJECTIVES

The risk of chronic exposure to antineoplastic agents in hospitals, mainly by skin contact with contaminated surfaces, is well established. The aim of this study was to assess indirectly the risk of occupational exposure to antineoplastics drugs at two hospitals by using an environmental monitoring, and to suggest ways of improving the exposure to healthcare workers.

METHODS

An observational study of care practices on both sites was carried out. A wipe sampling campaign was then designed to study environmental contamination throughout the chemotherapy process: receipt, storage, compounding, transport, administration, and elimination areas. Samples were analyzed by a validated LC-MS/MS method allowing trace quantification of cyclophosphamide. A guidance 'safe value' of 0.10 ng/cm2 was considered.

RESULTS

A total of 293 samples were analyzed, of which 58% were found to be positive. In the compounding units, the drug vials were contaminated before [range = (non-quantifiable [NQ]-0.71) ng/cm2] and after cleaning procedure [(NQ-0.62) ng/cm2], particularly when the flip-off lid was removed during cleaning. The contamination found on manual preparations was operator-dependent: [non-detectable (ND)-3.51] ng/cm2 on infusion bag surfaces; (780.61-24 698.98) ng/cm2 on medication ports. In the case of automated preparations, the average contamination was higher on infusion bag surfaces [(2.43-36.86) ng/cm2] and lower on medication ports [(0.43-7.65) ng/cm2] than manual preparations. Contamination of the analytical control area was also highlighted. In the daily care unit, the contamination was located near the infusion area (armchairs, infusion stands, floor, and patient toilets), and varied somewhat between the two sites, especially on the floor with (0.46-27.32) compared to (ND-0.18) ng/cm2. We did not detect contamination on the transport boxes, on the door handles or in the disposal areas.

CONCLUSIONS

The variability of contamination observed between the two sites can be explained in part by the difference in routine practices, especially training of the staff, and cleaning procedures. Findings were communicated to healthcare workers, and news interventions were implemented based on wipe sampling results. This study demonstrated a method for routine environmental monitoring and worker education as a strategy to reduce occupational exposure.

External contamination of antineoplastic drug vials: an occupational risk to consider

Risk management for workers involved in the handling and preparation of cytotoxic drugs is challenging. This study aims to investigate drug contamination of the exterior surfaces of cytotoxic drug vials. Two batches of commercially available cytotoxic drugs in unprotected vials (ifosfamide, etoposide phosphate and cyclophosphamide) and plastic shrink wrap vials (doxorubicin, cytarabine and busulfan) were tested without removing the flip-off cap or the plastic wrap, and without prewashing. The results showed significant trace amounts of cytotoxic drugs on the exterior surfaces in both unprotected (eg, cyclophosphamide, ifosfamide) and protected plastic shrink wrap vials (eg, cytarabine), indicating that the secondary packaging of protected vials does not systematically prevent exposure to the handlers. These results focus on the need for guidelines to prevent cytotoxic vial contamination and safety recommendations for staff in the handling and storage of these vials.

Evaluation of Closed System Transfer Devices in Preventing Chemotherapy Agents Contamination During Compounding Process-A Single and Comparative Study in China

Aim

We performed a comparative study to investigate the efficacy of closed system transfer devices (CSTDs) on the safe handling of injectable hazardous drugs (HDs).

Methods

The exposure assessments of cyclophosphamide and cytarabine were performed under traditional or CSTDs. For preparation activity, chemotherapy contamination samples on protective equipment (such as gloves and masks) were collected. The contamination analysis was performed by liquid chromatography with tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS). A 6-item form was distributed monthly (form M1-M6, total 6 months) to assess the pharmacists' experience on ergonomics, encumbrance, and safety impression.

Results

Totally, 96 wiping samples were collected throughout the study. The numbers of contaminated cyclophosphamide samples reduced under CSTD were -37.8, -41.6, -67.7, -47.3, and -22.9% and cytarabine were -12.3, -12.1, -20.6, -69.6, and -56.7% for left countertop, right countertop, medial glass, air-intake vent and door handle, as compared to traditional devices. The reduction was similar to pharmacist devices, i.e., -48.2 and -50.0% for masks and gloves cyclophosphamide contamination, -18.0 and -42.4% for cytarabine. This novel system could improve contamination on dispensing table, transfer container, and dispensing basket by -16.6, -6.0, and -22.3% for cyclophosphamide and -28.5, -22.5, and -46.2% for cytarabine. A high level of satisfaction was consistently associated with ergonomics for CSTD during the compounding process. Meanwhile, a slightly decreased satisfaction on ergonomics, encumbrance, and safety impression was observed for the traditional system between M2 and M3.

Conclusion

Closed system transfer devices are offering progressively more effective alternatives to traditional ones and consequently decrease chemotherapy exposure risk on isolator surfaces.

Assessment of occupational exposure to nebulized isopropyl alcohol as disinfectant during aseptic compounding of parenteral cytotoxic drugs in cleanrooms

Pharmacy technicians are exposed to volatile organic compounds, like the disinfectant isopropyl alcohol (IPA), during the process of aseptic compounding of parenteral cytotoxic drugs. The occupational exposure to nebulized IPA during aseptic compounding has not been investigated. The aim of this study was to investigate the exposure to IPA during aseptic compounding of parenteral cytotoxic drugs and to assess compliance with legal and regulatory limits. As a secondary endpoint, the difference between two disinfection methods was compared regarding the exposure to IPA. The exposure to IPA was measured during five working shifts of 8 hr and one shift of 4 hr. The concentration IPA was measured by using a six-gas monitor. Total daily exposure was calculated as 8-hr Time Weighted Average (TWA) air concentration in mg/m³ and compared with an Occupational Exposure Limit (OEL) value of 500 mg/m³ and incidental peak exposure of 5,000 mg/m³. To assess whether the 8-hr TWA air concentration meets the legal and regulatory limits the Similar Exposure Groups (SEG) compliance test was used. A paired sample t-test was conducted to assess difference in exposure between two disinfection methods. The average 8-hr TWA exposure to IPA during the six measurements varied from 2.6 mg/m³ to 43.9 mg/m³ and the highest momentary concentration measured was 860 mg/m³. The result of the SEG compliance test was 3.392 (U_r value) and was greater than the U_t value of 2.187 which means the exposure to IPA is in compliance with the OEL value. No significant difference in exposure was shown between two disinfection methods (p = 0.49). In conclusion, exposure to IPA during aseptic compounding of parenteral cytotoxic drugs showed compliance to the OEL values with no significant difference in exposure between two disinfection methods.

Evaluation of external contamination on the vial surfaces of some hazardous drugs that commonly used in Chinese hospitals and comparison between environmental contamination generated during robotic compounding by IV: Dispensing robot vs. manual compounding in biological safety cabinet

Objectives

The aims of the study were to evaluate the external contamination of hazardous drug vials used in Chinese hospitals and to compare environmental contamination generated by a robotic intelligent dispensing system (WEINAS) and a manual compounding procedure using a biological safety cabinet (BSC).

Methods

Cyclophosphamide, fluorouracil, and gemcitabine were selected as the representative hazardous drugs to monitor surface contamination of vials. In the comparative analysis of environmental contamination from manual and robotic compounding, wipe samples were taken from infusion bags, gloves, and the different locations of the BSC and the WEINAS robotic system. In this study, high-performance liquid chromatography coupled with double mass spectrometer (HPLC-MS/MS) was employed for sample analysis.

Results

(1) External contamination was measured on vials of all three hazardous drugs. The contamination detected on fluorouracil vials was the highest with an average amount up to 904.33 ng/vial, followed by cyclophosphamide (43.51 ng/vial), and gemcitabine (unprotected vials of 5.92 ng/vial, protected vials of 0.66 ng/vial); (2) overall, the environmental contamination induced by WEINAS robotic compounding was significantly reduced compared to that by manual compounding inside the BSC. Particularly, compared with manual compounding, the surface contamination on the infusion bags during robotic compounding was nearly nine times lower for cyclophosphamide (10.62 ng/cm² vs 90.43 ng/cm²), two times lower for fluorouracil (3.47 vs 7.52 ng/cm²), and more than 23 times lower for gemcitabine (2.61 ng/cm² vs 62.28 ng/cm²).

Conclusions

The external contamination occurred extensively on some hazardous drug vials that commonly used in Chinese hospitals. Comparison analysis for both compounding procedures revealed that robotic compounding can remarkably reduce environmental contamination.

Chemical Decontamination of Hazardous Drugs: A Comparison of Solution Performances

OBJECTIVES

Over the past 40 years, numerous actions have been undertaken to decrease the contamination of hospital facilities by intravenous conventional antineoplastic drugs (ICADs) such as centralizing compounding in pharmacies, using personal protective equipment, specific compounding, or infusion devices. As recently proposed in the <USP800> monograph, an additional specific decontamination step must be envisaged. A recent literature review analysed and discussed the different solutions tested in terms of decontamination efficacy. This article aims to discuss the performance of these solutions in the framework of aseptic compounding.

METHODS

The same dataset used in the previous literature review was reanalysed according to other parameters so as to select decontamination solutions: overall decontamination efficiency (EffQ), tested contaminants, and the risks of use in daily practice.

RESULTS

Using an EffQ threshold of 90% resulted in discarding 26 out of the 59 solutions. Solutions were tested differently: 8 on 1 contaminant, 11 on 2 contaminants, and 14 solutions on between 3 and 11 contaminants. Three risks were identified to help make choices in routine practice: the mutagenicity of degradation products, the safety of operators and facilities, and respect for the aseptic environment.

CONCLUSIONS

From the results, performance is discussed according to specific situations: a one-time incident or the basic chemical contamination due to daily practice. Accordingly, the decontamination solution selected then required a risk analysis and an evaluation before implementing it in the daily practice of a compounding unit.

External contamination of commercial containers by antineoplastic agents: a literature review

The aim of this study was to review the literature regarding the external contamination of commercial vials by antineoplastic drugs. A PubMed and CINAHL searches from 1 January 1990 to 1 May 2018 was performed with the terms: « antineoplastic agents », « environmental monitoring », « drug packaging », « vials » and « contamination ». Articles that presented results on the external contamination of commercial vials were included. Twenty-four articles were identified from 11 countries. A total of 4248 vials were sampled from 28 manufacturers. Traces were found on 56% (2379/4248) of vials. A maximum of 150 000 ng was measured on a glass vial of fluorouracil. This literature review showed that the exterior of the majority of commercial antineoplastic vials was contaminated. Manufacturers should limit this contamination. Centres are also encouraged to clean the vials on receipt. Personal protection equipment should be worn at all steps of the drug-use process.

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.

A fully validated simple new method for environmental monitoring by surface sampling for cytotoxics

A wipe sampling procedure followed by a simple ultra-performance liquid chromatography - tandem mass spectrometry (UPLC-MS/MS) method was developed and validated for simultaneous quantification of six cytotoxic drugs: 5-fluorouracil (5FU), doxorubicin (DOXO), epirubicin (EPI), ifosfamide (IF), cyclophosphamide (CP) and gemcitabine (GEM), as surrogate markers for occupational exposure. After a solid-phase extraction of wiping filter on 10 × 10 cm surface, the separation was performed within 6.5 min, using a gradient mobile phase and the analytes were detected by mass spectrometry in the multiple reaction ion monitoring mode. The method was validated according to the recommendations of the US Food and Drug Administration. The method was linear (r² > 0.9912) between 2.5 and 200 ng per wiping sample (25 to 2000 pg/cm²) for 5FU, doxorubicin and epirubicin and between 0.2 and 40 ng per wiping sample (2 to 400 pg/cm²) for cyclophosphamide, ifosfamide and gemcitabine. The lower limits of quantification were 2.5 ng (25 pg/ cm²) for 5FU, doxorubicin and epirubicin, and 0.2 ng (2 pg/cm²) for CP, IF and GEM. Within-day and between-day imprecisions were <14.0, 10.6, 11.1, 8.7, 11.2 and 10.9% for 5-fluorouracil, doxorubicin, epirubicin, ifosfamide cyclophosphamide and gemcitabine, respectively. The inaccuracies did not exceed 2.7, 10.9, 1.1, 4.5, 1.6 and 2.9% for the studied molecules, respectively. This new sensitive validated method for surface contamination studies of cytotoxics was successfully applied on different localizations in hospital. This approach is particularly suitable to assess occupational exposure risk to cytotoxic drugs.

External contamination of antineoplastic drug containers from a Canadian wholesaler

Introduction

Contamination of hospitals’ surfaces with antineoplastic drugs is documented despite safe handling practices. The exterior of commercial containers is often contaminated during the manufacturing process and can cross-contaminate hospitals’ surfaces. The aim was to investigate the contamination of the exterior of antineoplastic drug vials available in Canada in 2018.

Methods

Cross-sectional study. All available antineoplastic drugs vials from a single wholesaler were targeted. Containers were sampled upon their receipt by the pharmacy staff, before they were cleaned. One wipe was used to sample the external surface of five vials from a single batch from the same manufacturer. Nine antineoplastic drugs were quantified by ultra-performance liquid chromatography–tandem mass spectrometer: cyclophosphamide, docetaxel, 5-fluorouracil, gemcitabine, ifosfamide, irinotecan, methotrexate, paclitaxel, vinorelbine.

Results

Twenty-one samplings were done (105 containers from nine different manufacturers): cyclophosphamide = 2, docetaxel = 1, gemcitabine = 2, 5-fluorouracil = 2, ifosfamide = 2, irinotecan = 3, methotrexate = 6, paclitaxel = 2, vinorelbine = 1. One of these samplings was done on blister packaging, the remainder were done on glass vials. A total of 15/21 samples (71%) were positive to at least one drug (docetaxel, 5-fluorouracil, ifosfamide, and vinorelbine). A maximum of 272 ng/vial was quantified (gemcitabine). Cross contamination with other antineoplastic drugs was detected on 16/21 (76%) samples.

Conclusion

The majority of samples were positive to at least one antineoplastic drug, confirming that the exterior of antineoplastic drugs containers is still an important source of contamination. Manufacturers should reduce this contamination. Vials should be washed upon receipt, before they are stored in pharmacy. Gloves must be worn at all times to avoid occupational exposure.

Surface contamination of the outer and blister packages of oral anticancer drugs: A multicenter study

INTRODUCTION

All guidelines necessitate wearing personal protective equipment during dispensing of oral anticancer drugs. This study aims to measure the degree of contamination on the press-through-package strips of oral anticancer drugs in Japan.

METHOD

Surface contamination of the external packaging of anticancer drugs was examined by performing wipe tests at four hospitals and two community pharmacies. The following commercially available drugs were examined: Xeloda®, TS-1®, and methotrexate tablets and SA-1® and Rheumatrex® capsules.

RESULTS

The wipe tests' results revealed that the contamination levels of Xeloda® and TS-1® tablets and SA-1® capsules were within their detection limits. In some facilities, the contamination levels on the press-through-package strips of Rheumatrex® capsules were 3.27 × 10^-1, which is close to its detection limit. However, across all facilities, the contamination level of methotrexate tablets was above its detection limit.

CONCLUSION

The results of this study suggested that adherence to oral anticancer drugs may not occur during manufacture or transportation. However, it may be due to the presence of pollutants in the facilities. Prevention of pollution in facilities might eliminate the need to wear personal protective equipment during dispensing of oral anticancer drugs.

A new approach to assessing occupational exposure to antineoplastic drugs in hospital environments

Cytotoxic antineoplastic drugs (ADs) pose occupational risk and therefore require safe handling practices. We created, optimised, and validated an innovative monitoring protocol for simultaneously assessing 21 ADs in the healthcare environment, and also proposed surface exposure levels (SELs) to facilitate the interpretation of monitoring results, as there are currently no occupational exposure limits for ADs. The environmental AD monitoring data were collected in nine Italian hospitals between 2008 and 2017 and include 74,565 measurements in 4,814 wipe samples. Excellent overall recovery and sensitivity of the analytical methods along with innovative desorption automation make this protocol useful for routine monitoring. AD contamination was found in 3,081 measurements, confirming potential exposure in healthcare workers. Samples taken at the beginning and the end of work shifts, allowed to calculate 75th and 90th percentile values for each ADs both in preparation and administration units and we created a traffic-light colour-coding system to facilitate interpretation of the findings. The introduction of SELs will provide a solid basis for improving occupational safety and focusing on contamination control.

Environmental and Product Contamination during the Preparation of Antineoplastic Drugs with Robotic Systems

Background

Robotic systems are designed to minimize the exposure to antineoplastic drugs during automated preparation. However, contamination cannot be completely excluded. The aim of the study was to evaluate the contamination with antineoplastic drugs on the working surfaces and on the outer surface of the ready-to-use products (infusion bags and syringes) during automated preparation with different versions of a robot and manual preparation.

Methods

Surface contamination with platinum (Pt) and 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) was measured by wipe sampling and quantified by voltammetry for Pt and GC-MS for 5-FU. Sampling was performed on pre-defined locations in the working areas before and after preparation of standardized test products. The outer surfaces of Pt- or 5-FU-containing infusion bags and 5-FU-containing syringes were sampled without and after manual capping.

Results

Overall, the surface contamination in the working areas of the robotic system ranged from 0.4 to 114 pg/cm2 for Pt and from 1.3 to 1,250,000 pg/cm2 for 5-FU. The highest contamination levels were detected after preparation on the gripper of the robotic arm and on the surface beneath the dosing device. In most cases, measured concentrations were higher after preparation. Outer surfaces of infusion bags prepared with the robotic system were less contaminated than manually prepared bags. Contamination on the outer surface of syringes varied depending on the procedure adopted.

Conclusions

The risk of contamination is localised inside the working area of the robot. The outer surfaces of products were only marginally contaminated. Cleaning procedures of the working area are to be further investigated. An effective decontamination procedure for the working area of the robot and automated capping of filled syringes should be developed to further minimize the occupational risk.

Surface contamination of counting tools after mock dispensing of cyclophosphamide in a simulated outpatient pharmacy

PURPOSE

The primary aim was to determine if dispensing of cyclophosphamide tablets resulted in accumulated residue on pharmacy counting tools during a simulated outpatient dispensing process. Secondary objectives included determining if cyclophosphamide contamination exceeded a defined threshold level of 1 ng/cm² and if a larger number of prescriptions dispensed resulted in increased contamination.

METHODS

Mock prescriptions of 40 cyclophosphamide 50 mg tablets were counted on clean trays in three scenarios using a simulated outpatient pharmacy after assaying five cleaned trays as controls. The three scenarios consisted of five simulated dispensings of one, three, or six prescriptions dispensed per scenario. Wipe samples of trays and spatulas were collected and assayed for all trays, including the five clean trays used as controls. Contamination was defined as an assayed cyclophosphamide level at or above 0.001 ng/cm² and levels above 1 ng/cm² were considered sufficient to cause risk of human uptake. Mean contamination for each scenario was calculated and compared using one-way analysis of variance. P-values of < 0.05 implied significance.

RESULTS

Mean cyclophosphamide contamination on trays used to count one, three, and six cyclophosphamide prescriptions was 0.51 ± 0.10 (p=0.0003), 1.02 ± 0.10 (p < 0.0001), and 1.82 ± 0.10 ng/cm² (p < 0.0001), respectively. Control trays did not show detectable cyclophosphamide contamination. Increasing the number of prescriptions dispensed from 1 to 3, 1 to 6, and 3 to 6 counts increased contamination by 0.51 ± 0.15 (p = 0.0140), 1.31 + 0.15 (p < 0.0001), and 0.80 ± 0.15 ng/cm² (p = 0.0004), respectively.

CONCLUSION

Dispensing one or more prescriptions of 40 cyclophosphamide 50 mg tablets contaminates pharmacy counting tools, and an increased number of prescriptions dispensed correlates with increased level of contamination. Counting out three or more prescriptions leads to trays having contamination that surpasses the threshold at which worker exposure may be increased. Pharmacies should consider devoting a separate tray to cyclophosphamide tablets, as cross-contamination could occur with other drugs and the efficacy of decontamination methods is unclear. Employee exposure could be minimized with the use of personal protective equipment, environmental controls, and cleaning trays between uses. Future investigation should assess the extent of drug powder dispersion, the effects of various cleaning methods, and the potential extent of contamination with different oral cytotoxic drugs.

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.

Hazardous Drug Contamination of Drug Preparation Devices and Staff: A Contamination Study Simulating the Use of Chemotherapy Drugs in a Clinical Setting

Background: Hazardous drug contamination (HD) in healthcare environments continues, placing healthcare staff at risk of significantly chronic health problems, despite the use of personal protective equipment (PPE) and closed system transfer device systems (CSTDs). Objective: This study's aim was to determine how HD might spread through touch after handling contaminated vials in simulated pharmacy and nursing environments. Methods: UV fluorescent powder Glo Germ (Glo Germ Co., Moab, UT), composed of melamine resin, was used to simulate HD. Following manufacturer's exact usage specifications, five commercially available CSTDs were tested in the simulated pharmaceutical preparation environment under controlled conditions. UV fluorescence was used to detect the test medium powder that simulated HD following each trial. Photographs, using a Nikon D40X (10.2 mp) camera, were taken at selected stages of testing to document the presence of HD. Results: Transfer of the HD testing medium (Glo Germ) to IV sets, pharmacy PPE, and nursing PPE was observed in 4 of 5 CSTDs tested. The only CSTDs that showed no observable contamination was the Allison Medical Safety Enclosed Vial Adapter (SEVA) system (Littleton, CO). Conclusions: Results show residue from HD vials spread as vial was handled in a pharmacy environment in 4 of 5 CSTDs, contaminating pharmacy PPE, ancillary products, and nursing PPE. No HD residue was detected on PPE, ancillary products, or nursing PPE in the pharmacy after using the SEVA system, providing an effective means to contain HD for drug transfer from vial to delivery system.

Minimizing Occupational Exposure to Antineoplastic Agents

The inherent toxicity of antineoplastic drugs used for the treatment of cancer makes them harmful to healthy cells as well as to cancer cells. Nurses who prepare and/or administer the agents potentially are exposed to the drugs and their negative effects. Knowledge about these drugs and the precautions aimed at reducing exposure are essential aspects of infusion nursing practice. This article briefly reviews the mechanisms of action of common antineoplastic drugs, the adverse outcomes associated with exposure, the potential for occupational exposure from preparation and administration, and recommended strategies for minimizing occupational exposure.

Environmental monitoring by surface sampling for cytotoxics: a review

Environmental monitoring is usually conducted by surface sampling to detect and quantify the presence of cytotoxic drugs after their reconstitution and administration. This technique reveals the origins of residual contamination and is an important component in order to protect healthcare workers from the potential risk of occupational exposure. The aim of this work is to compare various techniques and results of surface sampling for cytotoxics. For each technique, sample processing methods and their analysis were compared from literature data. Sampling is often performed by the wiping technique. After treatment, various single or multicompound technical analyses are used, in particular liquid or gas chromatography involving different detection methods: ultraviolet, mass spectrometry, plasma torch, and voltammetry. Some methods are validated to ensure reliability. Despite published guidelines and the use of isolator technology for the preparation of cytotoxic drugs, workplace contamination persists, leading to chemotherapeutic agents' exposure of healthcare workers. Efforts need to be maintained with particular emphasis on harmonization and on determining alert level for cytotoxic contamination.

Surface contamination of hazardous drug pharmacy storage bins and pharmacy distributor shipping containers

Purpose This study was conducted to determine whether there is contamination on exterior drug packaging using shipping totes from the distributor and carousel storage bins as surrogate markers of external packaging contamination. Methods A two-part study was conducted to measure the presence of 5-fluorouracil, ifosfamide, cyclophosphamide, docetaxel and paclitaxel using surrogate markers for external drug packaging. In Part I, 10 drug distributor shipping totes designated for transport of hazardous drugs provided a snapshot view of contamination from regular use and transit in and out of the pharmacy. An additional two totes designated for transport of non-hazardous drugs served as controls. In Part II, old carousel storage bins (i.e. those in use pre-study) were wiped for snapshot view of hazardous drug contamination on storage bins. New carousel storage bins were then put into use for storage of the five tested drugs and used for routine storage and inventory maintenance activities. Carousel bins were wiped at time intervals 0, 8, 16 and 52 weeks to measure surface contamination. Results Two of the 10 hazardous shipping totes were contaminated. Three of the five-old carousel bins were contaminated with cyclophosphamide. One of the old carousel bins was also contaminated with ifosfamide. There were no detectable levels of hazardous drugs on any of the new storage bins at time 0, 8 or 16 weeks. However, at the Week 52, there was a detectable level of 5-FU present in the 5-FU carousel bin. Conclusions Contamination of the surrogate markers suggests that external packaging for hazardous drugs is contaminated, either during the manufacturing process or during routine chain of custody activities. These results demonstrate that occupational exposure may occur due to contamination from shipping totes and storage bins, and that handling practices including use of personal protective equipment is warranted.

Development and evaluation of a novel product to remove surface contamination of hazardous drugs

Background

Even while following best practices, surface exposures of hazardous drugs (HDs) are high and numerous. Thus, it is important to develop new products to reduce the surface contamination of HDs. Hazardous Drug Clean (HDClean™) was developed to decontaminate and remove HDs from various types of surfaces and overcome the problems associated with other cleaning products.

Methods

HDClean was evaluated to remove mock surface exposures of HDs (docetaxel, paclitaxel, ifosfamide, cyclophosphamide, 5-FU, and cisplatin) from various types of surfaces. In two separate cancer centers, studies were performed to evaluate HDClean in reducing surface contamination of HDs in the pharmacy departments where no closed system transfer device (CSTD) was used. In a third cancer center, studies were performed comparing the effectiveness of a CSTD + Surface Safe compared with CSTD + HDClean to remove HDs.

Results

HDClean was able to completely remove mock exposures of a wide range of HDs from various surfaces (4 and 8 sq ft areas). Daily use of HDClean was equal to or more effective in reducing surface contamination of HDs in two pharmacies compared with a CSTD. HDClean was significantly more effective in removing HDs, especially cisplatin, compared with Surface Safe and does not have the problems associated with decontamination solutions that contain sodium hypochlorite.

Conclusion

These studies support HDClean as an effective decontaminating product, that HDClean is more effective than Surface Safe in removing HDs and is equal to or more effective than CSTD in controlling HD surface exposures.

2016 AAHA Oncology Guidelines for Dogs and Cats*

All companion animal practices will be presented with oncology cases on a regular basis, making diagnosis and treatment of cancer an essential part of comprehensive primary care. Because each oncology case is medically unique, these guidelines recommend a patient-specific approach consisting of the following components: diagnosis, staging, therapeutic intervention, provisions for patient and personnel safety in handling chemotherapy agents, referral to an oncology specialty practice when appropriate, and a strong emphasis on client support. Determination of tumor type by histologic examination of a biopsy sample should be the basis for all subsequent steps in oncology case management. Diagnostic staging determines the extent of local disease and presence or absence of regional or distant metastasis. The choice of therapeutic modalities is based on tumor type, histologic grade, and stage, and may include surgery, radiation therapy, chemotherapy, immunotherapy, and adjunctive therapies, such as nutritional support and pain management. These guidelines discuss the strict safety precautions that should be observed in handling chemotherapy agents, which are now commonly used in veterinary oncology. Because cancer is often a disease of older pets, the time of life when the pet–owner relationship is usually strongest, a satisfying outcome for all parties involved is highly dependent on good communication between the entire healthcare team and the client, particularly when death or euthanasia of the patient is being considered. These guidelines include comprehensive tables of common canine and feline cancers as a resource for case management and a sample case history.

Prevention of the exposure by cyclophosphamide oral tablet

Background

Unintended exposure to antitumor agents from an oral medicine may place healthcare workers and patients taking medicine at risk. In this study, the exposure to blister pack by CP (cyclophosphamide) and appropriate preventive procedures were examined.

Findings

CP detected inside the blister pack of the tested seven lots by LC-MS/MS ranged from 8.2 to 199.6 ng. Raman imaging clearly showed that CP ingredient was completely covered by the tablet coating layer and had not leached out of the tablet. In addition, the amount of CP detected inside the vials was suppressed under the lower detection limit until day 28, and only 6.0 ng was detected only at day 56.

Conclusions

Various amounts of CP were contaminated to not only the inside of the blister pack but also the outside. This contamination may be caused not only by the manufacturing environment but also by the CP oral tablets themselves through volatilization of CP. Refrigerated storage of CP oral tablets may protect healthcare workers and patients from contact with CP.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s40780-015-0020-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Benefits of Wipe Sampling: Evaluation of Long-Term 5-Fluorouracil and Platinum Monitoring Data

Objectives:

The aim of this study was to evaluate environmental contamination levels from a large dataset of long-term monitoring data of 5-fluorouracil and platinum-containing drugs in pharmacies, and to investigate the contaminations over 15 years.

Methods:

Wipe sampling for 5-fluorouracil and platinum (marker for cis-, carbo- and oxaliplatin) was performed on-site from various surfaces in hospital and retail pharmacies with a validated sampling procedure over a period of 15 years. The 5-fluorouracil concentrations were quantified by GCMSMS and platinum concentrations by voltammetry. Statistical evaluation was performed with respect to sampling locations and years, and over the course of time.

Results:

Overall, 3,584 wipe samples for 5-fluorouracil and 2,955 wipe samples for platinum were analysed and contamination was detected at all surface types in all 151 examined pharmacies with ranges from ND (not detectable) to 1,725,000 pg/cm² and ND to 23,068 pg/cm², respectively. Median concentrations from the different locations ranged between ND and 4.3 pg/cm² (5-fluorouracil) and 0.2 and 1.8 pg/cm² (platinum) with highest loads inside the biological safety cabinets/isolators and storage areas. Evaluation of contamination over the course of 15 years showed a substantial decrease, especially in the years after introduction of guidance values.

Conclusions:

Long-term evaluation of surface wipe samples for antineoplastic drug contamination with repeated monitoring seems to be a beneficial tool to characterize the actual exposure situation and to assess surface contamination over time. Wipe sampling is a suitable control means to evaluate the work practices and the effectiveness of applied safety and hygiene measures and to identify the potential exposure risk for health care workers.

Impact of Handling Errors for Chemical Cross-contamination Risk for the Preparation of Parenteral Cytotoxic Drugs

The aim of the study was to evaluate the risk of chemical cross-contamination between preparations of cytotoxic drugs performed in hospital pharmacy. Simulation of handling process errors was performed with two selected tracers, thiamine and retinol to mimic hydrophilic and lipophilic cytotoxic drugs. Four types of handling errors were simulated: errors associated with the re-use of a disposable transfer device: syringe, spike and needle and errors associated with surface contamination such as the use of a contaminated pad. The results show rates of contamination above the limit of quantification with the re-use of a syringe, a needle or a spike. For example, with the thiamine solution at 50 mg/ml final concentration, the re-use of a spike led to a contamination of approximately 100 µl equivalent to 5 mg. By contrast, the use of a surface contaminated pad failed to detect a cross-contamination. Cross-contamination related to a contamination of surface by a cytotoxic drug represents a low risk. However, the re-use of a single medical device due to handling human error led to quantifiable risk of cross-contamination. Furthermore, this type of error is very difficult to detect and may be frequent enough to have potential impact on patient.

Efficacy of Two Cleaning Solutions for the Decontamination of 10 Antineoplastic Agents in the Biosafety Cabinets of a Hospital Pharmacy

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to evaluate two cleaning solutions for the chemical decontamination of antineoplastic agents on the surfaces of two biosafety cabinets routinely used for chemotherapy preparation in a hospital pharmacy.

METHODS

For almost 1 year (49 weeks), two different solutions were used for the weekly cleaning of two biosafety cabinets in a hospital pharmacy's centralized cytotoxic preparation unit. The solutions evaluated were a commercial solution of isopropyl alcohol (IPA) and water (70:30, vol:vol), and a detergent solution constituted by 10(-2)M of sodium dodecyl sulfate (SDS) with 20% IPA. Seven areas in each biosafety cabinet were wiped 14 times throughout the year, before and after the weekly cleaning process, according to a validated procedure. Samples were analyzed using a validated method of high-performance liquid chromatography coupled to mass spectrometry. The decontamination efficacy of these two solutions was tested for 10 antineoplastic agents: cytarabine, gemcitabine, methotrexate, etoposide phosphate, irinotecan, cyclophosphamide, ifosfamide, doxorubicin, epirubicin, and vincristine.

RESULTS

Overall decontamination efficacies observed were 82±6% and 49±11% for SDS solution and IPA, respectively. Higher contamination levels were distributed on areas frequently touched by the pharmacy technicians-such as sleeves and airlock handles-than on scale plates, gravimetric control hardware, and work benches. Detected contaminations of cyclophosphamide, ifosfamide, gemcitabine, and cytarabine were higher than those of the others agents. SDS solution was almost 20% more efficient than IPA on eight of the antineoplastic agents.

CONCLUSION

Both cleaning solutions were able to reduce contamination levels in the biosafety cabinets. The efficacy of the solution containing an anionic detergent agent (SDS) was shown to be generally higher than that of IPA and, after the SDS cleaning procedure, biosafety cabinets demonstrated acceptable contamination levels.

Cleaning Efficiencies of Three Cleaning Agents on Four Different Surfaces after Contamination by Gemcitabine and 5-fluorouracile

Occupational exposure to antineoplastic drugs has been documented for decades showing widespread contamination in preparation and administration areas. Apart from preventive measures, efficient cleaning of surfaces is indispensable to minimize the exposure risk. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficiency of three cleaning agents after intentional contamination by gemcitabine (GEM) and 5-fluorouracile (5-FU) on four different surface types usually installed in healthcare settings. Glass, stainless steel, polyvinylchloride (PVC), and laminated wood plates were contaminated with 20 ng/μl GEM and 2 ng/μl 5-FU solutions. Wipe samples were analyzed for drug residues after cleaning with a) distilled water, b) aqueous solution containing sodium dodecyl sulfate (10 mM) and 2-propanol (SDS-2P), and c) Incides N (pre-soaked) alcoholic wipes. Quantification was performed by high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) for GEM and gas chromato-graphy-tandem mass spectrometry (GCMS/MS) for 5-FU. Recovery was determined and cleaning efficiency was calculated for each scenario. Mean recoveries were 77-89% for GEM and 24-77% for 5-FU and calculated cleaning efficiencies ranged between 95 and 100% and 89 and 100%, respectively. Residual drug amounts were detected in the range nd (not detected) - 84 ng GEM/sample and nd - 6.6 ng 5-FU/sample depending on surface type and cleaning agent. Distilled water and SDS-2P had better decontamination outcomes than Incides N wipes on nearly all surface types, especially for GEM. Regarding 5-FU, the overall cleaning efficiency was lower with highest residues on laminated wood surfaces. The tested cleaning procedures are shown to clean glass, stainless steel, PVC, and laminated wood with an efficiency of 89-100% after contamination with GEM and 5-FU. Nevertheless, drug residues could be verified by wipe samples. Pure distilled water and SDS in an alcoholic-aqueous solution expressed an efficient cleaning performance, especially with respect to GEM. The study results demonstrate the need to adapt cleaning procedures to the variety of drugs and surface types to develop effective decontamination strategies.

Antineoplastic drugs contamination of workplace surfaces in two Portuguese hospitals

Despite the classification as known or suspected human carcinogens, by the International Agency for Research on Cancer, the antineoplastic drugs are extensively used in cancer treatment due to their specificity and efficacy. As human carcinogens, these drugs represent a serious threat to the healthcare workers involved in their preparation and administration. This work aims to contribute to better characterize the occupational exposure of healthcare professionals to antineoplastic drugs, by assessing workplace surfaces contamination of pharmacy and administration units of two Portuguese hospitals. Surface contamination was assessed by the determination of cyclophosphamide, 5-fluorouracil, and paclitaxel. These three drugs were used as surrogate markers for surfaces contamination by cytotoxic drugs. Wipe samples were taken and analyzed by HPLC-DAD. From the total of 327 analyzed samples, in 121 (37 %) was possible to detect and quantify at least one drug. Additionally, 28 samples (8.6 %) indicate contamination by more than one antineoplastic drug, mainly in the administration unit, in both hospitals. Considering the findings in both hospitals, specific measures should be taken, particularly those related with the promotion of good practices and safety procedures and also routine monitoring of surfaces contamination in order to guarantee the appliance of safety measures.

Evaluation of oxaliplatin exposure of healthcare workers during heated intraperitoneal perioperative chemotherapy (HIPEC)

The aim of this study was to evaluate air and surface contaminations, and internal contamination of healthcare workers during open-abdomen HIPEC using oxaliplatin. Platinum (Pt) was measured in urine of exposed workers and in multiple air and surface samples. Three successive HIPEC procedures were investigated in each of the two hospitals participating in the study. Analysis of air samples did not detect any oxaliplatin contamination. Heavy contamination of the operating table, the floor at the surgeon's feet, and the surgeon's overshoes were observed. Hand contamination was observed in surgeons using double gloves for intra-abdominal chemotherapy administration, but not in those using three sets of gloves. Pt was not detected in urine samples obtained after HIPEC (<5 ng/L). The main risk of HIPEC is related to direct or indirect skin exposure and can be prevented by correct use of adapted protective equipment.

Evaluation of a closed-system cytotoxic transfer device in a pharmaceutical isolator

PURPOSE

The occupational risk associated with handling of cytotoxic anticancer drugs is well documented and, in many countries, pharmaceutical isolators are used to contain cytotoxic residues during preparation of cytotoxic infusions. Isolators are difficult to clean leading to concerns that cytotoxic contamination from the work area could be transferred to surfaces of products leaving the isolator. This study investigated the surface contamination arising from the preparation of five anticancer drug infusions (Epirubicin, Fluorouracil, Cisplatin, Oxaliplatin and Carboplatin) in a pharmaceutical isolator and compared use of a conventional syringe and needle technique with a closed-system drug transfer device (CSDTD).

METHODS

Wipe samples were taken over 1 week from pre-defined areas in the isolator, gloves, preparation mats, and also from the surfaces of prepared cytotoxic infusion bags and pre-filled syringes to obtain baseline surface contamination data. Following operator familiarisation, the CSDTD was then introduced and sampling repeated for a further week (intervention period). The samples obtained were analysed using validated HPLC-UV, HPLC-FL and ICP-MS techniques, as appropriate.

RESULTS

All surfaces sampled during baseline, including external surfaces of infusions and syringes, were contaminated with each marker drug. During the intervention phase, isolator surfaces were free from detectable contamination and the contamination measured on gloves, preparation mats and surface of infusions was markedly reduced. The frequency of contamination on syringe and infusion surfaces was also lower.

CONCLUSION

Surface contamination from cytotoxic infusion preparation in a pharmaceutical isolator was significant and could transmit cytotoxic residues to patient and public areas via infusion surfaces. The frequency and amount of contamination were reduced by the CSDTD.