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

Safe handling of cytostatic drugs: recommendations from independent science

OBJECTIVES

Due to their mechanism of action, most classical cytostatic drugs have carcinogenic, mutagenic and/or reprotoxic properties. Therefore, occupational exposure of healthcare staff to these drugs should be prevented. Our objective was to lay out European legislation on this topic and reflect on the process of revising the European CM-directive. We summarise independent European and Dutch studies, and give a concise set of basic recommendations for safe working with cytotoxic drugs in healthcare facilities.

METHODS

We were directly involved in the process of revising the CM-directive: first, through an EU commissioned workshop in the Netherlands, and after that by contributing to the pan-European stakeholder symposium. For this aim, we had to gather the relevant study data from the Netherlands and from Europe. We analysed all relevant industry-independent studies and collated a set of basic recommendations.

RESULTS

Independent studies show that the development of measures in recent years can lead to a safe work environment. Standardising the cleaning process leads to a significant improvement in environmental contamination in the majority of hospitals. In the Netherlands, exposure of workers was shown to be well beneath the limit value of 0.74 µg cyclophosphamide per week, therefore showing that the measures taken in recent years are adequate.

CONCLUSIONS

The safety of healthcare workers is of the utmost importance. Current practice in the Netherlands show that measures taken in recent years are adequate. European legislation should be based on independent scientific research and practice. The first goal should be to bring countries with less safe working levels to a higher level instead of introducing measures that only increase healthcare budgets but not healthcare safety.

Evaluation of the risk of occupational exposure to antineoplastic drugs in healthcare sector: part II - the application of the FMECA method to compare manual vs automated preparation

Healthcare workers handling antineoplastic drugs (ADs) in preparation units run the risk of occupational exposure to contaminated surfaces and associated mutagenic, teratogenic, and oncogenic effects of those drugs. To minimise this risk, automated compounding systems, mainly robots, have been replacing manual preparation of intravenous drugs for the last 20 years now, and their number is on the rise. To evaluate contamination risk and the quality of the working environment for healthcare workers preparing ADs, we applied the Failure Mode Effects and Criticality Analysis (FMECA) method to compare the acceptable risk level (ARL), based on the risk priority number (RPN) calculated from five identified failure modes, with the measured risk level (MRL). The model has shown higher risk of exposure with powdered ADs and containers not protected by external plastic shrink film, but we found no clear difference in contamination risk between manual and automated preparation. This approach could be useful to assess and prevent the risk of occupational exposure for healthcare workers coming from residual cytotoxic contamination both for current handling procedures and the newly designed ones. At the same time, contamination monitoring data can be used to keep track of the quality of working conditions by comparing the observed risk profiles with the proposed ARL. Our study has shown that automated preparation may have an upper hand in terms of safety but still leaves room for improvement, at least in our four hospitals.

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.

Developing wipe sampling strategy guidance for assessing environmental contamination of antineoplastic drugs

Surveillance for environmental contamination of antineoplastic drugs has been recommended by authoritative bodies such as the United States Pharmacopeia and the National Association of Pharmacy Regulatory Authorities. Clear guidance is needed on how to develop sampling strategies that align with surveillance objectives efficiently and effectively. We conducted a series of simulations using previously collected surveillance data from nine cancer treatment centers to evaluate different sampling strategies. We evaluated the impact of sampling 2, 5, 10, or 20 surfaces, at monthly, quarterly, semi-annual, and annual frequencies, while employing either a random or sentinel surface selection strategy to assess contamination by a single antineoplastic drug (AD) or by a panel of three ADs. We applied two different benchmarks: a binary benchmark of above or below the limit of detection and AD-specific hygienic guidance values, based on 90th percentile values as quantitative benchmarks. The use of sentinel surfaces to evaluate a three-drug panel relative to 90th percentile hygienic guidance values (HGVs) resulted in the most efficient and effective surveillance strategy.

Perception, knowledge, practices and training regarding the risk of exposure to antineoplastic drugs in three French compounding units

INTRODUCTION

Healthcare workers are exposed to hazardous drugs such as antineoplastic drugs, which have potential carcinogenic, mutagenic and teratogenic effects. Protective measures must be taken after appropriate staff training to handle antineoplastic drugs in a safe way. The objective was to assess perception, knowledge, practices and training regarding the risk of exposure of healthcare workers in three French compounding units.

METHODS

This descriptive study was based on a questionnaire made of 33 questions divided into five sections related to the handling of antineoplastic drugs: perception of the risks, knowledge of the risks, protection practices, specific training and general questions.

RESULTS

Among the 39 participants, over half considered their overall risk of exposure to antineoplastic drugs not being very low. Inhalation was known to 69.2% of them as possible route of contamination. The breakroom was identified by 28.9% of them as a place of contamination. The procedure in case of accidental exposure to antineoplastic drugs was known by 69.2%, but only half could explain it. Only 38.5% said they changed their gloves every 30 min as recommended. Barely half said that they had been trained specifically for the handling of antineoplastic drugs during an initial training. Over half wished to be informed, trained and aware of the proper handling of antineoplastic drugs.

CONCLUSION

Although some of these results are encouraging, specifically when compared to the other settings where antineoplastic drugs are handled, there is still room for improvement. Efforts to build an adapted and impactful training program must pursue.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

Study CONTACT, ref. 19-504.

National survey of safe handling of hazardous drugs in hospital settings: Use of an innovative approach

INTRODUCTION

Workers can reduce their risk of exposure to hazardous drugs by following safe handling guidelines. Healthcare centers need to dedicate time and resources in order to implement new safety recommendations. The objective was to present the results of a national survey about the safe handling of hazardous drugs in healthcare centers.

METHODS

Quebec healthcare centers performed an auto-evaluation to the newly updated safe handling guidelines in 2021. Centers rated each criterion as compliant or non-compliant. The guidelines tailored recommendations according to three categories of hazards: G1, consisting mostly of carcinogenic drugs; G2, other hazardous drugs; and G3, those with reproductive toxicity. The questionnaire prompted participants to document their planned corrective measures for non-compliant criteria.

RESULTS

Most centers participated (28/29, 97%). The overall compliance was 58% (8761/15,216 criteria). The conformity per theme was hygiene and sanitation (1290/1,878, 69%), laundry (221/367, 60%), pharmacy (2658/4,474, 59%), nursing (3436/6,017, 57%), spills and accidental exposure (353/649, 54%), and general measures (803/1,831, 44%). It was higher for recommendations regarding G1s (4226/6,115, 69%) than for G2s (1626/3557, 46%) and G3s (372/916, 41%).

CONCLUSIONS

This project successfully used an innovative approach that combined a national auto-evaluation survey, an actionable report, and the involvement of a community of practice. Centers were able to benchmark their implementation of safe handling guidelines, and community of practices may help in sharing the best practices. The design of the questionnaire helped in targeting corrective measures. More work is needed for safe handling practices that relate to G2 and G3 drugs.

Knowledge and practices about safe handling regarding the risk of exposure to antineoplastic drugs for caregivers in compounding units and in operating rooms performing HIPEC/PIPAC

INTRODUCTION

Ever since the late 1970s, occupational exposure associated with the handling of antineoplastic drugs (ADs) in the healthcare environment has been highlighted and demonstrated. Contamination was detected in both operating rooms (OR) and compounding units (CU), where healthcare workers handle and are exposed to ADs in different ways. In the OR, the risk of exposure is higher and the staff receives less training in handling ADs than in the CU. This study aimed to assess and compare knowledge and practices about the safe handling of ADs by caregivers working in these two locations, namely the CU and OR.

METHODS

Two questionnaires (one each for the OR and CU) were created by two investigator pharmacists and were completed during a personal interview of 20 min. The questions were related to the following topics: training, knowledge about occupational exposure and questions related to protective practices. A scoring system was implemented to assess the knowledge and practices of each participant.

RESULTS

In total, 38 caregivers working in the OR and 39 in the CU were included in our study. Significantly more CU staff had specific initial training (p < 0.001) and ongoing training (p < 0.001) in handling ADs. Concerning the knowledge score, OR caregivers had a significantly lower median score for contamination routes (p < 0.001), contamination surfaces (p < 0.001), existing procedures (p < 0.001) and total knowledge (p < 0.001) than CU caregivers. Concerning protective handling practices of ADs, the two locations had nonsignificantly different median scores (p = 0.892).

CONCLUSION

This study suggests that there is still room for improvement in terms of knowledge and protection practices when handling ADs. An appropriate and tailored training program should be developed and provided to all caregivers who handle or come in contact with ADs.Clinical trial registrationStudy CONTACT, ref. 19-504.

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.

Occupational Exposure Assessment to Antineoplastic Drugs in Nine Italian Hospital Centers over a 5-Year Survey Program

In the present study, surface contamination where antineoplastic drugs (ADs) are present was investigated, as occupational exposure risk is still an open debate. Despite recommendations and safety standard procedures being in place in health care settings, quantifiable levels of ADs are being reported in the recent literature. Thus, a survey monitoring program was conducted over five years (2016–2021) in nine Italian hospitals. The repeated surveys produced 8288 data points that have been grouped according to the main hospital settings, such as pharmacy areas and patient care units. Based on the most often prepared ADs, the investigated drugs were cyclophosphamide (CP), gemcitabine (GEM), 5-fluorouracil (5–FU), and platinum compounds (Pt). Patient care units had a frequency of positive wipe samples (59%) higher than pharmacies (44%). Conversely, pharmacies had a frequency of positive pad samples higher (24%) than patient care units (10%). Moreover, by statistical analysis, pad samples had a significantly higher risk of contamination in pharmacy areas than in patient care units. In this study, the 75th and the 90th percentiles of the contamination levels were obtained. The 90th percentile was chosen to describe a suitable benchmark that compares results obtained by the present research with those previously reported in the literature. Based upon surface contamination loads, our data showed that 5–FU had the highest concentration values, but the lowest frequency of positive samples. In pharmacy areas, the 90th percentile of 5–FU data distribution was less than 0.346 ng/cm² and less than 0.443 ng/cm² in patient care units. AD levels are higher than those reported for health care settings in other European countries yet trends of contamination in Italy have shown to decrease over time.

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.