An Automated Micro Solid-Phase Extraction (μSPE) Liquid Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry Method for Cyclophosphamide and Iphosphamide: Biological Monitoring in Antineoplastic Drug (AD) Occupational Exposure

Despite the considerable steps taken in the last decade in the context of antineoplastic drug (AD) handling procedures, their mutagenic effect still poses a threat to healthcare personnel actively involved in compounding and administration units. Biological monitoring procedures usually require large volumes of sample and extraction solvents, or do not provide adequate sensitivity. It is here proposed a fast and automated method to evaluate the urinary levels of cyclophosphamide and iphosphamide, composed of a miniaturized solid phase extraction (µSPE) followed by ultrahigh-performance liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (UHPLC-MS/MS) analysis. The extraction procedure, developed through design of experiments (DoE) on the ePrep One Workstation, required a total time of 9.5 min per sample, with recoveries of 77-79% and a solvent consumption lower than 1.5 mL per 1 mL of urine sample. Thanks to the UHPLC-MS/MS method, the limits of quantification (LOQ) obtained were lower than 10 pg/mL. The analytical procedure was successfully applied to 23 urine samples from compounding wards of four Italian hospitals, which resulted in contaminations between 27 and 182 pg/mL.

Occupational Exposure to Antineoplastic Drugs in Twelve French Health Care Setting: Biological Monitoring and Surface Contamination

Antineoplastic drugs used in the treatment of cancers have an intrinsic toxicity, because of their genotoxic, teratogenic, and carcinogenic properties. Their use is recognized as an occupational hazard for healthcare workers (HCWs) who may be exposed. The purpose of this article is to present biological- and environmental-monitoring data collected in twelve French hospitals over eight years. Urine samples were collected from a wide range of HCWs (250 participants) from pharmacy and oncology units, including physicians, pharmacists, pharmacy technicians, nurses, auxiliary nurses, and cleaners. The investigated drugs were cyclophosphamide, ifosfamide, methotrexate, and α-fluoro-β-alanine, the main urinary metabolite of 5-fluorouracil. Wipe samples were collected from various locations in pharmacy and oncology units. More than 50% of participants, from all exposure groups, were contaminated with either drug, depending on the unit, the day, or the task performed. However, workers from oncology units were more frequently exposed than workers from pharmacy units. Significant contamination was detected on various surfaces in pharmacy and oncology units, highlighting potential sources of exposure. Risk-management measures should be implemented to reduce and maintain exposures at lowest-possible levels. In addition, regular exposure assessment, including biological and environmental monitoring, is recommended to ensure the long-term efficiency of the prevention measures.

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.

Nurses' internal contamination by antineoplastic drugs in hospital centers: a cross-sectional descriptive study

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to assess internal antineoplastic drugs (ADs) contamination in the nursing staff in French hospital centers, using highly sensitive analytical methods.

METHODS

This cross-sectional study included nurses practicing in care departments where at least one of the five ADs studied was handled (5-fluorouracil, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, ifosfamide, methotrexate). The nurses study participation lasted 24 h including collection of three urine samples and one self-questionnaire. All urine samples were assayed by ultra-high-performance liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry methods with very low value of the lower limit of quantification (LLOQ).

RESULTS

74 nurses were included, 222 urine samples and 74 self-questionnaires were collected; 1092 urine assays were performed. The percentage of nurses with internal AD contamination was 60.8% and low levels of urinary concentrations were measured. Regarding nurses with internal contamination (n = 45), 42.2% presented internal contamination by methotrexate, 37.8% by cyclophosphamide, 33.3% by ifosfamide, 17.8% by 5-fluorouracil metabolite and 6.7% by doxorubicine. Among the positive assays, 17.9% (n = 26/145) were not explained by exposure data from the self-questionnaire but this could be due to the skin contact of nurses with contaminated work surfaces.

CONCLUSIONS

This study reported high percentage of nurses with internal ADs contamination. The low LLOQ values of the used analytical methods, allowed the detection of ADs that would not have been detected with the current published methods: the percentage of contamination would have been 17.6% instead of the 60.8% reported here. Pending toxicological reference values, urine ADs concentrations should be reduced as low as reasonably achievable (ALARA principle).

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.

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.