Safe Handling of Hazardous Drugs in Home Infusion

Chemotherapy agents used for cancer treatment are considered hazardous drugs (HDs). Guidelines and standards for handling HDs have been in place for several decades to protect oncology nurses working in hospitals and outpatient infusion areas. However, chemotherapy is frequently being administered in home settings, often by infusion nurses who do not necessarily have the requisite knowledge and training. Providing appropriate education for home infusion nurses is key to ensuring they are practicing in a manner that minimizes potential exposure to HDs.

Wipe-sampling procedure optimisation for the determination of 23 antineoplastic drugs used in the hospital pharmacy

PURPOSE

Optimise a wipe sampling procedure to evaluate the surface contamination for 23 antineoplastic drugs used in the hospital pharmacy.

METHODS

The influence of various parameters (ie, sampling device, sampling solution, desorption modes) was evaluated using a validated liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) method able to quantify 23 antineoplastic drugs widely used in the hospital pharmacy: 5-fluorouracil, busulfan, cyclophosphamide, cytarabine, dacarbazine, daunorubicin, docetaxel, doxorubicin, epirubicin, etoposide, etoposide phosphate, fludarabine phosphate, ganciclovir, gemcitabine, idarubicin, ifosfamide, irinotecan, methotrexate, paclitaxel, pemetrexed, raltitrexed, topotecan and vincristine. Best conditions were tested with real samples from a hospital pharmacy chemotherapy compounding unit.

RESULTS

Polyester swabs (TX714 and TX716) gave satisfactory results for the desorption step for all compounds with mean recoveries of 90% and 95%, respectively. For the wiping step, higher recoveries were obtained using TX716 and isopropanol 75% as wiping solution. As anticipated, most intense contaminations were found close to the chemotherapy production site, on surfaces the most frequently in contact with operators' hands.

CONCLUSION

Wipe sampling method was successfully developed and applied to real samples to determine surface contamination with 23 antineoplastic agents in trace amounts.

A review of the evidence for occupational exposure risks to novel anticancer agents – A focus on monoclonal antibodies

Introduction

Evidence of occupational exposure risks to novel anticancer agents is limited and yet to be formally evaluated from the Australian healthcare perspective.

Methods

From March to September 2013 medical databases, organizational policies, drug monographs, and the World Wide Web were searched for evidence relating to occupational exposure to monoclonal antibodies, fusion proteins, gene therapies, and other unclassified novel anticancer agents.

Results

Australian legislation, national and international guidelines, and drug company information excluded novel agents or provided inconsistent risk assessments and safe handling recommendations. Monoclonal antibody guidelines reported conflicting information and were often divergent with available evidence and pharmacologic rationale demonstrating minimal internalisation ability and occupational exposure risk. Despite similar physiochemical, pharmacologic, and internalisation properties to monoclonal antibodies, fusion proteins were included in only a minority of guidelines. Clinical directives for the safe handling of gene therapies and live vaccines were limited, where available focusing on prevention against exposure and cross-contamination. Although mechanistically different, novel small molecule agents (proteasome inhibitors), possess similar physiochemical and internalisation properties to traditional cytotoxic agents warranting cytotoxic classification and handling.

Conclusion

Novel agents are rapidly emerging into clinical practice, and healthcare personnel have few resources to evaluate risk and provide safety recommendations. Novel agents possess differing physical, molecular and pharmacological profiles compared to traditional cytotoxic anticancer agents. Evaluation of occupational exposure risk should consider both toxicity and internalisation. Evidence-based guidance able to direct safe handling practices for novel anticancer agents across a variety of clinical settings is urgently required.

Occupational exposure to anti-cancer drugs: A review of effects of new technology

Because anti-cancer drugs are non-selective, they affect both cancerous and non-cancerous cells. Being carcinogenic and mutagenic, many anticancer drugs therefore present a major health risk to healthcare staff working with them. This paper reviews the means by which exposure to anti-cancer drugs in the workplace may be monitored, assessed and reduced. Both biological monitoring, using non-selective methods or compound-selective methods, and environmental monitoring have provided information on the nature and degree of exposure in the workplace. Pharmaceutical isolators, used for the compounding of cytotoxic IV infusions and the preparation of injectable drugs, provide a physical barrier between pharmacists and cytotoxic drugs and reduce direct exposure. However, the interior of isolators and the contents thereof (e.g. infusion bags and syringes) are readily contaminated by aerosols and spillages and afford a secondary source of exposure to pharmacists, nurses and cleaning staff. Closed system transfer devices (CSTDs), designed to prohibit the transfer of contaminants into the working environment during drug transfer between the vial and syringe, have been successful in further reducing, but not eliminating surface contamination. Given that the number of patients requiring treatment with chemotherapeutic agents is predicted to increase, further efforts to reduce occupational exposure to anti-cancer drugs, including the refinement and wider use of CTSDs, are recommended.

Nurses' use of hazardous drug-handling precautions and awareness of national safety guidelines

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVES

To determine patterns of personal protective equipment (PPE) used by oncology nurses while handling hazardous drugs (HDs) and to assess knowledge of the 2004 National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) Alert and its effect on precaution use.

DESIGN

Descriptive, correlational.

SETTING

The Oncology Nursing Society 31st Annual Congress in Boston, MA, in 2006.

SAMPLE

330 nurses who prepared and/or administered chemotherapy.

METHODS

Nurses described HD safe-handling precaution use by self-report survey.

MAIN RESEARCH VARIABLES

The availability and use of biologic safety cabinets and PPE.

FINDINGS

Respondents were well educated (57% had a bachelor's degree or more), experienced (X = 19, SD = 10.2 years in nursing and X = 12, SD = 7.9 years in oncology), and certified (70%; majority OCN®). Forty-seven percent of respondents were aware of the NIOSH Alert. Thirty-five percent of all participants and 93% of nurses in private practice settings reported preparing chemotherapy. Glove use (95%-100%) was higher than that reported in earlier studies, and gown use for drug preparation (65%), drug administration (50%), and handling excretions (23%) have remained unchanged. Double-gloving was rare (11%-18%). Nurses in private practices were less likely to have chemotherapy-designated PPE available, use PPE, and use spill kits for HD spills.

CONCLUSIONS

Nurses have adopted glove use for HD handling; however, gown use remains comparatively low. Chemotherapy-designated PPE is not always provided by employers. Nurses lack awareness of current safety guidelines.

IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING

Nurses must know about the risks of HD exposure and ways to reduce exposure. Employers must provide appropriate PPE and encourage its use. Alternative methods of disseminating safety recommendations are needed.