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

Abstract

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.

Keywords

Hazardous drugs cytotoxic antineoplastic exposure external packaging contamination

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH). Preventing occupational exposures to antineoplastic and other hazardous drugs in healthcare settings, Cincinnati, OH: NIOSH – Publications Dissemination, 2004–165, 2004. .

Suspiro

Prista

. Biomarkers of occupational exposure do anticancer agents: a minireview. Toxicol Lett 2011; 207: 42–52.

Connor

Lawson

Polovich

et al.

Reproductive health risks associated with occupational exposures to antineoplastic drugs in health care settings. J Occup Environ Med 2014; 56: 901–910.

Pethran

Schierl

Hauff

et al.

Uptake of antineoplastic agents in pharmacy and hospital personnel. Part I: monitoring of urinary concentrations. Int Arch Occup Environ Health 2003; 76: 5–10.

Maeda

Miyawaki

Matstumoto

et al.

Evaluation of environmental contamination and occupational exposures involved in preparation of chemotherapeutic drugs. J Pharm Soc Japan 2010; 130: 903–910.

Sottani

Porro

Imbriani

et al.

Occupational exposure to antineoplastic drugs in four Italian health care settings. Toxicol Lett 2012; 213: 107–115.

Hon

Teschke

Shen

et al.

Antineoplastic drug contamination in the urine of Canadian healthcare workers. Int Arch Occup Environ Health 2015; 88: 933–941.

Hon

Teschke

Demers

et al.

Antineoplastic drug contamination on the hands of employees working throughout the hospital medication system. Ann Occup Hyg 2014; 58: 761–70.

Connor

Anderson

Sessink

et al.

Surface contamination with antineoplastic agents in six cancer treatment centers in Canada and the United States. Am J Health Syst Pharm 1999; 56: 1427–1432.

10.

Connor

. Hazardous anticancer drugs in health care environmental exposure assessment. Ann N Y Acad Sci 2006; 1076: 615–623.

11.

Favier

Gilles

Ardiet

et al.

External contamination of vials containing cytotoxic agents supplied by pharmaceutical manufacturers. J Oncol Pharm Pract 2003; 9: 15–20.

12.

ChemoGLO. User manual, https://chemoglo.com/ChemoGLOusermanual.pdf (accessed 6 August 2016).

13.

Hedmer

Georgiadi

Bremberg

et al.

Surface contamination of cyclophosphamide packaging and surface contamination with antineoplastic drugs in a hospital pharmacy in Sweden. Ann Occup Hyg 2005; 49: 629–637.

14.

Favier

Gilles

Ardiet

et al.

External contamination of vials containing cytotoxic agents supplied by pharmaceutical manufacturers. J Oncol Pharm Pract 2003; 9: 12–20.

15.

Mason

Morton

Garfitt

et al.

Cytotoxic drug contamination on the outside of vials delivered to a hospital pharmacy. Ann Occup Hyg 2003; 47: 681–685.

16.

ConnorT Sessink

Harrison

et al.

Surface contamination of chemotherapy drug vials and evaluation of new vial-cleaning techniques: results of three studies. Am J Health Syst Pharm 2005; 62: 475–484.

17.

Schierl

Herwid

Pfaller

et al.

Surface contamination of antineoplastic drug vials: comparison of unprotected and protected vials. Am J Health Syst Pharm 2010; 67: 107–108.

18.

Hedmer

Georgiadi

Bremberg

et al.

Surface contamination of cyclophosphamide packaging and surface contamination with antineoplastic drugs in a hospital pharmacy in Sweden. Ann Occup Hyg 2005; 49: 629–637.

19.

Touzin

Bussieres

Langlois

et al.

Cyclophosphamide contamination observed on the external surfaces of drug vials and the efficacy of cleaning on vial contamination. Ann Occup Hyg 2008; 52: 765–771.

20.

ASHP guidelines on handling hazardous drugs. Am J Health Syst Pharm 2006; 63: 1172–1193.

21.

University HealthSystem Consortium. UHC consensus statement: model hazardous drug safety plan for institutions. Oak Brook, IL: University HealthSystem Consortium, 2009.

22.

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH). NIOSH List of Antineoplastic and Other Hazardous Drugs in Healthcare Settings 2014. Cincinnati, OH: NIOSH – Publications Dissemination, 2014–138, 2014.

23.

United State Pharmacopoeia. General chapter <800> hazardous drugs – handling in healthcare settings, http://www.usp.org/sites/default/files/usp_pdf/EN/m7808_pre-post.pdf (2015 accessed 6 August 2016).

24.

Wick

Slawson

Jorgenson

et al.

Using a closed-system protective device to reduce personnel exposure to antineoplastic agents. Am J Health Syst Pharm 2003; 60: 2314–2320.

25.

Siderov

Kirsa

McLauchlan

. Reducing workplace cytotoxic surface contamination using a closed-system drug transfer device. J Oncol Pharm Pract 2010; 16: 19–25.

26.

Sessink

Trahan

Coyne

. Reduction in surface contamination with cyclophosphamide in 30 US hospital pharmacies following implementation of closed system drug transfer device. Hosp Pharm 2013; 48: 204–212.

27.

Connor

Anderson

Sessink

et al.

Effectiveness of a closed system device in containing surface contamination with cyclophosphamide and ifosfamide in an i.v. admixture area. Am J Health Syst Pharm 2002; 59: 68–72.

28.

Buerge

Buser

Poiger

et al.

Occurrence and fate of the cytostatic drugs cyclophosphamide and ifosfamide in wastewater and surface waters. Environ Sci Technol 2006; 40: 7242–7250.