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

Abstract

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.

Keywords

Outpatient pharmacy dispensing contamination hazardous tray exposure retail spatula solid chemotherapy tablets antineoplastic employee cytotoxic

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

American Society of Clinical Oncology. The state of cancer care in America, 2017: a report by the American Society of Clinical Oncology. J Oncol Pract 2017; 13: e353–e394.

Muller

. New cancer drugs pave the way for precision medicine. Pharm Today 2016; 22: 28–29.

Conti

. National trends in spending on and use of oral oncologics, first quarter 2006 through third quarter 2011. Health Aff 2015; 33: 1721–1727.

Weingart

Brown

Bach

et al.

NCCN task force report: oral chemotherapy. JJ Natl Compr Cancer Netw 2008; 6: S1–S14.

Lester

. Safe handling and administration considerations of oral anticancer agents in the clinical and home setting. Clin J Oncol Nurs 2012; 16: E192–E197.

Benjamin

Buthion

Iskedjian

et al.

Budget impact analysis of the use of oral and intravenous anti-cancer drugs for the treatment of HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer. J Med Econ 2013; 16: 96–107.

SHPA Committee of Specialty Practice in Cancer Services . SHPA standards of practice for the provision of oral chemotherapy for the treatment of cancer. J Pharm Pract Res 2007; 37: 149–152.

Selevan

Lindbohm

Hornung

et al.

A study of occupational exposure to antineoplastic drugs and fetal loss in nurses. N Engl J Med 1985; 313: 1173–1178.

Stücker

Caillard

Collin

et al.

Risk of spontaneous abortion among nurses handling antineoplastic drugs. Scand J Work Environ Health 1990; 16: 102–107.

10.

Pohlová

Cerná

Rössner

. Chromosomal aberrations, SCE and urine mutagenicity in workers occupationally exposed to cytostatic drugs. Mutat Res 1986; 174: 213–217.

11.

Waksvik

Klepp

Brøgger

. Chromosome analyses of nurses handling cytostatic agents. Cancer Treat Rep 1981; 65: 607–610.

12.

Şardaş

Gök

Karakaya

. Sister chromatid exchanges in lymphocytes of nurses handling antineoplastic drugs. Toxicol Lett 1991; 55: 311–315.

13.

Sessink

Cerná

Rössner

et al.

Urinary cyclophosphamide excretion and chromosomal aberrations in peripheral blood lymphocytes after occupational exposure to antineoplastic agents. Mutat Res 1994; 309: 193–199.

14.

Stucker

Hirsch

Doloy

et al.

Urine mutagenicity, chromosomal abnormalities and sister chromatid exchanges in lymphocytes of nurses handling cytostatic drugs. Int Arch Occup Environ Health 1986; 57: 195–205.

15.

Hewitt

. Health effects of occupational exposure to antineoplastic drugs: an integrative research approach, Toronto: Ministry of Labour, Industrial Disease Panel, 1997.

16.

Valanis

Vollmer

Steele

. Occupational exposure to antineoplastic agents: self-reported miscarriages and stillbirths among nurses and pharmacists. J Occup Environ Med 1999; 41: 632–638.

17.

Stahlmann

Bluth

Neubert

. Effects of the cyclophosphamide metabolite acrolein in mammalian limb bud cultures. Arch Toxicol 1985; 57: 163–167.

18.

Cyclophosphamide. IARC monographs on the evaluation of carcinogenic risks to humans. International Agency for Research on Cancer. World Health Organization, Lyon, Fr. 2014.

19.

Rogers

. Health hazards to personnel handling antineoplastic agents. Occup Med 1987; 2: 513–524.

20.

Pharmaceutical compounding: Sterile preparations. In: United States pharmacopeia. USP guidebook to pharmaceutical compounding. The United States Pharmacopeial Convention, Rockville, MD, 2008.

21.

Sessink

Boer

Scheefhals

et al.

Occupational exposure to antineoplastic agents at several departments in a hospital. Environmental contamination and excretion of cyclophosphamide and ifosfamide in urine of exposed workers. Int Arch Occup Environ Health 1992; 64: 105–112.

22.

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.

23.

Acampora

Castiglia

Miraglia

et al.

A case study: surface contamination of cyclophosphamide due to working practices and cleaning procedures in two Italian hospitals. Ann Occup Hyg 2005; 49: 611–618.

24.

Touzin

Bussières

J-F

Langlois

et al.

Evaluation of surface contamination in a hospital hematology – oncology pharmacy. J Oncol Pharm Pract 2009; 15: 53–61.

25.

Ramphal

Bains

Goulet

et al.

Occupational exposure to chemotherapy of pharmacy personnel at a single centre. Can J Hosp Pharm 2015; 68: 104–112.

26.

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.

27.

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.

28.

Tans

Willems

. Comparative contamination study with cyclophosphamide, fluorouracil and ifosfamide: standard technique versus a proprietary closed-handling system. J Oncol Pharm Pract 2004; 10: 217–223.

29.

Vyas

Turner

Clark

et al.

Evaluation of a closed-system cytotoxic transfer device in a pharmaceutical isolator. J Oncol Pharm Pract 2016; 22: 10–19.

30.

Closed-system transfer devices for the handling of hazardous drugs: a review of the clinical and cost-effectiveness and guidelines [internet]. Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health. Ottawa, 2015.

31.

Clark

Sessink

PJM

. Use of a closed system drug-transfer device eliminates surface contamination with antineoplastic agents. J Oncol Pharm Pract 2013; 19: 99–104.

32.

Connor

Sessink

PJM

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.

33.

Roberts

Khammo

McDonnell

et al.

Studies on the decontamination of surfaces exposed to cytotoxic drugs in chemotherapy workstations. J Oncol Pharm Pract 2006; 12: 95–104.

34.

Goodin

Griffith

Chen

et al.

Safe handling of oral chemotherapeutic agents in clinical practice: recommendations from an international pharmacy panel. J Oncol Pract 2011; 7: 7–12.

35.

Lee

Murdaugh. Hazardous materials. In: Murdaugh

(ed). Competence assessment tools for health-system pharmacies, 5th ed. Bethesda, MD: American Society of Health-System Pharmacists, 2015, pp. 165–167.

36.

Sessink

. Environmental contamination with cytostatic drugs: past, present and future. Saf Considerations Oncol Pharm 2011. Special ed: 3–5.

37.

Redic KA, Fang K, Christen C, et al. Surface contamination of hazardous drug pharmacy storage bins and pharmacy distributor shipping containers. J Oncol Pharm Pract. Epub ahead of print November 17, 2016. DOI: 10.1177/1078155216679027.

38.

Dorr

Alberts

. Topical absorption and inactivation of cytotoxic anticancer agents in vitro. Cancer 1992; 70: 983–987.

39.

Castegnaro

De Méo

Laget

et al.

Chemical degradation of wastes of antineoplastic agents. 2: six anthracyclines: idarubicin, doxorubicin, epirubicin, pirarubicin, aclarubicin, and daunorubicin. Int Arch Occup Environ Health 1997; 70: 378–384.

40.

Queruau Lamerie

Nussbaumer

Décaudin

et al.

Evaluation of decontamination efficacy of cleaning solutions on stainless steel and glass surfaces contaminated by 10 antineoplastic agents. Ann Occup Hyg 2013; 57: 456–469.

41.

Lê

LMM

Jolivot

Yaye

et al.

Effectiveness of cleaning of workplace cytotoxic surface. Int Arch Occup Environ Health 2013; 86: 333–341.

42.

Roussel

Connor

. Chemotherapy: current and emerging issues in safe handling of antineoplastic and other hazardous drugs. Oncol Nurse 2014; 7(1): 14–17.

43.

Wakui

Ookubo

Iwasaki

et al.

Determination of exposure of dispensary drug preparers to cyclophosphamide by passive sampling and liquid chromatography with tandem mass spectrometry. J Oncol Pharm Pract 2013; 19: 31–37.

44.

Wakui

Ookubo

Iwasaki

et al.

Development of a closed drug preparation method for oral anticancer drugs. J Oncol Pharm Pract 2013; 19: 315–320.

45.

Fent

Durgam

Mueller

. Pharmaceutical dust exposure at pharmacies using automatic dispensing machines: a preliminary study. J Occup Environ Hyg 2014; 11: 695–705.

46.

Falck

Gröhn

Sorsa

et al.

Mutagenicity in urine of nurses handling cytostatic drugs. Lancet 1979; 1: 1250–1251.

47.

Griffin

. Safety considerations and safe handling of oral chemotherapy agents. Clin J Oncol Nurs 2003; 7: 25–29.

48.

Chaffee

Armitstead

Benjamin

et al.

Guidelines for the safe handling of hazardous drugs: consensus recommendations. Am J Heal Pharm 2010; 67: 1545–1546.

49.

Eisenberg

. Safe handling and administration of antineoplastic chemotherapy. J Infus Nurs 2009; 32: 23–32.

50.

NIOSH. Preventing occupational exposures to antineoplastic and other hazardous drugs in the health care setting, Washington, DC: NIOSH Publication, 2004.

51.

White

Easty

. Human factors: safety lessons for oncology pharmacy practice. Saf Considerations Oncol Pharm 2011. 6-8. Special ed.

52.

Jacobson

Polovich

McNiff

et al.

American Society of Clinical Oncology/Oncology Nursing Society chemotherapy administration safety standards. J Clin Oncol 2009; 27: 5469–5475.

53.

Ahmad

Simanovski

Hertz

et al.

Oral chemotherapy practices at Ontario cancer centres. J Oncol Pharm Pract 2015; 21: 249–257.

54.

Abbott

Edwards

Whelan

et al.

Are community pharmacists equipped to ensure the safe use of oral anticancer therapy in the community setting? Results of a cross-country survey of community pharmacists in Canada. J Oncol Pharm Pract 2014; 20: 29–39.

55.

O’Bryant

Crandell

. Community pharmacists’ knowledge of and attitudes toward oral chemotherapy. J Am Pharm Assoc (2003) 2003; 48: 632–639.

56.

Armitstead JA, Benjamin BE, Chaffee BW, et al. UHC consensus statement: model hazardous drug safety plan for institutions. University Health Systems Consortium. Oak Brook, IL, 2009.

57.

Hon

Barzan

Astrakianakis

. Identification of knowledge gaps regarding healthcare workers’ exposure to antineoplastic drugs: review of literature, North America versus Europe. Saf Health Work 2014; 5: 169–174.

58.

Landeck

Gonzalez

Koch

. Handling chemotherapy drugs – do medical gloves really protect? Int J Cancer 2015; 137: 1800–1805.

59.

Connor

Mackenzie

DeBord

. Clarification about hazardous drugs. Am J Health Syst Pharm 2012; 69: 1949–1950.

60.

General chapter <800> hazardous drugs – handling in healthcare settings. United States Pharmacopeial Conv 2017; USP 40–NF: 1–19.

61.

ChemoGLO user manual. Chapel Hill, NC.