Search

Two surgical techniques used for peritoneal metastasis involve a risk of exposure to antineoplastic drugs (ADs): hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) and pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC). The objective of this study was to assess the differences in perception, training, and knowledge of the risks as well as in the protection practices and occupational exposures of all worker categories.

The occupational exposure of caregivers to antineoplastic agents has been demonstrated since 1979. Since the early 1990s, numerous studies from several countries have demonstrated the contamination of care facilities by antineoplastic drugs. As it is easier to sample, most contamination measurements in workers are carried out in urine sample. The distribution and elimination half‐lives of irinotecan suggest that blood can be considered as better than urine for the biomonitoring of a potential contamination of healthcare workers. We describe here the development and the validation of a UHPLC–MS/MS method to simultaneously quantify irinotecan, and two of its main metabolites, APC and SN‐38, at ultra‐trace levels in plasma and red blood cells (RBC). This method has been applied to blood samples collected from several healthcare services in a French comprehensive cancer center. The results demonstrate that the method is sensitive enough to identify a contamination of healthcare workers by irinotecan and SN‐38 at very low concentrations. Moreover, the results show that analysis of RBC is of great interest and complementary to that of serum. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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 registration Study CONTACT, ref. 19-504. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Caregivers in healthcare settings are exposed to a risk of antineoplastic drug contamination which can lead to adverse health effects. Biological monitoring is necessary to estimate the actual level of exposure of these workers. This study was conducted with the aim of assessing blood contamination levels by irinotecan and its metabolites of pharmaceutical staff operating inside and outside a compounding unit. Methods: The study took place within the pharmaceutical unit of a French comprehensive cancer centre. Blood samples were collected from the pharmacy workers operating inside and outside the compounding unit, and analysed by UHPLC-MS/MS. Plasma and red blood cell irinotecan and its metabolites (SN-38; APC) were determined with a validated analytical method detection test. Results: A total of 17/78 (21.8%) plasma and red blood cell-based assays were found to be contaminated among staff. Overall, the total number of positive assays was significantly higher for staff members working outside the compounding unit than for workers working inside it (P = 0.022), with respectively 5/42 (11.9%) and 12/36 (33.3%) positive assays. For plasma dosages, the "outside" group had a significantly higher number of positive assays (P = 0.014). For red blood cell-based assays, no significant difference was found (P = 0.309). Conclusions: This study reveals that pharmaceutical staff serving in health care settings are exposed to a risk of antineoplastic drug contamination, not only inside the compounding room but also in adjacent rooms. The results would help to raise awareness and potentially establish protective measures for caregivers working in areas close to the compounding room as well. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Haute Autorité de Santé (HAS), created by the French Health Insurance Act of August 13, 2004, is an independent scientific public authority, with legal personality and financial autonomy. Involved in the fight against antibiotic resistance, the HAS provides professionals and the general public with a range of tools to encourage the adoption of best practices in the use of antibiotics., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.)

Nurses are regularly interrupted when performing their tasks. Yet studies have shown that there is a link between the fact of being interrupted when preparing medication and the increased risk of making a mistake. Seeking to reinforce the safety of the medication preparation stage, a team in Normandy studied the benefit, for the nurse, of wearing ear plugs during this specific time., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.)