Safe handling of cytotoxic drugs

Johan Vandenbroucke
PharmD
Senior Pharmacist Production
Central Pharmacy
University Hospital of Ghent
Ghent, Belgium

Since 1999, there has been new international interest in the safety aspects of handling cytotoxic agents. The reason for this is a change of attitude towards the risks of handling these products, which is similar to the change in attitude 20 years ago regarding handling radiation.

Since 1985, several studies have been published about the health risks associated with occupational exposure to cytotoxic agents. Recent epidemiological studies have also reported on the reproductive toxicity of cytotoxic agents.(1–9) International organisations such as the International Agency for Research on Cancer list several commonly used cytotoxic drugs as “proven carcinogenic” and many others as “probably carcinogenic”.

An increasing chemotherapy workload with more and higher dosages and newer, more potent drugs in the therapy arsenal makes this a very important issue for staff who have to prepare and administer these drugs.

Studies clarifying the chemical and physical properties of cytotoxic drugs confront us with the hard facts that these products, like any other chemical substances, can and will evaporate at room temperature. This means that any spillage or leakage will result in the release of the cytotoxic drug in a gas phase. Unfortunately, high-efficiency particulate air (HEPA) filters and masks do not protect against inhalation of the gas. Inhalation of these products must be added to the potential contamination routes.(10,11)

In 1995 the University Hospital of Ghent started the multidisciplinary Quality Assurance Programme – “Handling cytotoxic drugs in the hospital environment”. In 1997 this project became an official quality project, supported by the government’s Ministry of Social Security, Health and Environment. Part of this project was the monitoring of people and the environment during the preparation of cytotoxic drugs in the pharmacy and the introduction of a new type of administration system.

Monitoring preparatory activities
The aim of the study was to examine whether there is a ­difference in contamination between two systems for the reconstitution and preparation of cytotoxic drug-­containing infusion bags.

Open and closed systems
The classical system uses luer lock syringes and needles. It is classified as an open system as droplets can be ­liberated during use.

The other system used in this study was the PhaSeal(®) system. It consists of three different parts which are connected to the vial (a protector), syringe (an injector) and injection port (a connector). The combination of the different parts of the PhaSeal system gives a closed system based on the double-membrane technique and an expansion bladder to equalise over- or underpressure.

The protector is a pressure-equalising device, which is permanently attached to the vial and used for preparation of drugs either in powder or liquid form. It ensures efficient reduction of overpressure and vacuum when air or fluid is injected into or aspirated from the vial.

The injector is an encapsulated special cut cannula that is permanently attached to a disposable syringe with a luer fitting. It ensures a sealed transfer of the drug by means of double, tightly sealed, elastomeric membranes.

The connector is placed between the injector and the intravenous (IV) administration set or an infusion bag with a luer lock fitting.

The people involved in the study were well-trained pharmacy technicians with a broad experience in preparing sterile and cytotoxic preparations. They were given additional training in manipulating the PhaSeal system.

The cyclophosphamide analyses were performed by Exposure Control (Paul Sessnick) in collaboration with the Department of Toxicology at the University of Nymegen in the Netherlands. The Exposure Control personnel have extensive experience in analysing cytotoxic drugs in biological and environmental samples.(12–20)

They used gas chromatography in tandem with mass ­spectroscopy–mass spectroscopy (GC-MS-MS).

During the whole period of the test the consumption of cyclophosphamide remained constant at a level of 100–125g/month. At the beginning of the study, the preparation room had never been in contact with cytotoxic material. The normal cleaning of the biological safety cabinet (BSC) (first with soap and water, then with 70% alcohol), the floors and work tables (soap and water) was carried out daily.

Results of the wipe tests
Traces of cyclophosphamide were found immediately after installation of the carefully cleaned BSC, both inside and in the immediate surroundings, which suggests that the BSC itself is a cause of contamination.

Working with the classical system for 3.5 months led to a 10-fold increase in contamination inside the BSC. Measurable amounts of cyclophosphamide were found throughout the preparation room and even outside the room.

Working with the PhaSeal system for six months led to a decrease in contamination to barely detectable levels.

Using the classical system again for three months led to a two- to 10-fold increase in contamination, but this was at a lower level than after the first period of using the ­classical system.

Results of the urine samples
Differences in the two systems are also evident in urine samples from pharmacy staff. When the PhaSeal system was used, one out of six people was contaminated. This rose to four out of six when using the classical method. Six staff were tested over two 24-hour periods. Using PhaSeal, one out of 12 was contaminated, whereas with the classical system, six out of 11 were contaminated. The actual levels of contamination were lower with PhaSeal, which had a high of 0.6mg, versus the classical system’s highest contamination level of 17.75mg.

These results are in accordance with the results of studies performed by other investigators.(22–25)

A closed-administration
IV infusion system
Observations during the analytical phase of the project revealed that a simple connection or disconnection of a normal infusion bag to an infusion line results in a leakage rate of 25% during the connection handling and 100% in the disconnection handling.

We defined a “leakage” as being the moment when more than one droplet of the cytotoxic substance appeared in the environment.

In order to increase the safety for the nurses during the administration, we developed a Cyto Administration Set (CAS) for IV administration of cytotoxics.(26) The set consists of two different elements:

• An infusion bag with a Break-A-Way (BAW) seal in the outlet tube, ending in a female luer lock.
• An infusion line with a male luer lock connection for the cytotoxic-containing infusion bags and a spike connection for the noncytotoxic-containing infusion bags.

Several types of sets are available (eg, one spike plus one luer lock, two spikes plus four luer locks).
The CAS works as follows:

• The CAS infusion bag is prepared in the ­pharmacy by injecting the cytotoxic drug into the bag using the PhaSeal connector.
• Meanwhile the nurses start the patient’s treatment with the base infusion, the ­premedication and hydration solutions by connecting them with the spike(s).
• When the prepared infusion bags containing cytotoxics are delivered to the ward, a dry connection is made by means of the luer–luer connection.
• Once the connection is made, the BAW seal is broken and the cytotoxic drug can flow into the infusion line.
• The bags which contained the cytotoxic drugs remain ­connected and the whole set is discarded as risk waste after the treatment.

The CAS technique is based on a dry connection, thus eliminating all risks of leakage while connecting the special infusion bags to the set.

As an extension, the PhaSeal system is also in use for non-IV infusion administrations such as bladder installation and bolus injection.

Conclusion
We have made a number of important steps forward, especially in proving that closed systems increase safety for healthcare professionals during the preparation and administration of cytotoxic agents. Recent literature and unpublished data from the the Health & Safety Laboratory, an agency of the Health and Safety Executive, UK, suggest that working in an isolator (positive pressure or negative pressure) does not completely prevent the contamination risks, and thus working at a higher level (source containment) should be considered.(27)

Now that the health risks associated with cytotoxic drugs have been shown, it is obvious that prevention of contamination is the way forward.

References

1. Valanis B, Vollmer W, Labuhn K, Glass A. Association of antineoplastic drug handling with acute adverse effects in pharmacy personnel. Am J Hosp Pharm 1993;50:455-62.
2. Kaijser GP, Underberg WJ, Beijnen JH. The risk of handling cytotoxic drugs. Pharm Weekly Sci 1990;12(6):217-35.
3. Power LA, Anderson RW, Cortopassi R, Gera JR, Lewis RM Jr. Update on safe handling of hazardous drugs: the advice of experts. Am J Hosp Pharm 1990;47:1050-60.
4. Hemminki K, Kyyrönen P, Lindbohm ML. Spontaneous abortions and malformations in the offspring of nurses exposed to anaesthetic gases, cytostatic drugs and other potential hazards in hospitals, based on ­registered information of outcome. J Epidemiol Community Health 1985;39:141-7.
5. Gabriele P, Airoldi M, Succo G, Brando V, Redda MG. Undifferentiated nasopharyngeal-type carcinoma in a nurse handling ­cytostatic agents. Eur J Cancer B Oral Oncol 1993;29B:153.
6. Peelen S, Roeleveld N, Heederik D, Krombout H, Kort W. Toxic effects on reproduction in hospital personnel. Dutch Ministry of Social Affairs and Employment; 1999.
7. Stücker I, Caillard JF, Collin R, Gout M, Poyen D, Hèmon D. Risk of ­spontaneous abortion among nurses handling antineoplastic drugs. Scand J Work Environ Health 1990;16:102-7.
8. Hansen J, Olsen JH. Cancer ­morbidity among Danish female ­pharmacy technicians. Scand J Work Environ Health 1994;20:22-6.
9. Sessnick PJM, Kroese ED, van Kranen HJ, Bos RP. Cancer risk ­assessment for health care workers occupationally exposed to ­cyclophosphamide. Int Arch Occup Environ Health 1995;67:317-23.
10. Opiolka M, et al. Besteht ein ­ausreichender Personenschutz bei der Zytostatika-zubereitung? Krankenhaus Technik 03/1998.
11. Opiolka. Grenzen des Personenschutzes beim Einsatz von Sicherheitswerkbänken. Mitteilungen aus dem Institut für Umwelttechnologie und Umweltanalytic (IUTA); 1998.
12. Sessink PJM, Cernà M, Rössner P, et al. Urinary cyclophosphamide ­excretion and chromosomal aberrations in peripheral blood lymphocytes after occupational exposure to antineoplastic agents. Mutat Res 1994;309:193-9.
13. Sessink PJM, Friemèl NSS, Anzion RBM, Bos RP. Biological and ­environ­mental monitoring of ­occupational exposure of ­pharmaceutical plant ­workers to methotrexate. Int Arch Occup Environ Health 1994;65:401-3.
14. Sessink PJM, Joost HC, Pierik FH, Anzion RBM, Bos RP. Occupational exposure of animal caretakers to cyclophosphamide. J Occup Med 1993;35:47-52.
15. Sessink PJM, Boer KA, Scheefhaals APH, Anzion RBM, Bos RP. 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;64:105-12.
16. Sessink PJM, et al. Assessment of occupational exposure of pharmaceutical plant workers to 5-fluorouracil. J Occup Med 1994;36:79-83.
17. Sessink PJM, van de Kerkhof MCA, Noordhoek J, Anzion RBM, Bos RP. Environmental contamination and assessment of exposure to ­antineoplastic agents by determination of cyclophosphamide in urine of exposed pharmacy technicians: is skin absorption an important route? Arch Environ Health 1994;49:165-9.
18. Sessink PJM, Wittenhorst BCJ, Anzion RBA, Rob RP. Exposure of pharmacy technicians to antineoplastic agents: reevaluation after additional protective measures. Arch Environ Health 1997;52:240-4.
19. Sessink PJM, Anzion RBM, van den Broek PHH, Rob RP. Detection of contamination with antineoplastic agents in a hospital pharmacy department. Pharm Wkly Sci 1992;64:16-22.
20. Bos RP, Sessink PJM. Biomonitoring of occupational exposure to cytostatic anticancer drugs. Rev Environ Health 1997;12:43-58.
21. Sessink PJM, Kroese ED, van Kranen HJ, Bos RP. Cancer risk ­assessment for health care workers occupationally exposed to ­cyclophosphamide. Int Arch Occup Environ Health 1995;67:317-23.
22. Connor TH, Anderson RW, Sessink PJM, Broadfield L, Power LA. Surface contamination with antineoplastic agents in six cancer treatment centers in the United States and Canada. Am J Health Syst Pharm 1999;15:1427-32.
23. Sessink PJM, Rolf M, Rydèn NS. One-year evaluation of the Phaseal® System, a containment device designed to reduce occupational exposure of workers during preparation and ­administration of cytostatic drugs. Hosp Pharm 1999;34(11):1311-7.
24. Connor TH, et al. An intervention study using a closed device (PhaSeal®) to reduce surface contamination with antineoplastic agents in a hospital ­pharmacy setting. Am J Health Syst Pharm 2002;59:68-72.
25. Vandenbroucke J, Robays H. How to protect environment and employees against cytotoxic agents, the UZ Ghent experience. J Oncol Pharm Practice 2000;6(4):146-52.
26. Vandenbroucke J. Quality assurance project in a university hospital – 2 years of experience. Eur Hosp Pharmacist 2001;7(2):60-8.
27. Favier B, et al. Surface and human contamination with 5-fluorouracil in six hospital pharmacies. J Pharm Clin 2001;20(3):157-62.