scholarly journals Closed-system drug-transfer devices in addition to safe handling of hazardous drugs versus safe handling alone for reducing healthcare staff exposure to infusional hazardous drugs

Author(s):  
Kurinchi Selvan Gurusamy ◽  
Lawrence MJ Best ◽  
Cynthia Tanguay ◽  
Elaine Lennan ◽  
Mika Korva ◽  
...  
2019 ◽  
Vol 37 (7) ◽  
pp. 598-609 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paul Celano ◽  
Christopher A. Fausel ◽  
Erin B. Kennedy ◽  
Tim M. Miller ◽  
Thomas K. Oliver ◽  
...  

PURPOSE To provide 2019 ASCO standards on the safe handling of hazardous drugs. METHODS An Expert Panel was formed, and a systematic review of the literature on closed system transfer devices was performed to May 2017 using PubMed. The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, PubMed, and Google Scholar were used to search for studies of medical surveillance and external ventilation/health effects of exposure to vapors to November 2017. Available standards were considered for endorsement. Public comments were solicited and considered in preparation of the final manuscript. RESULTS The search for primary research found no studies that addressed health outcomes as they relate to the identified interventions of interest. The ASCO Expert Panel endorses the best practices for safe handling of hazardous drugs as issued by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, US Pharmacopeia Chapter 800, and Oncology Nursing Society with clarifications in four key areas: medical surveillance, closed system transfer devices, external ventilation of containment secondary engineering controls or containment segregated compounding areas, and alternative duties. CONCLUSION The ASCO standards address the need for clear standards concerning safe handling of hazardous oncology drugs. More research is needed in several key areas to quantify the level of risk associated with handling hazardous drugs in current workplace settings where the hierarchy of controls is consistently applied. Additional information is available at www.asco.org/safe-handling-standards .


2017 ◽  
Vol 25 (1) ◽  
pp. 148-162 ◽  
Author(s):  
Patricia I Mathias ◽  
Barbara A MacKenzie ◽  
Christine A Toennis ◽  
Thomas H Connor

Purpose A survey of guidelines and current practices was conducted to examine the safe handling procedures for antineoplastic and other hazardous drugs that are used in 24 countries including the Americas, Europe, the Mideast, Far East, and Australia. Methods Subject experts were asked to complete a brief survey regarding safe handling guidelines and practices for hazardous drugs in their countries. Questions addressed practices for handling monoclonal antibodies, the use of closed-system transfer devices, medical surveillance practices, and measurements of compliance with existing guidelines. Results Responses from 37 subject experts representing 24 countries revealed considerable variation in the content and scope of safe handling guidelines and pharmacy practices among the participating countries. Guidelines in the majority of countries used the term “cytotoxics,” while others referred to “hazardous” or “antineoplastic” drugs. The International Society of Oncology Pharmacy Practice standard was cited by six countries, and five cited the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health Alert. Others cited international guidelines other than International Society of Oncology Pharmacy Practice, or they have created their own guidelines. Approximately half reported that their guidelines were mandatory under federal, state, or provincial legislation. Only 11 countries reported that monoclonal antibodies were covered in their guidelines. Closed-system drug-transfer devices are widely used, but were not specifically recommended in four countries, while one country required their use. Medical surveillance programs are in place in 20 countries, but only in The Netherlands is surveillance mandatory. Nine countries reported that they have completed recent updates or revisions of guidelines, and the measures for their adoption have been initiated. Conclusions Although the overall goals in the participating countries were similar, the approaches taken to assure safe handling of hazardous drugs varied considerably in some cases.


2020 ◽  
pp. 107815522095251
Author(s):  
Hiromasa Ishimaru ◽  
Yasumasa Tsuda ◽  
Hidenori Kage ◽  
Tomoaki Kawano ◽  
Shinji Takayama ◽  
...  

Background Many reports support the use of closed system drug transfer devices (CSTDs) to protect against exposure to hazardous drugs during their preparation. However, leakage may occur if the CSTD fails to maintain hermeticity when fitted into the vial. Our aims were to devise a measure to prevent HD exposure and to develop a test method to verify CSTD function when a BD PhaSeal™ protector is used in HD preparation. Methods We selected the BD PhaSeal™ System, which is the most commonly used CSTD device in Japan. The sealability of the BD PhaSeal™ protector and vial is considered to be due to the hermeticity of the protector and the rubber stopper of the vial. We constructed a protector with a damaged sealing rim and monitored the pressure fluctuation 10 times when the BD PhaSeal™ injector was connected to the pressurized vial. Results The reduction in pressure of the protector in the group without a damaged sealing rim was 5%, while that in the group with the damaged sealing rim was 84.9%. Conclusion It was suggested that leakage occurred through the gap between the protector and the rubber stopper when using a vial that was not in close contact with the sealing rim. In this study, we developed a test that can be easily used to verify the compatibility of the BD PhaSeal™ protector and a vial in the clinical setting. Thus, when new hazardous drugs are being prepared, these measures can be taken to ensure that the risk of exposure is reduced or eliminated.


2021 ◽  
pp. 107815522110306
Author(s):  
Galit Levin ◽  
Paul JM Sessink

Purpose The purpose of this study was to test the efficacy of ChemfortTM, an air filtration closed-system drug transfer device to prevent release of chemotherapy drug vapors and aerosols under extreme conditions. The air cleaning system is based on the adsorption of drug vapors by an activated carbon filter in the Vial Adaptor before the air is released out of the drug vial. The functionality of the carbon filter was also tested at the end of device’s shelf life, and after a contact period with drug vapors for 7 days. Cyclophosphamide and 5-fluorouracil were the chemotherapy drugs tested. Methods The Vial Adaptor was attached to a drug vial and both were placed in a glass vessel. A needle was punctured through the vessel stopper and the Vial Adaptor septum to allow nitrogen gas to flow into the vial and to exit the vial via the air filter into the glass vessel which was connected to a cold trap. Potential contaminated surfaces in the trap system were wiped or rinsed to collect the escaped drug. Samples were analyzed using liquid chromatography tandem mass spectrometry. Results Cyclophosphamide and 5-fluorouracil were detected on most surfaces inside the trap system for all Vial Adaptors without an activated carbon filter. Contamination did not differ between the Vial Adaptors with and without membrane filter indicating no effect of the membrane filter. The results show no release of either drug for the Vial Adaptors with an activated carbon filter even after 3 years of simulated aging and 7 days of exposure to drug vapors. Conclusions Validation of air cleaning CSTDs is important to secure vapor and aerosol containment of chemotherapy and other hazardous drugs. The presented test method has proven to be appropriate for the validation of ChemfortTM Vial Adaptors. No release of cyclophosphamide and 5- fluorouracil was found even for Vial Adaptors after 3 years of simulated aging and 7 days of exposure to drug vapors.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document