Cargando…

Effectiveness of a Closed-System Transfer Device in Reducing Surface Contamination in a New Antineoplastic Drug-Compounding Unit: A Prospective, Controlled, Parallel Study

BACKGROUND: The objective of this randomized, prospective and controlled study was to investigate the ability of a closed-system transfer device (CSTD; BD-Phaseal) to reduce the occupational exposure of two isolators to 10 cytotoxic drugs and compare to standard compounding devices. METHODS AND FIND...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Simon, Nicolas, Vasseur, Michèle, Pinturaud, Marine, Soichot, Marion, Richeval, Camille, Humbert, Luc, Lebecque, Michèle, Sidikou, Ousseini, Barthelemy, Christine, Bonnabry, Pascal, Allorge, Delphine, Décaudin, Bertrand, Odou, Pascal
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Public Library of Science 2016
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4938267/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27391697
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0159052
_version_ 1782441831793950720
author Simon, Nicolas
Vasseur, Michèle
Pinturaud, Marine
Soichot, Marion
Richeval, Camille
Humbert, Luc
Lebecque, Michèle
Sidikou, Ousseini
Barthelemy, Christine
Bonnabry, Pascal
Allorge, Delphine
Décaudin, Bertrand
Odou, Pascal
author_facet Simon, Nicolas
Vasseur, Michèle
Pinturaud, Marine
Soichot, Marion
Richeval, Camille
Humbert, Luc
Lebecque, Michèle
Sidikou, Ousseini
Barthelemy, Christine
Bonnabry, Pascal
Allorge, Delphine
Décaudin, Bertrand
Odou, Pascal
author_sort Simon, Nicolas
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: The objective of this randomized, prospective and controlled study was to investigate the ability of a closed-system transfer device (CSTD; BD-Phaseal) to reduce the occupational exposure of two isolators to 10 cytotoxic drugs and compare to standard compounding devices. METHODS AND FINDINGS: The 6-month study started with the opening of a new compounding unit. Two isolators were set up with 2 workstations each, one to compound with standard devices (needles and spikes) and the other using the Phaseal system. Drugs were alternatively compounded in each isolator. Sampling involved wiping three surfaces (gloves, window, worktop), before and after a cleaning process. Exposure to ten antineoplastic drugs (cyclophosphamide, ifosfamide, dacarbazine, 5-FU, methotrexate, gemcitabine, cytarabine, irinotecan, doxorubicine and ganciclovir) was assessed on wipes by LC-MS/MS analysis. Contamination rates were compared using a Chi(2) test and drug amounts by a Mann-Whitney test. Significance was defined for p<0.05. Overall contamination was lower in the “Phaseal” isolator than in the “Standard” isolator (12.24% vs. 26.39%; p < 0.0001) although it differed according to drug. Indeed, the contamination rates of gemcitabine were 49.3 and 43.4% (NS) for the Standard and Phaseal isolators, respectively, whereas for ganciclovir, they were 54.2 and 2.8% (p<0.0001). Gemcitabine amounts were 220.6 and 283.6 ng for the Standard and Phaseal isolators (NS), and ganciclovir amounts were 179.9 and 2.4 ng (p<0.0001). CONCLUSION: This study confirms that using a CSTD may significantly decrease the chemical contamination of barrier isolators compared to standard devices for some drugs, although it does not eliminate contamination totally.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4938267
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2016
publisher Public Library of Science
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-49382672016-07-22 Effectiveness of a Closed-System Transfer Device in Reducing Surface Contamination in a New Antineoplastic Drug-Compounding Unit: A Prospective, Controlled, Parallel Study Simon, Nicolas Vasseur, Michèle Pinturaud, Marine Soichot, Marion Richeval, Camille Humbert, Luc Lebecque, Michèle Sidikou, Ousseini Barthelemy, Christine Bonnabry, Pascal Allorge, Delphine Décaudin, Bertrand Odou, Pascal PLoS One Research Article BACKGROUND: The objective of this randomized, prospective and controlled study was to investigate the ability of a closed-system transfer device (CSTD; BD-Phaseal) to reduce the occupational exposure of two isolators to 10 cytotoxic drugs and compare to standard compounding devices. METHODS AND FINDINGS: The 6-month study started with the opening of a new compounding unit. Two isolators were set up with 2 workstations each, one to compound with standard devices (needles and spikes) and the other using the Phaseal system. Drugs were alternatively compounded in each isolator. Sampling involved wiping three surfaces (gloves, window, worktop), before and after a cleaning process. Exposure to ten antineoplastic drugs (cyclophosphamide, ifosfamide, dacarbazine, 5-FU, methotrexate, gemcitabine, cytarabine, irinotecan, doxorubicine and ganciclovir) was assessed on wipes by LC-MS/MS analysis. Contamination rates were compared using a Chi(2) test and drug amounts by a Mann-Whitney test. Significance was defined for p<0.05. Overall contamination was lower in the “Phaseal” isolator than in the “Standard” isolator (12.24% vs. 26.39%; p < 0.0001) although it differed according to drug. Indeed, the contamination rates of gemcitabine were 49.3 and 43.4% (NS) for the Standard and Phaseal isolators, respectively, whereas for ganciclovir, they were 54.2 and 2.8% (p<0.0001). Gemcitabine amounts were 220.6 and 283.6 ng for the Standard and Phaseal isolators (NS), and ganciclovir amounts were 179.9 and 2.4 ng (p<0.0001). CONCLUSION: This study confirms that using a CSTD may significantly decrease the chemical contamination of barrier isolators compared to standard devices for some drugs, although it does not eliminate contamination totally. Public Library of Science 2016-07-08 /pmc/articles/PMC4938267/ /pubmed/27391697 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0159052 Text en © 2016 Simon et al http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Simon, Nicolas
Vasseur, Michèle
Pinturaud, Marine
Soichot, Marion
Richeval, Camille
Humbert, Luc
Lebecque, Michèle
Sidikou, Ousseini
Barthelemy, Christine
Bonnabry, Pascal
Allorge, Delphine
Décaudin, Bertrand
Odou, Pascal
Effectiveness of a Closed-System Transfer Device in Reducing Surface Contamination in a New Antineoplastic Drug-Compounding Unit: A Prospective, Controlled, Parallel Study
title Effectiveness of a Closed-System Transfer Device in Reducing Surface Contamination in a New Antineoplastic Drug-Compounding Unit: A Prospective, Controlled, Parallel Study
title_full Effectiveness of a Closed-System Transfer Device in Reducing Surface Contamination in a New Antineoplastic Drug-Compounding Unit: A Prospective, Controlled, Parallel Study
title_fullStr Effectiveness of a Closed-System Transfer Device in Reducing Surface Contamination in a New Antineoplastic Drug-Compounding Unit: A Prospective, Controlled, Parallel Study
title_full_unstemmed Effectiveness of a Closed-System Transfer Device in Reducing Surface Contamination in a New Antineoplastic Drug-Compounding Unit: A Prospective, Controlled, Parallel Study
title_short Effectiveness of a Closed-System Transfer Device in Reducing Surface Contamination in a New Antineoplastic Drug-Compounding Unit: A Prospective, Controlled, Parallel Study
title_sort effectiveness of a closed-system transfer device in reducing surface contamination in a new antineoplastic drug-compounding unit: a prospective, controlled, parallel study
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4938267/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27391697
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0159052
work_keys_str_mv AT simonnicolas effectivenessofaclosedsystemtransferdeviceinreducingsurfacecontaminationinanewantineoplasticdrugcompoundingunitaprospectivecontrolledparallelstudy
AT vasseurmichele effectivenessofaclosedsystemtransferdeviceinreducingsurfacecontaminationinanewantineoplasticdrugcompoundingunitaprospectivecontrolledparallelstudy
AT pinturaudmarine effectivenessofaclosedsystemtransferdeviceinreducingsurfacecontaminationinanewantineoplasticdrugcompoundingunitaprospectivecontrolledparallelstudy
AT soichotmarion effectivenessofaclosedsystemtransferdeviceinreducingsurfacecontaminationinanewantineoplasticdrugcompoundingunitaprospectivecontrolledparallelstudy
AT richevalcamille effectivenessofaclosedsystemtransferdeviceinreducingsurfacecontaminationinanewantineoplasticdrugcompoundingunitaprospectivecontrolledparallelstudy
AT humbertluc effectivenessofaclosedsystemtransferdeviceinreducingsurfacecontaminationinanewantineoplasticdrugcompoundingunitaprospectivecontrolledparallelstudy
AT lebecquemichele effectivenessofaclosedsystemtransferdeviceinreducingsurfacecontaminationinanewantineoplasticdrugcompoundingunitaprospectivecontrolledparallelstudy
AT sidikouousseini effectivenessofaclosedsystemtransferdeviceinreducingsurfacecontaminationinanewantineoplasticdrugcompoundingunitaprospectivecontrolledparallelstudy
AT barthelemychristine effectivenessofaclosedsystemtransferdeviceinreducingsurfacecontaminationinanewantineoplasticdrugcompoundingunitaprospectivecontrolledparallelstudy
AT bonnabrypascal effectivenessofaclosedsystemtransferdeviceinreducingsurfacecontaminationinanewantineoplasticdrugcompoundingunitaprospectivecontrolledparallelstudy
AT allorgedelphine effectivenessofaclosedsystemtransferdeviceinreducingsurfacecontaminationinanewantineoplasticdrugcompoundingunitaprospectivecontrolledparallelstudy
AT decaudinbertrand effectivenessofaclosedsystemtransferdeviceinreducingsurfacecontaminationinanewantineoplasticdrugcompoundingunitaprospectivecontrolledparallelstudy
AT odoupascal effectivenessofaclosedsystemtransferdeviceinreducingsurfacecontaminationinanewantineoplasticdrugcompoundingunitaprospectivecontrolledparallelstudy