Evaluation of a safe infusion device on reducing occupational exposure of nurses to antineoplastic drugs: a comparative prospective study. Contamoins-1.

PURPOSE: Despite the decreasing of environmental contamination throughout the anticancer drug circuit, the administration of chemotherapies remains at risk of occupational exposure for nurses. Many medical devices aim at securing administration, but none have been scientifically evaluated to verify the actual improvement. METHODS: A monocentric comparative before/after study was carried out in an oncology day hospital to evaluate the efficacy of Safe Infusion Devices in reducing drug exposure compared to usual infusion practices. The rate of nurses' gloves contamination was estimated. To avoid false negatives and to ensure sampling reproducibility, each sample of gloves was contaminated with a drop of topotecan. Association between contamination and other variables was investigated using a multivariate logistic regression analysis. RESULTS: The usual practice led to a rate of 58.3% of contaminated samples while Safe Infusion Devices to a rate of 15%: Safe Infusion Devices reduced the risk of gloves contamination by 85% in multivariate analysis (Odds ratio = 0.15; 95% confidence interval = 0.05-0.46; p < 0.001). Topotecan was identified in 100% of the samples. Only one case of cross-contamination has occurred. CONCLUSION: Despite the current practice of using neutral solvent-purged infusers, the occupational exposure remains high for nurses and Safe Infusion Devices significantly reduced this risk of exposure. However, glove contamination is only a surrogate endpoint. The results confirmed that the disconnection of empty bags resulted in occupational exposure. Except a contamination due to the leakage of a bag, no cross-contamination was detected. Safe Infusion Devices were highly effective but did not completely eliminate exposure.

How human activity impacted manufacturing non-compliances: A multivariate analysis in a centralized cytotoxic preparation unit.

INTRODUCTION: The aim of the study was to identify risk factors related to human errors in the preparation of anticancer drugs in order to improve the pharmaceutical process by setting corrective actions. METHOD: Risk factors which could increase the probability of error were identified: daily workload, workload on the previous day and subcontractors' workload, time slot of the preparation, understaffing, incidents which could affect workflow, individual experience of technicians and cleanrooms layout. Drug reconstitution or complex fabrications were also considered as risk factors. We used univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses to screen for correlation between risks and errors. RESULT: Among 11 278 preparations analyzed, 115 were non-compliant. Univariate analysis shows significant variables: individual experience of technicians, technicians working in the same cleanrooms and technicians' rotations. 2 technicians are significantly associated with a higher risk of error and 5 with a lower risk. The multivariate analysis confirmed the conclusions of the univariate. DISCUSSION: As expected, time slot of the manufacture, cleanrooms layout and some technicians increase the risk of error. Surprisingly, technicians' experience led to increase the risk. This study is a first approach to evaluate the human error aspect in non-compliant preparations, in order to optimize security of antineoplastic drugs preparations.

Impact of fluconazole versus posaconazole prophylaxis on the incidence of fungal infections in patients receiving induction chemotherapy for acute myeloid leukemia.

BACKGROUND: Invasive fungal infections (IFIs) remain one of the worrying complications in patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) due to their incidence and high level of attributable mortality. In light of these risks, antifungal prophylaxis has always been debated. We conducted a single-center retrospective study of two prophylactic antifungal agents (fluconazole/posaconazole) in 91 consecutive patients receiving induction chemotherapy for AML between 2005 and 2009, in order to evaluate the impact on the incidence of IFI and on the mycological flora of the patients. METHODS: In total, 39 patients received prophylactic fluconazole versus 52 who received posaconazole. The baseline characteristics of the two groups were comparable. RESULTS: Overall, 17 patients developed an IFI, with no difference in frequency between the two groups. Utilization of empirical or pre-emptive therapy was similar irrespective of the type of prophylaxis used. Mycological examination of stools revealed an increase in non-albicans Candida colonization in the fluconazole group during hospitalization and the appearance of Saccharomyces cerevisiae colonization in patients receiving posaconazole. CONCLUSION: The present study does not distinguish between fluconazole and posaconazole as a primary effective prevention against fungal infections. More prospective studies and meta-analyses are warranted.