RESUMO
Introduction: Health care workers who work daily with human body fluids and hazardous drugs are among those at the highest risk of occupational exposure to these agents. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration's (OSHA) Bloodborne Pathogens Standard (29 CFR 1910.1030) prescribes safeguards to protect workers against health hazards related to bloodborne pathogens. Similarly, the United States Pharmacopeia General Chapter 800 (USP <800>), a standard first published in February 2016 and implementation required by December 2019, addresses the occupational exposure risks of health care workers at organizations working with hazardous drugs. With emerging technologies in the field of gene therapy, these occupational exposure risks to health care workers now extend beyond those associated with bloodborne pathogens and hazardous drugs and now include recombinant DNA. The fifth edition of the Biosafety in Microbiological and Biomedical Laboratories (BMBL) and the National Institutes of Health Guidelines for Research Involving Recombinant or Synthetic Nucleic Acid Molecules (NIH Guidelines) mostly govern work with biohazardous agents and recombinant DNA in a laboratory research setting. When gene therapy products are utilized in a hospital environment, health care workers have very few resources to identify and reduce the risks associated with product use during and after the administration of treatments. Methods: At the Abigail Wexner Research Institute at Nationwide Children's Hospital, a comprehensive gap analysis was executed between the research and health care environment to develop a program for risk mitigation. The BMBL, NIH Guidelines, World Health Organization Biosafety Manual, OSHA Bloodborne Pathogens Standard, and USP <800> were used to develop a framework for the gap analysis process. Results: The standards and guidelines for working with viral vector systems in a research laboratory environment were adapted to develop a program that will mitigate the risks to health care workers involved in the preparation, transportation, and administration of gene therapies as well as subsequent patient care activities. The gap analysis identified significant differences in technical language used in daily operations, work environment, training and education, disinfection practices, and policy development between research and health care settings. These differences informed decisions and helped the organization develop a collaborative framework for risk mitigation when a gene therapy product enters the health care setting. Discussion: With continuing advances in the field of gene therapy, the oversight structure needs to evolve for the health care setting. To deliver the best outcomes to the patients of these therapies, researchers, Institutional Biosafety Committees, and health care workers need to collaborate on training programs to safeguard the public trust in the use of this technology both in clinical trials and as FDA-approved therapeutics.
RESUMO
Introduction: National Institutes of Health (NIH) defines gene therapy as an experimental technique that uses genes to treat or prevent disease. Although gene therapy is a promising treatment option for a number of diseases (including inherited disorders, some types of cancer, and certain viral infections), the technique remains risky and is still under study to make sure that it will be effective and safe. Methods: Applications of viral vectors and nonviral gene delivery systems have found an encouraging new beginning in gene therapy in recent years. Although several viral vectors and nonviral gene delivery systems have been developed in the past 3 decades, no one delivery system can be applied in gene therapy to all cell types in vitro and in vivo. Furthermore, the use of viral vector systems (both in vitro and in vivo) present unique occupational health and safety challenges. In this review article, we discuss the biosafety challenges and the current framework of risk assessment for working with the viral vector systems. Discussion: The recent advances in the field of gene therapy is exciting, but it is important for scientists, institutional biosafety committees, and biosafety officers to safeguard public trust in the use of this technology in clinical trials and make conscious efforts to engage the public through ongoing forums and discussions.
