Efficacy of Two Cleaning Solutions for the Decontamination of 10 Antineoplastic Agents in the Biosafety Cabinets of a Hospital Pharmacy

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to evaluate two cleaning solutions for the chemical decontamination of antineoplastic agents on the surfaces of two biosafety cabinets routinely used for chemotherapy preparation in a hospital pharmacy. METHODS: For almost 1 year (49 weeks), two different solutions were used for the weekly cleaning of two biosafety cabinets in a hospital pharmacy's centralized cytotoxic preparation unit. The solutions evaluated were a commercial solution of isopropyl alcohol (IPA) and water (70:30, vol:vol), and a detergent solution constituted by 10(-2)M of sodium dodecyl sulfate (SDS) with 20% IPA. Seven areas in each biosafety cabinet were wiped 14 times throughout the year, before and after the weekly cleaning process, according to a validated procedure. Samples were analyzed using a validated method of high-performance liquid chromatography coupled to mass spectrometry. The decontamination efficacy of these two solutions was tested for 10 antineoplastic agents: cytarabine, gemcitabine, methotrexate, etoposide phosphate, irinotecan, cyclophosphamide, ifosfamide, doxorubicin, epirubicin, and vincristine. RESULTS: Overall decontamination efficacies observed were 82±6% and 49±11% for SDS solution and IPA, respectively. Higher contamination levels were distributed on areas frequently touched by the pharmacy technicians-such as sleeves and airlock handles-than on scale plates, gravimetric control hardware, and work benches. Detected contaminations of cyclophosphamide, ifosfamide, gemcitabine, and cytarabine were higher than those of the others agents. SDS solution was almost 20% more efficient than IPA on eight of the antineoplastic agents. CONCLUSION: Both cleaning solutions were able to reduce contamination levels in the biosafety cabinets. The efficacy of the solution containing an anionic detergent agent (SDS) was shown to be generally higher than that of IPA and, after the SDS cleaning procedure, biosafety cabinets demonstrated acceptable contamination levels

Evaluation of decontamination efficacy of cleaning solutions on stainless steel and glass surfaces contaminated by 10 antineoplastic agents

OBJECTIVES: The handling of antineoplastic agents results in chronic surface contamination that must be minimized and eliminated. This study was designed to assess the potential of several chemical solutions to decontaminate two types of work surfaces that were intentionally contaminated with antineoplastic drugs. METHODS: A range of solutions with variable physicochemical properties such as their hydrophilic/hydrophobic balance, oxidizing power, desorption, and solubilization were tested: ultrapure water, isopropyl alcohol, acetone, sodium hypochlorite, and surfactants such as dishwashing liquid (DWL), sodium dodecyl sulfate (SDS), Tween 40, and Span 80. These solutions were tested on 10 antineoplastic drugs: cytarabine, gemcitabine, methotrexate, etoposide phosphate, irinotecan, cyclophosphamide, ifosfamide, doxorubicin, epirubicin, and vincristine. To simulate contaminated surfaces, these molecules (200ng) were deliberately spread onto two types of work surfaces: stainless steel and glass. Recovered by wiping with a specific aqueous solvent (acetonitrile/HCOOH; 20/0.1%) and an absorbent wipe (Whatman 903®), the residual contamination was quantified using high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) coupled to mass spectrometry. To compare all tested cleaning solutions, a performance value of effectiveness was determined from contamination residues of the 10 drugs. RESULTS: Sodium hypochlorite showed the highest overall effectiveness with 98% contamination removed. Ultrapure water, isopropyl alcohol/water, and acetone were less effective with effectiveness values of 76.8, 80.7, and 40.4%, respectively. Ultrapure water was effective on most hydrophilic molecules (97.1% for cytarabine), while on the other hand, isopropyl alcohol/water (70/30, vol/vol) was effective on the least hydrophilic ones (85.2% for doxorubicin and 87.8% for epirubicin). Acetone had little effect, whatever the type of molecule. Among products containing surfactants, DWL was found effective (91.5%), but its formulation was unknown. Formulations with single surfactant non-ionics (tween 40 and span 80) or anionic (SDS) were also tested. Finally, solutions containing 10(-2) M anionic surfactants and 20% isopropyl alcohol had the highest global effectiveness at around 90%. More precisely, their efficacy was the highest (94.8%) for the most hydrophilic compounds such as cytarabine and around 80.0% for anthracyclines. Finally, the addition of isopropyl alcohol to surfactant solutions enhanced their decontamination efficiency on the least hydrophilic molecules. Measured values from the stainless steel surface were similar to those from the glass one. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates that all decontamination agents reduce antineoplastic contamination on work surfaces, but none removes it totally. Although very effective, sodium hypochlorite cannot be used routinely on stainless steel surfaces. Solutions containing anionic surfactant such as SDS, with a high efficiency/safety ratio, proved most promising in terms of surface decontamination

Validation and long-term evaluation of a modified on-line chiral analytical method for therapeutic drug monitoring of (R,S)-methadone in clinical samples.

Matrix effects, which represent an important issue in liquid chromatography coupled to mass spectrometry or tandem mass spectrometry detection, should be closely assessed during method development. In the case of quantitative analysis, the use of stable isotope-labelled internal standard with physico-chemical properties and ionization behaviour similar to the analyte is recommended. In this paper, an example of the choice of a co-eluting deuterated internal standard to compensate for short-term and long-term matrix effect in the case of chiral (R,S)-methadone plasma quantification is reported. The method was fully validated over a concentration range of 5-800 ng/mL for each methadone enantiomer with satisfactory relative bias (-1.0 to 1.0%), repeatability (0.9-4.9%) and intermediate precision (1.4-12.0%). From the results obtained during validation, a control chart process during 52 series of routine analysis was established using both intermediate precision standard deviation and FDA acceptance criteria. The results of routine quality control samples were generally included in the +/-15% variability around the target value and mainly in the two standard deviation interval illustrating the long-term stability of the method. The intermediate precision variability estimated in method validation was found to be coherent with the routine use of the method. During this period, 257 trough concentration and 54 peak concentration plasma samples of patients undergoing (R,S)-methadone treatment were successfully analysed for routine therapeutic drug monitoring

Wipe sampling procedure coupled to LC-MS/MS analysis for the simultaneous determination of 10 cytotoxic drugs on different surfaces.

A simple wipe sampling procedure was developed for the surface contamination determination of ten cytotoxic drugs: cytarabine, gemcitabine, methotrexate, etoposide phosphate, cyclophosphamide, ifosfamide, irinotecan, doxorubicin, epirubicin and vincristine. Wiping was performed using Whatman filter paper on different surfaces such as stainless steel, polypropylene, polystyrol, glass, latex gloves, computer mouse and coated paperboard. Wiping and desorption procedures were investigated: The same solution containing 20% acetonitrile and 0.1% formic acid in water gave the best results. After ultrasonic desorption and then centrifugation, samples were analysed by a validated liquid chromatography coupled to tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) in selected reaction monitoring mode. The whole analytical strategy from wipe sampling to LC-MS/MS analysis was evaluated to determine quantitative performance. The lowest limit of quantification of 10 ng per wiping sample (i.e. 0.1 ng cm(-2)) was determined for the ten investigated cytotoxic drugs. Relative standard deviation for intermediate precision was always inferior to 20%. As recovery was dependent on the tested surface for each drug, a correction factor was determined and applied for real samples. The method was then successfully applied at the cytotoxic production unit of the Geneva University Hospitals pharmacy

Reliability of chemotherapy preparation processes: Evaluating independent double-checking and computer-assisted gravimetric control.

Background and objectives Centralized chemotherapy preparation units have established systematic strategies to avoid errors. Our work aimed to evaluate the accuracy of manual preparations associated with different control methods. Method A simulation study in an operational setting used phenylephrine and lidocaine as markers. Each operator prepared syringes that were controlled using a different method during each of three sessions (no control, visual double-checking, and gravimetric control). Eight reconstitutions and dilutions were prepared in each session, with variable doses and volumes, using different concentrations of stock solutions. Results were analyzed according to qualitative (choice of stock solution) and quantitative criteria (accurate, <5% deviation from the target concentration; weakly accurate, 5%-10%; inaccurate, 10%-30%; wrong, >30% deviation). Results Eleven operators carried out 19 sessions. No final preparation (n = 438) contained a wrong drug. The protocol involving no control failed to detect 1 of 3 dose errors made and double-checking failed to detect 3 of 7 dose errors. The gravimetric control method detected all 5 out of 5 dose errors. The accuracy of the doses measured was equivalent across the control methods ( p = 0.63 Kruskal-Wallis). The final preparations ranged from 58% to 60% accurate, 25% to 27% weakly accurate, 14% to 17% inaccurate and 0.9% wrong. A high variability was observed between operators. Discussion Gravimetric control was the only method able to detect all dose errors, but it did not improve dose accuracy. A dose accuracy with <5% deviation cannot always be guaranteed using manual production. Automation should be considered in the future