Efficiency of four solutions in removing 23 conventional antineoplastic drugs from contaminated surfaces.
Journal
PloS one
ISSN: 1932-6203
Titre abrégé: PLoS One
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101285081
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2020
2020
Historique:
received:
02
03
2020
accepted:
08
06
2020
entrez:
23
6
2020
pubmed:
23
6
2020
medline:
2
9
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Residual contamination by intravenous conventional antineoplastic drugs (ICAD) is still a daily issue in hospital facilities. This study aimed to compare the efficiency (EffQ) of 4 different solutions to remove 23 widely used ICADs from surfaces. A solution containing 23 ICADs (4 alkylating agents, 8 antimetabolites, 2 topo-I inhibitors, 6 topo-II inhibitors and 3 spindle poisons) was spread over 100 cm2 stainless steel. After drying, decontamination was carried out using 10×10 cm wipes moistened with 300 μL of one of the following solutions: 70% isopropanol (S1); ethanol-hydrogen peroxide 91.6-50.0 mg/g (S2); 10-2 M sodium dodecyl sulphate/isopropanol 80/20 (S3) or 0.5% sodium hypochlorite (S4). Six tests were performed for each decontamination solution. Two modalities were tested: a single wipe motion from top to bottom or vigorous wiping (n = 6 for each modality). Residual contamination was measured with a validated liquid chromatography with tandem mass spectrometry detection method. Solution efficiency (in %) was computed as follows: EffQ = 1-(quantity after decontamination/quantity before decontamination), as median (min-max) for the 23 ICADs. The overall decontamination efficiency (EffQ) of the 4 solutions was compared by a Kruskall-Wallis test. Decontamination modalities were compared for each solution and per ICAD with a Mann-Whitney test (p<0.05). EffQ were significantly different from one solution to the next for single wipe motion decontamination: 79.9% (69.3-100), 86.5% (13.0-100), 85.4% (56.5-100) and 100% (52.9-100) for S1, S2, S3 and S4 (p<0.0001), respectively. Differences were also significant for vigorous decontamination: EffQ of 84.3% (66.0-100), 92.3% (68.7-100), 99.6% (84.8-100) and 100% (82.9-100) for S1, S2, S3 and S4, respectively (p<0.0001). Generally, vigorous decontamination increased EffQ for all tested solutions and more significantly for the surfactant. Decontamination efficiency depended on the solution used but also on the application modality. An SDS admixture seems to be a good alternative to sodium hypochlorite, notably after vigorous chemical decontamination with no hazard either to materials or workers.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Residual contamination by intravenous conventional antineoplastic drugs (ICAD) is still a daily issue in hospital facilities. This study aimed to compare the efficiency (EffQ) of 4 different solutions to remove 23 widely used ICADs from surfaces.
METHOD AND FINDINGS
A solution containing 23 ICADs (4 alkylating agents, 8 antimetabolites, 2 topo-I inhibitors, 6 topo-II inhibitors and 3 spindle poisons) was spread over 100 cm2 stainless steel. After drying, decontamination was carried out using 10×10 cm wipes moistened with 300 μL of one of the following solutions: 70% isopropanol (S1); ethanol-hydrogen peroxide 91.6-50.0 mg/g (S2); 10-2 M sodium dodecyl sulphate/isopropanol 80/20 (S3) or 0.5% sodium hypochlorite (S4). Six tests were performed for each decontamination solution. Two modalities were tested: a single wipe motion from top to bottom or vigorous wiping (n = 6 for each modality). Residual contamination was measured with a validated liquid chromatography with tandem mass spectrometry detection method. Solution efficiency (in %) was computed as follows: EffQ = 1-(quantity after decontamination/quantity before decontamination), as median (min-max) for the 23 ICADs. The overall decontamination efficiency (EffQ) of the 4 solutions was compared by a Kruskall-Wallis test. Decontamination modalities were compared for each solution and per ICAD with a Mann-Whitney test (p<0.05). EffQ were significantly different from one solution to the next for single wipe motion decontamination: 79.9% (69.3-100), 86.5% (13.0-100), 85.4% (56.5-100) and 100% (52.9-100) for S1, S2, S3 and S4 (p<0.0001), respectively. Differences were also significant for vigorous decontamination: EffQ of 84.3% (66.0-100), 92.3% (68.7-100), 99.6% (84.8-100) and 100% (82.9-100) for S1, S2, S3 and S4, respectively (p<0.0001). Generally, vigorous decontamination increased EffQ for all tested solutions and more significantly for the surfactant.
CONCLUSION
Decontamination efficiency depended on the solution used but also on the application modality. An SDS admixture seems to be a good alternative to sodium hypochlorite, notably after vigorous chemical decontamination with no hazard either to materials or workers.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32569333
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0235131
pii: PONE-D-20-06123
pmc: PMC7307753
doi:
Substances chimiques
Antineoplastic Agents
0
Solutions
0
Stainless Steel
12597-68-1
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e0235131Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors have read the journal's policy and the authors of this paper have the following competing interests: NS received a grant from AstraZeneca for his post-doctoral position in the University Hospital of Geneva. There are no patents, products in development or marketed products associated with this research to declare. This does not alter our adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.
Références
Int Arch Occup Environ Health. 1994;65(6):401-3
pubmed: 8034364
Am J Hosp Pharm. 1993 Mar;50(3):455-62
pubmed: 8442461
Am J Hosp Pharm. 1986 May;43(5):1193-204
pubmed: 3717176
J Occup Environ Med. 2014 Sep;56(9):901-10
pubmed: 25153300
J Occup Environ Hyg. 2015;12(6):384-92
pubmed: 25751496
Int Arch Occup Environ Health. 2013 Apr;86(3):333-41
pubmed: 22526087
J Oncol Pharm Pract. 2007;13 Suppl:1-81
pubmed: 17933809
Lancet. 1979 Jun 9;1(8128):1250-1
pubmed: 87722
J Oncol Pharm Pract. 2019 Jun;25(4):929-946
pubmed: 30786823
Vet Comp Oncol. 2018 Sep;16(3):385-391
pubmed: 29446222
Mutat Res. 2016 Oct - Dec;770(Pt A):35-45
pubmed: 27894689
Cancer Nurs. 1993 Aug;16(4):288-95
pubmed: 8402605
Oncol Nurs Forum. 2003 Jul-Aug;30(4):575-81
pubmed: 12861318
Can J Hosp Pharm. 2017 Nov-Dec;70(6):407-414
pubmed: 29298999
Hosp Pharm. 2013 Mar;48(3):204-12
pubmed: 24421463
PLoS One. 2018 Aug 8;13(8):e0201335
pubmed: 30089139
Am J Hosp Pharm. 1981 Nov;38(11):1686-93
pubmed: 7304620
Ann Occup Hyg. 2015 Aug;59(7):895-908
pubmed: 25979920
J Occup Environ Hyg. 2015;12(9):588-602
pubmed: 25897702
Ann Occup Hyg. 2010 Apr;54(3):351-9
pubmed: 20118195
J Pharm Biomed Anal. 2019 Feb 5;164:395-401
pubmed: 30439666
Am J Hosp Pharm. 1981 Nov;38(11):1679
pubmed: 7304618
Int Arch Occup Environ Health. 2008 Jul;81(7):899-911
pubmed: 18066576
Ann Occup Hyg. 2013 May;57(4):456-69
pubmed: 23223271
Am J Health Syst Pharm. 1996 Jul 15;53(14):1669-85
pubmed: 8827233
Int J Hyg Environ Health. 2017 Jun;220(4):757-765
pubmed: 28372941
J Occup Med. 1988 Dec;30(12):984-7
pubmed: 3230452
Am J Health Syst Pharm. 2018 Dec 15;75(24):1996-2031
pubmed: 30327293
J Pharm Biomed Anal. 2019 Aug 5;172:139-148
pubmed: 31035095
J Oncol Pharm Pract. 2020 Jun;26(4):853-860
pubmed: 31566110
Ann Work Expo Health. 2020 Feb 20;64(2):114-124
pubmed: 31848570
J Oncol Pharm Pract. 2014 Jun;20(3):210-6
pubmed: 23929731
PLoS One. 2016 Jul 08;11(7):e0159052
pubmed: 27391697
Am J Hosp Pharm. 1981 Nov;38(11):1693-5
pubmed: 7304621