Does equipment change impact blood contamination with irinotecan and its two major metabolites in a centralized cytotoxic pharmacy unit?

BACKGROUND: Antineoplastic drugs exposure is a major problem for caregivers' health. The aim of this study is to assess blood contamination with irinotecan and its two metabolites in a centralized pharmacy unit for cytotoxic drug preparations workers before and after protective equipment changes. METHODS: The study took place in a university hospital centralized pharmacy unit for cytotoxic drug and was performed in two parts, before (Round 1: R1) and after equipment changes (Round 2: R2). Collection of pharmacy staff blood samples was performed in UHPLC-MS/MS. Plasma and red blood cell irinotecan and its metabolites (SN38; APC) were determined with a validated analytical method detection test. RESULTS: A total of 15/36 (41.6%) assays were positive in R1 and 16/72 (22.2%) in R2 with a significant decrease between periods (P = 0.035). For plasma dosages, no difference between the two periods was found (P = 0.71); respectively 4/18 (22.2%) assays were positive in R1 and 6/36 (16.6%) in R2. For red blood cells dosages, a significant decrease between periods was found (P = 0.01); respectively 11/18 (61%) were positive in R1 and 10/36 (27.8%) in R2. CONCLUSIONS: These dosages make it possible to have the very first evaluation for plasma and red blood cell contamination with irinotecan and its metabolites in the context of equipment changes, both at individual and collective levels. This work would help to protect health workers from the potential risks represented by these molecules, especially by revealing a contamination of workers in order to objectify the results of exposure.

[State of immunization against measles among health professionals in at-risk units of the Caen University Hospital]. / État d'immunisation contre la rougeole chez les professionnels de santé au sein des services à risques du centre hospitalier universitaire de Caen.

BACKGROUND: France is facing a new resurgence of measles. Since November 2017, the number of cases has been increasing sharply. Immunization coverage in the general population, all ages combined, is below the threshold required for a rapid decline of the virus propagation. Regarding health professionals, the rate of immunization against this disease is insufficiently documented. In this context, the Occupational Health Service of the University Hospital of Caen has carried out an inventory of health personnel knowledge of immunization against measles in the units the most exposed to risk. METHODS: Knowledge of immunization against measles was studied in pediatric, imaging, and pediatric and adult emergencies departments of the University Hospital of Caen, and the Hematology Institute of Lower Normandy (IHBN). The analysis included all health professionals present within these units during the study period: March and April 2018. Data collection was carried out by consulting the medical files of the occupational health unit and considering the set of responses to postal inquiries sent to staff. RESULTS: Measured immunization status data refer to 1017 health professionals. Based on the criteria specific to the recommendations, 234 (50.6%) of the 462 professionals born before 1980 and 437 (78.7%) of the 555 professionals born in or after 1980 could be considered as immune. Of the total sample, 115 (11.3%) had positive measles serology. Among these 1017 professionals, information on the state of immunization against measles was lacking for 174 (17.1%). CONCLUSION: The state of immunization of the nursing staff remains insufficient to prevent the occurrence of measles cases and the staff is also insufficiently informed. It is essential to have knowledge of the immunization status of this population, to organize the vaccination of non-immunized personnel within the occupational health unit, to prevent the emergence of new cases of measles and to reinforce the information regarding the importance of precautions related to airborne transmission in case of measles.

[Compensation of malignant mesothelioma as an occupational disease in Lower Normandy, from 1995 to 2002]. / L'indemnisation du mésothéliome malin professionnel en Basse-Normandie entre 1995 et 2002.

BACKGROUND: Despite the close relation between occupational exposure to asbestos and malignant mesothelioma, the compensation of this disease is still far from being the rule. The objective of this study is to assess the compensation process of all the cases of occupational mesothelioma recorded by the regional mesothelioma registry between September 1995 and August 2002, and to make suggestions for improvement of the compensation of future cases. METHODS: Lifetime exposure to asbestos was assessed for each of the 141 mesothelioma cases observed in Lower Normandy during this time period, and 105 cases could be related to a possible, probable, or very probable occupational exposure to this mineral. Data about notification and compensation of these occupational diseases were gathered with the help of all health insurance organisms concerned. RESULTS: Except for five cases in which insurance conditions did not allow any compensation, compensation of occupational mesothelioma occurred in 85% of the cases. This high rate was probably the result of the existence of an early asbestos industry in this region, and of the particular awareness of the Norman population about asbestos-related diseases, as well as of the epidemiological follow-up of mesothelioma in Lower Normandy. When notified for compensation, all cases but one were actually compensated, and the lag-time between notification and compensation proved to decrease since 1995, with an average delay reaching 91,1 days in 2002. Patients who did not report their disease were older than those who did, and the lack of knowledge of medical practitioners about compensation procedures seems to be an important matter in this issue. CONCLUSION: In order to improve the rate of compensation of occupational malignant mesothelioma cases, information about the usual occupational origin of the disease should be delivered systematically to the general practitioner of each patient. This could be done by pathologists, when they diagnose malignant mesothelioma, and/or by medical examiners when sickness benefits are sought, or even by the epidemiological center of death causes (INSERM, CépiDc), for the beneficiaries of patients who died from malignant mesothelioma.