Perception, knowledge, practices and training regarding the risk of exposure to antineoplastic drugs in three French compounding units.

INTRODUCTION: Healthcare workers are exposed to hazardous drugs such as antineoplastic drugs, which have potential carcinogenic, mutagenic and teratogenic effects. Protective measures must be taken after appropriate staff training to handle antineoplastic drugs in a safe way. The objective was to assess perception, knowledge, practices and training regarding the risk of exposure of healthcare workers in three French compounding units. METHODS: This descriptive study was based on a questionnaire made of 33 questions divided into five sections related to the handling of antineoplastic drugs: perception of the risks, knowledge of the risks, protection practices, specific training and general questions. RESULTS: Among the 39 participants, over half considered their overall risk of exposure to antineoplastic drugs not being very low. Inhalation was known to 69.2% of them as possible route of contamination. The breakroom was identified by 28.9% of them as a place of contamination. The procedure in case of accidental exposure to antineoplastic drugs was known by 69.2%, but only half could explain it. Only 38.5% said they changed their gloves every 30 min as recommended. Barely half said that they had been trained specifically for the handling of antineoplastic drugs during an initial training. Over half wished to be informed, trained and aware of the proper handling of antineoplastic drugs. CONCLUSION: Although some of these results are encouraging, specifically when compared to the other settings where antineoplastic drugs are handled, there is still room for improvement. Efforts to build an adapted and impactful training program must pursue. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: Study CONTACT, ref. 19-504.

Perception, knowledge, and handling practice regarding the risk of exposure to antineoplastic drugs in oncology day hospitalization units and compounding unit staff.

BACKGROUND: Antineoplastic drug exposure is a major problem in regard to caregivers' health. The aim of the present study was to assess the perception, knowledge, and handling practices of all occupation level categories of two oncology day hospitalization units and two compounding units regarding the risk of exposure to antineoplastic drugs. METHODS: This descriptive study, performed through face-to-face interviews, concurrently assessed the perception, knowledge, and handling practices of antineoplastic drugs in five different job categories in four different settings. This work was part of a larger comprehensive project examining surface and blood contamination. Different scores were assigned to evaluate responses to a questionnaire about the perception, knowledge, and handling practices of healthcare workers, a risk global score including a risk perception score, and education/knowledge and handling practices scores. RESULTS: In the survey, continuous training was associated with the global risk score (p = 0.03), particularly with the handling practices risk score (p = 0.01). Job category was also significantly associated with the global risk score (p < 0.001), particularly with the handling practices risk score (p < 0.001) and the education/knowledge score (p < 0.001). Pharmacy technicians had the highest score regarding risk perception (71.4%), indicating a higher perception of risk, and had a lower score regarding handling practices (25.0%) as well as a lower score (15.7%) regarding risk knowledge. Nurses and physicians had a high score (50%) regarding the risk of handling practices and a score of 57.1% regarding risk perception, indicating an increased perception of safety. Auxiliary caregivers had the highest global score (43.5%) and a score of 30.0% regarding handling practices. CONCLUSIONS: This study identified significant differences among healthcare workers depending on job categories in the antineoplastic drug handling practices and in the knowledge of the risks associated with occupational exposure to antineoplastic drugs. These differences were particularly important between trained and untrained participants, revealing the importance of implementing a continuous training program.

Anticancer Drugs for Intra-Arterial Treatment of Colorectal Cancer Liver Metastases: In-Vitro Screening after Short Exposure Time.

To treat colorectal liver metastases, intra-arterial chemotherapies may complete therapeutic arsenal. Drugs using intra-arterially are very heterogeneous. The aim of this study was to select the most efficient drug on a panel of colorectal cancer (CRC) cell lines (Caco-2, HCT 116, HT 29, SW 48, SW 480, SW 620) exposed for 30 min to 12 cytotoxic agents (doxorubicin, epirubicin, idarubicin, 5-FU, raltitrexed, gemcitabine, cisplatin, oxaliplatin, mitomycin C, irinotecan, streptozocin, paclitaxel) at different concentrations. The effect on cell viability was measured using the WST-1 cell viability assay. For each drug and cell line, the IC50 and IC90 were calculated, which respectively correspond to the drug concentration (mg/mL) required to obtain 50% and 90% of cell death. We also quantified the cytotoxic index (CyI90 = C Max/IC90) to compare drug efficacy. The main findings of this study are that idarubicin emerged as the most cytotoxic agent to most of the tested CRC cell lines (Caco-2, HT29, HCT116, SW620 and SW480). Gemcitabine seemed to be the most efficient chemotherapy for SW48. Interestingly, the most commonly used cytotoxic agents in the systemic and intra-arterial treatment of colorectal liver metastasis (CRLM) (oxaliplatin, 5-FU, irinotecan) showed very limited cytotoxicity to all the cell lines.

Impact of pharmacist interventions on clinical outcome and cost avoidance in a university teaching hospital.

Background A significant number of clinical pharmacy services have shown to improve in-hospital medication safety and patient outcome. Prescription review and pharmacist interventions are a fundamental part of hospital clinical pharmacy activities. In a context of restricted financial resources, proving the economic and clinical impact of this activity seems necessary. Objective The aim of this study was to assess the clinical impact on patient outcomes and economic benefit of prescription review by pharmacists. Setting 1624-bed tertiary French university teaching hospital. Method Prospective single center study evaluating prescriptions for which a pharmacist intervention was issued over a 6-month period. The clinical impact of every pharmacist intervention was evaluated by a multidisciplinary experts committee. Economic benefit was evaluated from the public health care system spending standpoint. Main outcome measures Number of avoided hospitalization days and associated public health care system cost-avoidance. Results Prescription review and interventions by pharmacists prevented 73 intensive care unit hospitalization days, 74 continuous monitoring unit hospitalization days and 66 days of conventional hospitalization. €252,294.00 in public health expenditure were thus prevented. For every Euro invested in the prescription review activity, €5.09 of public health spending were potentially saved. Conclusion Our study shows that prescription review and clinical pharmacists' interventions had an impact on clinical outcomes which translated into prevented hospitalization days. Prescription optimization through pharmacist interventions allows significant health care cost savings which makes this service highly efficient.