Nurses With Dermal Exposure to Antineoplastic Drugs

Abstract

Antineoplastic drugs may reduce fertility and increase poor neonatal outcomes among occupationally exposed oncology nurses.

Maternal occupation during pregnancy, birth weight, and length of gestation: combined analysis of 13 European birth cohorts

“…These results contradict most of the previous studies where unfavorable effects among nurses were observed, often in relation with specific exposures (15,20,(27)(28)(29); only one study conducted in Canada showed a lower risk of low birth weight infants among nurses (30). Nurses Figure 2.…”

Pilot Evaluation of Dermal Contamination by Antineoplastic Drugs among Hospital Pharmacy Personnel

“…19 Previous studies have demonstrated evidence of the mutagenicity of antineoplastic drugs through various biomarkers. [20][21][22] In a study correlating occupational exposure to adverse health outcomes, Fransman and others 23 found a positive log-linear relation between dermal exposure to antineoplastic drugs and risk of premature delivery and low birth weight in a cohort of oncology nurses. In a recent study, McDiarmid and others 24 found genetic abnormalities among oncology personnel who were handling anticancer drugs.…”

“…In a recent study, McDiarmid and others 24 found genetic abnormalities among oncology personnel who were handling anticancer drugs. In both of these studies, 23,24 the antineoplastic drugs were mixed in a biological safety cabinet, and staff were required to wear gloves while handling drugs. As these work practices are the same as those employed by the sites participating in the current study, it is conceivable that pharmacy personnel in the current study were also at risk of the aforementioned adverse health outcomes.…”

Occupational exposures among nurses and risk of spontaneous abortion

“…The three largest studies [19][20][21] showed increased risks for spontaneous abortion with self-reported first trimester exposure through handling or mixing, mostly among oncology nurses or pharmacists (ORs ranging from 1.5-2.3) in samples that included from 18 to 223 exposed cases. Other studies did not find statistically significant associations [22][23][24][25][26][27] with ORs ranging from 0.7-2.8, and limited sample sizes (3 to 34 exposed cases). A meta-analysis pooled the results of five studies 19-21, 24, 25 and found an overall adjusted increased risk of 46% (95% CI = 11%-92%).…”