Hazardous Drug Residue on Exterior Vial Surfaces: Evaluation of a Commercial Manufacturing Process
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Hazardous drug residue on the exterior surface of drug vials poses a potential risk for exposure of health care workers involved in handling these products. The purpose of this article is to heighten the awareness of this serious issue and to evaluate a commercial manufacturing process for removing and containing hazardous drug (HD) residue on exterior vial surfaces. Additionally, findings from this study are interpreted, incorporated into the current body of evidence, and discussed by experts in this field. METHODS: This study includes separate evaluations for the presence or absence of surface drug contamination on the vials of 3 HD products: 5-fluorouracil, cisplatin, and methotrexate. The drug products were packaged in vials using a patented prewashing/decontamination method, application of a polyvinylchloride (PVC) base, and use of clear glass vials. An additional step of encasing the vial in a shrink-wrapped sheath was used for 5-fluorouracil and cisplatin. RESULTS: Of all 5-fluorouracil (110 vials), methotrexate (60 vials), and cisplatin (60 vials) tested, only 2 had detectable amounts of surface residue. One 5-fluorouracil vial was found to have approximately 4 mg of 5-fluorouracil on the surface of the vial. The second contaminated vial was cisplatin, which was discovered to have 131 ng of platinum, equal to 200 ng of cisplatin or 0.2 μL of cisplatin solution, on the vial sheath. CONCLUSION: Using validated extraction and analytic methods, all but 2 of the 230 tested vials were found to be free of surface drug contamination. Pharmacy leaders need to take an active role in promoting the need for clean HD vials. Manufacturers should be required to provide their clients with data derived from externally validated analytic studies, reporting the level of HD contamination on the exterior of their vial products.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".