Microbiological challenge of four protective devices for the reconstitution of cytotoxic agents

Evaluating drug stability and sterility in single-dose vials when accessed with a closed system transfer device

Background

Impact of drug wastage is a legitimate and persistent concern. Financial impact of drug waste is borne by the hospital network, patients, and healthcare systems. Measures to reduce drug wastage may have a positive impact throughout healthcare systems.

Objective

This study investigated the stability and sterility of single-dose vials when repeatedly accessed with a closed system transfer device. By evaluating the sterility and stability, these results may be used to validate the extension of vial usage and lead to potential drug wastage reduction.

Methods

Sterility testing was performed in accordance with US Pharmacopeia 71. A closed system transfer device was incorporated into simulated compounding tasks, utilizing growth media. Simulated compounding tasks were performed in the clinical environment, followed by incubation to stimulate growth. Stability testing was performed in accordance with US Pharmacopeia monographs at multiple timepoints post access. Test samples were comparatively tested via high-performance liquid chromatography to freshly opened vials at each timepoint.

Results

No growth was observed in test samples. Control vials displayed growth, where appropriate. The drugs retained stability, when compared to freshly opened vials at 0, 24, 48, and 72 h, post access.

Conclusions

This study confirms that closed system transfer devices do not contribute to microbial contamination of drug vials, following the repeated access, for up to 7 days and the tested drugs retained equivalent chemical stability for up to 72 h post access. This study may offer a manner by which a facility may assess single-dose vials' sterility and stability, following repeated access by a closed system transfer device.

Integrity performance assessment of a closed system transfer device syringe adaptor lock as a terminal closure for Luer-Lock syringes

OBJECTIVES

To investigate the container closure integrity of a closed system transfer device syringe adaptor lock in combination with disposable Luer-Lock syringes as the terminal closure device. The UK National Health Service (NHS) Pharmaceutical Quality Assurance Committee (PQAC) requires syringe integrity data for final storage devices of aseptic products such as chemotherapy drugs when prepared in advance and stored before use, as is standard practice for dose banded drugs. The assessment comprised both physical and microbial integrity testing of the combination closed system/Luer-Lock syringe containers at syringe sizes of 1 mL, 20 mL, and 50 mL.

METHODS

Integrity testing was performed as described in the NHS Pharmaceutical Quality Assurance Committee yellow cover document, second edition 2013 'Protocols for the Integrity Testing of Syringes', with Chemfort (Simplivia, IL) syringe adaptor lock (SAL) devices as replacement for sterile blind hubs. Microbiological integrity was assessed according to method 1 part 1.4 using Brevundimonas diminuta at 32°C for up to 14 days of contact time. Two positive control devices per syringe size were tested using a blind hub cap as closure which was loosened before the test. Physical integrity was assessed using method 3 of the yellow cover document which is a dye intrusion method. Dye intrusion was assessed both visually and using a validated ultraviolet-visible spectrophotometer method. For each size/batch of test articles a positive control device (n=1) was assessed using a wire wrapped around the syringe plunger tip deliberately compromising integrity. Negative controls for each size (n=1) consisted of devices not immersed in methylene blue dye.

RESULTS

Chemfort syringe adaptor lock/Luer-Lock syringe combinations were shown to be: (1) free of microbiological contamination after 14 days of contact time (n=60); and (2) free of dye intrusion at all syringe sizes tested (n=61 in total). The data demonstrate 100% closure integrity of the final container system when the Chemfort syringe adaptor lock replaces the syringe hub as the terminal closure device. All positive control devices demonstrated system suitability as container integrity was compromised in all positive control tests. All negative controls were negative for microbial and dye intrusion.

CONCLUSIONS

Syringe adaptor lock components complied with the NHS Pharmaceutical Quality Assurance Committee yellow cover document syringe integrity requirements when used as the terminal closure of Luer-Lock disposable syringes from 1 mL up to 50 mL. Therefore, syringe adaptor lock (Chemfort) can be used as the terminal closure system for pre-filled syringes of chemotherapeutic drug products prepared in advance in UK NHS pharmacy technical services.

Closed-system transfer device use with oncology biologics: A survey of Canadian healthcare practitioners

Introduction

Closed-system transfer devices (CSTDs) were introduced into clinical practice to protect healthcare practitioners (HCPs) from exposure to hazardous drugs. However, ambiguous guidelines have led to confusion as to when CSTD use is required, as institutes are instructed to maintain their own hazardous drug lists and determine the appropriate level of personal protective equipment for their staff. This study seeks to understand the current use of CSTDs by Canadian oncology HCPs, the influence of various stakeholders on their use and the challenges faced by HCPs surrounding the use of these medical devices.

Methods

The researchers compiled a set of questions to inform on the current use of CSTDs in clinical practice and administered an online survey to oncology HCPs across Canada.

Results

The results indicate that though CSTD use is common in Canadian oncology practice settings, there is variation in the extent of the use of these devices across provinces and with which products these devices are used. The survey results also show that the top challenges with the use of CSTDs include cost, lack of information on the compatibility of a CSTD with a drug product, and CSTD impact on drug quality. Many respondents are aligned that regulatory bodies are more likely to influence the use of CSTDs with specific drug products than drug manufacturers.

Conclusion

Guidelines for the application of CSTDs in clinical practice vary and are often ambiguous. Regulatory bodies are uniquely positioned to provide healthcare institutions with more clarity on when CSTD use is appropriate.

Review of studies examining microbial contamination of vials used for preparations done with closed-system drug transfer devices

OBJECTIVES

The main objective was to identify all studies that present data regarding microbial contamination of vials used for preparation with closed-system drug transfer devices (CSTDs). Our secondary objective was to compare the reported contamination of vials punctured with a CSTD versus no CSTD and to evaluate the quality of data reporting as defined by the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) criteria.

METHODS

A literature review was conducted on 31 December 2018 on PubMed, EMBASE and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature. A manual search of the archives of relevant pharmaceutical conferences was made. All studies that presented data about microbial contamination of vials punctured with a CSTD or about beyond-use date extension were included. Two researchers independently graded the articles according to the STROBE criteria.

RESULTS

Of the 280 articles identified initially, 12 were retained for analysis. Studies evaluated microbial contamination according to different incubation times and different culture media. Nine studies did not use any comparator group. Five studies found no contamination of vials punctured with CSTDs. For the others, the contamination was between 0.3% and 27%. Three studies compared the contamination of vials punctured with a CSTD and with a conventional system and did not show a significant difference between the groups. Seven studies declared a conflict of interest. The mean number of STROBE criteria fulfilled was 12.2±4.1 out of 34 (7 not applicable) for studies, and the mean number was 5±0 out of 12 for abstracts.

CONCLUSIONS

Vials punctured in ISO5 conditions with a CSTD presented a low frequency of microbial contamination. No study showed a significant difference between vials punctured with a CSTD and with a conventional method. Centre-specific sterility testing is needed to reflect the variability of handling procedures and equipment.

Advanced Medical Devices for Preparation and Administration of Chemotherapeutic Agents: Results from a Multi-Dimensional Evaluation

Purpose

To evaluate the incremental benefits concerning the implementation of closed-system medical devices for the preparation and administration of chemotherapy agents (integrated or not with traceable workflow), within an Italian clinical practice, in which the use of such technologies is not standardized.

Methodology

Four Scenarios, implying different levels of technologies introduction, were analyzed, based on the presence and/or absence of closed systems and traceable workflow, in the preparation and in the administration phase. A literature review was conducted, in order to retrieve efficacy and safety measures. Economic and organizational benefits, assuming a hospitals perspective, were assessed by means of health-economics tools, considering 27,660 (±695.86) drugs on average prepared, on an annual basis, by 12 hospitals involved. The typology of medical devices and other devices/equipment used, the human resources involved, and the time spent for the preparation and administration phases were collected.

Results

Literature stated that the introduction of advanced technologies (CSTDs in the preparation phase, closed-system in the administration phase, both integrated by a traceable workflow) could: i) decrease surface contamination (12.24% vs 26.39%, P<0.001) and ii) improve the capability to identify dosage errors (7% vs 0.096%, P<0.05). The above technologies presented the best trade-off between cost sustained and efficacy gained. Despite marginal investments (ranging from +1% to +6%) being required for their acquisition, an organizational saving equal to more than 1,000 working hours emerged, which could be spent on other hospital activities.

Conclusion

The implementation of closed systems, integrated with a traceable workflow grounding on gravimetric control, may be considered a valid technological alternative within the investigated setting. The marginal incremental costs could be absorbed already in the first year after their introduction, in particular, because of the potential time saving in using closed systems in both the preparation and administration phases, demonstrating the sustainability and feasibility of such advanced technologies.

Review of economic data on closed system transfer drug for preparation and administration of hazardous drugs

OBJECTIVES

The objectives of this study were to review economic data on the use of closed system drug transfer devices (CSTDs) for preparing and administering hazardous drugs, and to evaluate the quality of data reporting as defined by the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS).

METHODS

All references from a recent Cochrane review about CSTDs were evaluated for inclusion. A literature review was also conducted. Articles containing economic data about the use of CSTDs were retained for analysis. Two researchers independently graded the articles according to the 24-item CHEERS checklist.

RESULTS

Of the 138 articles identified initially, 12 were retained for analysis. Nine of these studies did not report acquisition costs or did not detail acquisition costs. Six studies reported economic benefits associated with the used of CSTDs, all related to extending the beyond-use date. The mean number of CHEERS criteria fulfilled by the included articles was 9.2 (SD 2.4).

CONCLUSIONS

CSTDs are costly to acquire. However, few studies have examined the economic impact of these devices, and the existing studies are incomplete. As a result, hospitals planning to implement these devices will be unable to make a sound economic evaluation. Robust economic evaluation of CSTDs is needed.

Closed-system drug-transfer devices plus safe handling of hazardous drugs versus safe handling alone for reducing exposure to infusional hazardous drugs in healthcare staff

BACKGROUND

Occupational exposure to hazardous drugs can decrease fertility and result in miscarriages, stillbirths, and cancers in healthcare staff. Several recommended practices aim to reduce this exposure, including protective clothing, gloves, and biological safety cabinets ('safe handling'). There is significant uncertainty as to whether using closed-system drug-transfer devices (CSTD) in addition to safe handling decreases the contamination and risk of staff exposure to infusional hazardous drugs compared to safe handling alone.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of closed-system drug-transfer of infusional hazardous drugs plus safe handling versus safe handling alone for reducing staff exposure to infusional hazardous drugs and risk of staff contamination.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, OSH-UPDATE, CINAHL, Science Citation Index Expanded, economic evaluation databases, the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and ClinicalTrials.gov to October 2017.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included comparative studies of any study design (irrespective of language, blinding, or publication status) that compared CSTD plus safe handling versus safe handling alone for infusional hazardous drugs.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently identified trials and extracted data. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) and mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) using both fixed-effect and random-effects models. We assessed risk of bias according to the risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions (ROBINS-I) tool, used an intracluster correlation coefficient of 0.10, and we assessed the quality of the evidence using GRADE.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 23 observational cluster studies (358 hospitals) in this review. We did not find any randomised controlled trials or formal economic evaluations. In 21 studies, the people who used the intervention (CSTD plus safe handling) and control (safe handling alone) were pharmacists or pharmacy technicians; in the other two studies, the people who used the intervention and control were nurses, pharmacists, or pharmacy technicians. The CSTD used in the studies were PhaSeal (13 studies), Tevadaptor (1 study), SpikeSwan (1 study), PhaSeal and Tevadaptor (1 study), varied (5 studies), and not stated (2 studies). The studies' descriptions of the control groups were varied. Twenty-one studies provide data on one or more outcomes for this systematic review. All the studies are at serious risk of bias. The quality of evidence is very low for all the outcomes.There is no evidence of differences in the proportion of people with positive urine tests for exposure between the CSTD and control groups for cyclophosphamide alone (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.46 to 1.52; I² = 12%; 2 studies; 2 hospitals; 20 participants; CSTD: 76.1% versus control: 91.7%); cyclophosphamide or ifosfamide (RR 0.09, 95% CI 0.00 to 2.79; 1 study; 1 hospital; 14 participants; CSTD: 6.4% versus control: 71.4%); and cyclophosphamide, ifosfamide, or gemcitabine (RR not estimable; 1 study; 1 hospital; 36 participants; 0% in both groups).There is no evidence of a difference in the proportion of surface samples contaminated in the pharmacy areas or patient-care areas for any of the drugs except 5-fluorouracil, which was lower in the CSTD group than in the control (RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.97; 3 studies, 106 hospitals, 1008 samples; CSTD: 9% versus control: 13.9%).The amount of cyclophosphamide was lower in pharmacy areas in the CSTD group than in the control group (MD -49.34 pg/cm², 95% CI -84.11 to -14.56, I² = 0%, 7 studies; 282 hospitals, 1793 surface samples). Additionally, one interrupted time-series study (3 hospitals; 342 samples) demonstrated a change in the slope between pre-CSTD and CSTD (3.9439 pg/cm², 95% CI 1.2303 to 6.6576; P = 0.010), but not between CSTD and post-CSTD withdrawal (-1.9331 pg/cm², 95% CI -5.1260 to 1.2598; P = 0.20). There is no evidence of difference in the amount of the other drugs between CSTD and control groups in the pharmacy areas or patient-care areas.None of the studies report on atmospheric contamination, blood tests, or other measures of exposure to infusional hazardous drugs such as urine mutagenicity, chromosomal aberrations, sister chromatid exchanges, or micronuclei induction.None of the studies report short-term health benefits such as reduction in skin rashes, medium-term reproductive health benefits such as fertility and parity, or long-term health benefits related to the development of any type of cancer or adverse events.Five studies (six hospitals) report the potential cost savings through the use of CSTD. The studies used different methods of calculating the costs, and the results were not reported in a format that could be pooled via meta-analysis. There is significant variability between the studies in terms of whether CSTD resulted in cost savings (the point estimates of the average potential cost savings ranged from (2017) USD -642,656 to (2017) USD 221,818).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is currently no evidence to support or refute the routine use of closed-system drug transfer devices in addition to safe handling of infusional hazardous drugs, as there is no evidence of differences in exposure or financial benefits between CSTD plus safe handling versus safe handling alone (very low-quality evidence). None of the studies report health benefits.Well-designed multicentre randomised controlled trials may be feasible depending upon the proportion of people with exposure. The next best study design is interrupted time-series. This design is likely to provide a better estimate than uncontrolled before-after studies or cross-sectional studies. Future studies may involve other alternate ways of reducing exposure in addition to safe handling as one intervention group in a multi-arm parallel design or factorial design trial. Future studies should have designs that decrease the risk of bias and enable measurement of direct health benefits in addition to exposure. Studies using exposure should be tested for a relevant selection of hazardous drugs used in the hospital to provide an estimate of the exposure and health benefits of using CSTD. Steps should be undertaken to ensure that there are no other differences between CSTD and control groups, so that one can obtain a reasonable estimate of the health benefits of using CSTD.

Cost Analysis of Using a Closed-System Transfer Device (CSTD) for Antineoplastic Drug preparation in a Malaysian Government-Funded Hospital

Background:

Apart from reducing occupational exposure to cytotoxic hazards, the PhaSeal® closed-system transfer device (CSTD) can extend the beyond-use dates (BUDs) of unfinished vials of antineoplastic drugs for up to 168 hours (seven days). In this study, the total material cost incurred by its use in a Malaysian government-funded hospital was calculated.

Methods:

A list of vial stability following initial needle punctures of 29 commonly-used antineoplastic drugs was compiled. The amount of the materials used, including drugs, infusion bottles, the PhaSeal® CSTD and other consumables, was recorded on a daily basis for three months in 2015. The total cost was calculated based on the actual acquisition costs, and was compared with that of a hypothetical scenario, whereby conventional syringe-needle sets were used for the same amounts of preparations.

Results:

The use of the PhaSeal® CSTD incurred a cost of MYR 383,634.52 (USD 92,072.28) in three months, representing an average of MYR 170.5 (USD 40.92) per preparation or an estimated annual cost of MYR 1,534,538.08 (USD 368,289.14). Compared with conventional syringe-needle approach, it is estimated to lead to an additional spending of MYR 148,627.68 (USD 35,670.64) yearly.

Conclusion:

Although there was a reduction of drug wastage achieved by extending BUDs of unfinished vials using the PhaSeal® CSTD, cost saving was not observed, likely attributable to the wide use of lower-priced generic drugs in Malaysia. Future studies should further evaluate the possibility of cost saving, especially in health settings where branded and high-cost antineoplastic drugs are more commonly used.

Potential cost savings associated with dose rounding antineoplastic monoclonal agents

Purpose

This study explored the potential financial benefits associated with dose rounding three costly cancer agents: bevacizumab, trastuzumab, and cetuximab.

Methods

Electronic chemotherapy health record software was queried to identify inpatient and outpatient use of bevacizumab, trastuzumab, and cetuximab. Available drug vial sizes were noted. Costs of actual doses prescribed were compared to theoretically reduced doses (5% and 10%) adjusted to the nearest vial size. Only doses resulting in a decrease in the number of vials qualified for dose rounding. New doses were analyzed for potential cost savings considering the percent-change from the original dose. All institutional review board procedures were followed.

Results

In all, 425 doses of bevacizumab, trastuzumab, and cetuximab were identified. At a 5% dose reduction, 51 doses (12%) qualified for dose rounding, translating to a potential cost savings of $60,648 ($6,188, $52,640, and $1,820, respectively). Although a 5% limit was set, the average change in dose did not exceed 2.5%. At a 10% dose reduction, 124 doses (29%) qualified for dose rounding, translating to a potential cost savings of $112,585 ($26,520, $80,605, and $5,460, respectively). With the 10% dose reduction, the average change in dose did not surpass 6.1%. Projected annual savings were calculated as $181,944 or $337,755, depending on the rounding limit.

Conclusion

Consultation with key physicians regarding the proposed percent reduction resulted in a 10% dose reduction for all cases when utilizing these three agents. Implementation of a dose rounding protocol for bevacizumab, trastuzumab, and cetuximab represents a potentially substantial cost savings at this institution.

Aseptic simulation test for cytotoxic drug production in isolators

PURPOSE

The results of a media-fill test (MFT) study to validate processes for cytotoxic drug preparation inside and outside aseptic compounding isolators are presented.

METHODS

Using an MFT protocol adapted to institution-specific production conditions, the pharmacy team at a hospital in France performed a series of tests to verify the efficacy of decontamination and sterile compounding procedures, as required by French compendial standards, while assessing the performance of its team of 12 isolator operators; all operators were tested on three occasions, producing 10 MFT samples per test for a total of 30 samples per operator. The team also tested alternative compounding systems (i.e., two closed-system transfer devices and a classic spike system) for use during power outages or other emergencies precluding drug preparation within isolators. MFTs were performed using a standard tryptone soy broth-based test kit under worst-case conditions.

RESULTS

The hospital's facilities for cytotoxic drug preparation were found to be in conformance with applicable sterility standards. Bacterial growth was not detected in any of the MFT samples produced by isolator operators during the study (total n = 360). In one instance, an MFT sample prepared using a closed-system transfer device was found to be contaminated due to improper cleaning of the medication vial, highlighting the importance of strict adherence to proper decontamination procedures.

CONCLUSION

A hospital's practices for preparation of sterile products according to applicable good manufacturing guidelines, as well as emergency procedures for cytotoxic drug preparation outside isolators, were validated by the results of an MFT study.

Cost savings realized by use of the PhaSeal® closed-system transfer device for preparation of antineoplastic agents

Purpose

Medication cost is a major factor associated with increasing health care costs in the United States. Expenditures for prescription drugs in 2013 are estimated to be $283.7 billion. Closed system transfer devices are widely used for preparation of hazardous drugs. Reports indicate the Phaseal® closed system transfer device maintains sterility in vials for 7 days, suggesting the unused portion of single-use vials could be salvaged. This study was done to determine whether using a closed system transfer device to extend the beyond-use date of single-use vials of antineoplastic medications would result in a measurable cost saving.

Methods

A list of 25 drugs available in single-use vials, with a chemical stability of at least 48 hours, was compiled. Use of these agents was recorded during a 50-day period in April through June 2012. Use from a total of 296 vials of 21 antineoplastic agents was recorded. After allowing for the initial use of each vial, the mean potential percentage of drug waste was calculated to be 57.03%.

Results

Actual savings during the study period was $96,348.70. The pharmacy avoided nearly half of the potential waste and saved a mean of 29% of each vial. The cost-saving during the study period represents a $703,047.67 annual saving; which more than offsets the $106,556.55 the pharmacy spent for the Phaseal® system in 2012.

Conclusion

In addition to being a protective measure to reduce exposure to hazardous agents, use of the Phaseal® system results in a reduction in drug waste, and a noticeable cost saving for antineoplastic agents.

Occupational exposure to anti-cancer drugs: A review of effects of new technology

Because anti-cancer drugs are non-selective, they affect both cancerous and non-cancerous cells. Being carcinogenic and mutagenic, many anticancer drugs therefore present a major health risk to healthcare staff working with them. This paper reviews the means by which exposure to anti-cancer drugs in the workplace may be monitored, assessed and reduced. Both biological monitoring, using non-selective methods or compound-selective methods, and environmental monitoring have provided information on the nature and degree of exposure in the workplace. Pharmaceutical isolators, used for the compounding of cytotoxic IV infusions and the preparation of injectable drugs, provide a physical barrier between pharmacists and cytotoxic drugs and reduce direct exposure. However, the interior of isolators and the contents thereof (e.g. infusion bags and syringes) are readily contaminated by aerosols and spillages and afford a secondary source of exposure to pharmacists, nurses and cleaning staff. Closed system transfer devices (CSTDs), designed to prohibit the transfer of contaminants into the working environment during drug transfer between the vial and syringe, have been successful in further reducing, but not eliminating surface contamination. Given that the number of patients requiring treatment with chemotherapeutic agents is predicted to increase, further efforts to reduce occupational exposure to anti-cancer drugs, including the refinement and wider use of CTSDs, are recommended.

Economic and microbiologic evaluation of single-dose vial extension for hazardous drugs

PURPOSE

The update of US Pharmacopeia Chapter <797> in 2008 included guidelines stating that single-dose vials (SDVs) opened and maintained in an International Organization for Standardization Class 5 environment can be used for up to 6 hours after initial puncture. A study was conducted to evaluate the cost of discarding vials after 6 hours and to further test sterility of vials beyond this time point, subsequently defined as the beyond-use date (BUD).

METHODS

Financial determination of SDV waste included 2 months of retrospective review of all doses prescribed. Additionally, actual waste log data were collected. Active and control vials (prepared using sterilized trypticase soy broth) were recovered, instead of discarded, at the defined 6-hour BUD.

RESULTS

The institution-specific waste of 19 selected SDV medications discarded at 6 hours was calculated at $766,000 annually, and tracking waste logs for these same medications was recorded at $770,000 annually. Microbiologic testing of vial extension beyond 6 hours showed that 11 (1.86%) of 592 samples had one colony-forming unit on one of two plates. Positive plates were negative at subsequent time points, and all positives were single isolates most likely introduced during the plating process.

CONCLUSION

The cost of discarding vials at 6 hours was significant for hazardous medications in a large academic medical center. On the basis of microbiologic data, vial BUD extension demonstrated a contamination frequency of 1.86%, which likely represented exogenous contamination; vial BUD extension for the tested drugs showed no growth at subsequent time points and could provide an annual cost savings of more than $600,000.

Comparative parallel assessment of a transfer device in reducing 5-fluorouracil environmental contamination inside positive air pressure isolators

The environmental contamination of the antineoplastic drugs circuit, due to the centralization of preparation and the increased number of the patients treated, brought about a new occupational hazard: the chronic exposure to low doses of antineoplastic drugs. The rationalization of the hospital budgets imposes a meticulous assessment of the devices available for the preparation, in order to justify their interest, even their cost. A prospective comparative study with parallel arms was led inside the Pharmacy of the Institut de Cancerologie de la Loire in order to evaluate the Spike Swan®, a transfer device. The aim was to assess the Spike Swan® effectiveness. The antineoplastic drugs environmental contamination within the isolators is considered as a potential starting point for a larger dissemination of cytotoxic products. Therefore, the primary endpoint was the surface contamination level with 5-fluorouracil and the comparator was the standard preparation technique using needles and aeration needles. This study did not show significant effectiveness for the Spike Swan® in reducing surface contamination. Nevertheless, this device could be used to prepare large volumes and to secure occasional handlers, because it is easy to handle.