Optimising oncology drug expenditure in Ireland

A combination of improvements in patient survival, increasing treatment duration, and the development of more expensive agents has led to a doubling of per-capita spending on cancer medicines in Ireland (2008-2018). Despite this, access to new drugs is poor in comparison to other EU countries. We examine methods to optimise oncology drug spending to facilitate access to newer anticancer agents. Key targets for spending optimisation (biosimilar use, clinical trials and expanded access programs, waste reduction, avoidance of futile treatment, and altered drug scheduling) were identified through an exploratory analysis. A structured literature search was performed, with a focus on articles relevant to the Irish Healthcare system, supplemented by reports from statutory bodies. At the present time, EMA-approved agents are available once approved by the NCPE. Optimising drug costs occurs through guideline-based practice and biosimilar integration, the latter provides €80 million in cost savings annually. Access to novel therapies can occur via over 50 clinical trials and 28 currently available expanded access programmes. Additional strategies include reversion to weight-based immunotherapy dosing, potentially saving €400,000 per year in our centre alone, vial sharing, and optimisation of treatment schedules. A variety of techniques are being employed by oncologists to optimise costs and increase access to innovation for patients. Use of biosimilars, drug wastage, and prescribing at end of life should be audited as key performance indicators, which may lead to reflective practice on treatment planning. Such measures could further optimise oncology drug expenditure nationally facilitating approval of new 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.

Quantifying Drug Wastage and Economic Loss of Chemotherapy Drugs at an Adult Oncology Care of a Tertiary Care Public Hospital in India

Background and objective New drugs have revolutionized cancer care, but their high cost requires cost-effectiveness studies. However, these studies only consider optimal use, neglecting real-world wastage. We aim to assess chemotherapy drug wastage and financial loss in our adult oncology care. Methods A total of 100 adult patients attending daycare oncology were prospectively evaluated. The total dose of parenteral anticancer drug, the amount administered, and the amount of drug wasted were recorded for each patient. The economic loss estimation was done considering the unit cost for the drug. Results Our study evaluated 157 parenteral drug administrations of 10 different anticancer drugs in 100 enrolled patients. The most common diagnosis was breast cancer (39/100; 39%), and the most commonly prescribed drugs were paclitaxel (36/157; 23%) and cyclophosphamide (21/157; 13%). However, the wastage percentage varied from 6% to 35.06%, and the overall wastage estimated was 16,298 mg (20.06%) of the total drug procured. Notably, the highest proportion of drug wastage was observed for carboplatin (2,525/7200 mg; 35.06%), whereas oxaliplatin, gemcitabine, 5-FU, and cisplatin wastage were more than 20% of the ordered drug. The total cost of the chemotherapy drug procured was 7,26,005 INR (8,738.78 USD), and drug wastage amounted to 17.14% of the total drug cost, resulting in an economic loss of 1,24,485 INR (1,498.40 USD). Gemcitabine (542.86 USD), oxaliplatin (452.66 USD), and paclitaxel (286.15 USD) were responsible for the maximum cost of wastage. Conclusion Drug wastage and financial loss are significant for carboplatin, oxaliplatin, and gemcitabine, with small proportions of paclitaxel also contributing to economic loss. Possible solutions include planning pharmacy inventory for multiple vial sizes and drug-wise batching strategies to facilitate vial sharing. However, these approaches may present challenges. The pharmaceutical industry can consider initiatives such as providing varying packaging sizes to minimize drug wastage.

Cost analysis of implementing a vial-sharing strategy for chemotherapy drugs using intelligent dispensing robots in a tertiary Chinese hospital in Sichuan

Introduction

Chemotherapy drug wasting is a huge problem in oncology that not only results in excessive expenses on chemotherapy drugs but also increases the cost of disposing of chemotherapy waste and the risk of occupational exposure in the environment. The main objective of this study was to evaluate the potential for hospitals in China to employ a real-time vial-sharing strategy that can save drug costs.

Method

This study was conducted retrospectively at Pharmacy Intravenous Admixture Services (PIVAS), People's Hospital of Sichuan Province, China, from September to November 2021. Data on prescription drugs wasted were collected from the Hospital Information System (HIS). To assess the real-time vial-sharing strategy, we estimated drug wastage and drug waste costs using intelligent robots that dispense multiple prescriptions simultaneously.

Results

24 of the 46 wasted drugs were cost-saved. The vial-sharing strategy saved 186,067 mg of drugs, or ~59.08% of the total amount wasted, resulting in savings of 150,073.53 China Yuan (CNY), or 47.51% of the cost of the total waste.

Conclusion

Our investigation established that employing a real-time vial-sharing strategy using an intelligent robot to dispense multiple prescriptions simultaneously is cost-effective. Additionally, this approach presented no safety issue concerns, such as the introduction of impurities to sterile compounding via repeated interspersing or the incorrect registration of information during drug storage, often encountered with traditional vial-sharing strategies.

An economic evaluation of vial sharing of expensive drugs in automated compounding

Background Manual compounding of expensive cytotoxic drugs often leads to drug wastage, due to residual product in vials not being used. Aim To determine the cost savings that can be achieved by implementing an automated compounding process with a vial sharing strategy, instead of manually compounding drugs. Method The drug wastage during automated compounding was compared with that of three simulation scenarios using manual compounding, in a general teaching hospital. All automatically compounded preparations of rituximab, pemetrexed, bevacizumab, and trastuzumab from September 2019 and up until February 2020 were included. A vial sharing strategy was implemented during the automated compounding process (scenario 1). In this scenario, all residual drugs could be reused for up to seven days. Two of the simulation scenarios for manual compounding were executed using a batch compounding strategy, for an entire working day (scenario 2), and twice a day (scenario 3). The third manual compounding simulation was executed without making use of a batch compounding strategy (scenario 4). Results There was no drug wastage during automated compounding with vial sharing (scenario 1). The cost of drug wastage for 1001 preparations, over a period of six months for rituximab, pemetrexed, bevacizumab, and trastuzumab combined, were € 34,133 for scenario 2, € 46,688 for scenario 3, and € 88,255 for scenario 4. The estimated total cost savings between 2017, when the compounding robot was commissioned, and 2021, was more than € 280,000. Conclusion Vial sharing of expensive drugs during automated compounding can prevent drug wastage, resulting in an economic and environmental advantage as opposed to manual compounding.

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.

Anticancer drug waste minimization and cost-saving study by using a closed-system transfer device for chemotherapy compounding

INTRODUCTION

There is a need for an economic evaluation of the use of closed system (CSTD) in chemotherapy compounding, especially in resource-constrained settings.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to assess the cost saving of the management of cancer drug leftovers before and after introduction of CSTD associated with an extension of the beyond-use date (BUD) of cancer vials. A secondary objective was to estimate the level of minimization of drug wastage.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This was a prospective, single-center study with two periods of two months each. The cost of drugs saved by using conventional systems (syringe and needle) without a closed system in the first period was compared to the cost of drugs saved by using the CSTD Chemoclave® system in the second period. The drug waste minimization rate compared actual drug waste to potential waste in Period 2.

RESULTS

In Period 1, the amount of drug saved accounted for an average of 10.3% of the amount used in milligrams and the amount of drug wasted accounted for an average of 18.7%. In period 2, these proportions were 15.2% and 6.4% respectively. The CSTD generated an extra cost of 11,962.5 USD compared to the conventional system. The drug saved cost related only to the CSTD and the acquisition cost of the CSTD was a deficit of -7,444.95 USD and the cost saved from the compounding (CSTD and syringes) was a gain of 1,722.01 USD. The waste minimization represented an average of 72.5% ± 24.4% of potential waste.

CONCLUSION

The use of CSTD to extend the BUD allowed to reduce waste due to microbiological instability without adding an economic profit.

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.

A real-world data approach to determine the optimal dosing strategy for pembrolizumab

INTRODUCTION

Cancer drug therapy costs continue to rise and threaten the sustainability of Canada's public healthcare system. Previous studies have calculated potential savings utilizing different dosing regimens of cancer treatments. Our objectives were to determine the financial impact of drug wastage and to explore cost-effective dosing regimens for pembrolizumab.

METHODS

This was a retrospective study reviewing data for non-small cell lung cancer and melanoma patients at all six BC Cancer Regional Centres during fiscal years 2017 and 2018. Pembrolizumab waste amounts recorded in pharmacy wastage logs were totalled. Estimates of the number of vials used were compared between vial sharing and non-vial sharing practices to determine the cost differences. Costs for dosing regimens used during fiscal years 2017 and 2018 were compared to 2 mg/kg weight-based dosing (to a maximum of 200 mg), 2 mg/kg dosing rounding down within 5% and 10%, and flat dosing of 200 mg.

RESULTS

There were a total of 202 non-small cell lung cancer and 182 melanoma patients with 2948 doses dispensed. Documented wastage was valued at $1,829,047.44 (8.65%) and across all six centres, vial sharing could reduce costs by $3,207,600.00 using the 100 mg vials. Compared to fiscal years 2017 and 2018, 2 mg/kg dosing (to a maximum of 200 mg) was the most cost-effective, decreasing costs by $222,719.20; flat dosing of 200 mg was the most expensive, increasing costs by $6,625,260.40.

CONCLUSIONS

Having smaller vial sizes, practicing vial sharing, and using weight-based dosing all improve cost savings. Further investigations on the allocation of resources to optimize drug use and minimize wastage are needed.

Measures to prevent the risks associated with exposure to cytostatic drugs in glaucoma filtering surgery

INTRODUCTION

The use of cytostatic drugs such as Mitomycin C and 5-Fluorouracil is well-known in glaucoma filtering surgery, as well as the management of its complications. However, there is a lack of information regarding the preventive measures to be taken by the professional that handles these types of substances.

OBJECTIVE

Raise awareness among professionals of the risks associated with the use of cytostatic drugs without adequate prevention measures.

RESULTS

Review of the available literature and legislation on preventive measures in the management of cytostatic drugs in the medical and ophthalmological field.

CONCLUSIONS

The prevention and awareness of the risks of the qualified professionals that handle these substances is the most important measure to prevent the possible risks. Coordination is necessary with the Occupational Health teams of the Hospital, as well as the professionals and staff involved in the different phases of the process, from the preparation in Hospital Pharmacy to its elimination.

Centralization impact and cost-saving study in a Moroccan hospital’s centralized unit of chemotherapy preparation

Purpose

The purpose of this study was to assess the cost saved and the amount of drug wasted when compounding anticancer drugs in the centralized unit for chemotherapy preparation. A secondary objective was to estimate the centralization impact of activities related to the preparation of chemotherapies.

Methods

This was a two-month, single-centre, prospective study conducted at the National Oncology Institute in Rabat. The cost saved and the amount of drug wasted were calculated using a standardized data collection sheet (the prescribed dose, the amount of drug deployed, the amount remaining after compounding, the amount of drug saved and the drug wastage). The centralization impact was calculated using the amount of drug wasted in the centralized unit for chemotherapy preparation and a theoretical amount of drug wasted without centralization of preparation.

Results

During the study period, the total amount of drug saved was 249,959.5 mg (7.2% of drug used), which represented 96,657 USD. The amount of drug wasted was 89,290.5 mg or 42275.5 USD. The drug waste per dilution and per drug was 6.4 mg [1.6-16.1]. While the potential savings over one year (580,000 USD) reached 13.9% of the cytostatic drugs budget for 2018, the potential drug waste cost reached 6.1%. The centralization impact is estimated at an average of 79.5% ± 13.7% waste reduction.

Conclusion

The outcome of our study showed that the grouping of prescriptions in centralized unit for chemotherapy preparation could result in significant savings on the amount of drugs deployed. The centralization of cytostatic preparations is of economic interest.

Analyse de minimisation de coût des fournitures utilisées pour la préparation et l’administration d’une dose d’antinéoplasique en établissement de santé

BACKGROUND

Many strategies aim to reduce the risk of work-related exposure to hazardous drugs for health care workers; these strategies include the use of specific systems to prepare and administer these drugs.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the cost of supplies used for preparing and administering one IV dose of antineoplastic in an adult health care facility in Canada between the traditional approach and one using a closed-system drug transfer device (CSTD).

METHOD

This study was a cost reduction analysis conducted from the perspective of a typical university health care facility. The assessment focused only on the cost of supplies used to prepare and administer one IV dose of antineoplastic. It was not necessary to account for discounting. We developed 12 scenarios involving some of the 11 possible steps in preparing and administering one IV dose of antineoplastic.

RESULTS

The cost of supplies used to prepare and administer one IV dose of antineoplastic ranged between $9.89 and $22.37 per dose with the classical system, and between $12.34 and $64.19 per dose for systems involving a CSTD. The annual average extra cost of systems involving a CSTD was 1.63 to 3.15 higher than the cost with the classical system and represents extra spending of between $363 566 and $1 238 072 each year for a typical adult health care institution.

CONCLUSION

This cost reduction analysis presents original data relating to the preparation and administration of IV antineoplastics. Given the significant costs associated with preparing and administering antineoplastic drugs, decision-makers should perform a thorough analysis of costs and consequences to allow informed decisions to be made.

Review of the evidence on handling drugs and hazardous products in Urology Departments. Consensus document between the Spanish Urological Association and the Spanish Society of Hospital Pharmacy

BACKGROUND

The intravesical administration of hazardous drug products is a standard practice in the urology setting, which potentially exposing medical personnel to these drug products. It was deemed necessary to have a consensus document among the scientific societies involved (the Spanish Urological Association and the Spanish Society of Hospital Pharmacy) that collects the best available evidence on the safest handling possible of dangerous drug products in the setting of urology departments.

METHODS

We reviewed the legislation and recommendations on the handling of dangerous drug products, both at the national and international level.

RESULTS

There is national legislation and regulations for protecting workers who handle dangerous drugs and products, as well as recommendations for handling to protect both the product and workers.

DISCUSSION

Following the strategic lines of the European Parliament for 2014-2020 in the chapter on occupational safety and health, the Spanish Urological Association and the Spanish Society of Hospital Pharmacy proposed a series of actions that decrease the risks of exposure for practitioners and caregivers involved in the handling of these products.

CONCLUSIONS

After this review, 19 recommendations were established for handling dangerous drug products, which can be summarised as the need to train all individuals involved (from management teams to patients and caregivers), adopt systems that prevent contaminating leaks, implement exposure surveillance programmes and optimise available resources.

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.

A Cost Saving and Waste Minimization Study About Handling of the Antineoplastic Agents

Objectives

As a cancer treatment option, chemotherapy costs make up a large part of the budgets of social insurance foundations and related expenditures are increasing continuously annually. Cost saving and waste minimizing strategies are required to reduce the expenditures in the field of oncology. The study aimed to reduce the amount of wasted antineoplastic drugs and medical supply consumption.

Materials and Methods

The study explains why vials with a larger size and drugs in liquid form should be preferred over various smaller sizes and powder forms of antineoplastic preparations.

Results

Amounts of drug wastage, vial adaptor, and transfer set consumption data were recorded regularly for a period of seven months. The average vial adaptor consumption per patient in the last three months decreased from 5 to 3.3. The preference of liquid forms as much as possible instead of powder forms, which has a shorter stability time after dilution, and the choice of larger package sizes of frequently used drugs decreased vial adaptor consumption. Potential savings were calculated as around 31.660 USD annually. Costs of total wasted doses were 8.699.87 USD, and the whole antineoplastic drug consumption was 515.500 USD during the study. A decrease of 0.58 USD was observed per capita when the first and last three-month periods were compared in terms of waste costs.

Conclusion

These values indicate that the reduction of wasted drugs have potential annual savings of 3.375 USD. It is shown that total potential savings of 35.000 USD could be made per year. By implementing the same principles in all hospitals in Turkey, approximately 2.8 million USD could be made annually. The pharmaceutical industry and hospital pharmacists have important responsibilities in this issue.

Chemical Stability of Plerixafor after Opening of Single-Use Vial

BACKGROUND

The addition of the immunostimulant plerixafor to the current standard-of-care regimens of granulocyte colony-stimulating growth factor with or without chemotherapy has improved clinical results in terms of successful stem cell mobilization and the outcomes of stem cell transplant in various settings. With this medical innovation has come an added financial cost for institutions where stem cell transplants are routinely performed, and there may be a further financial burden when the contents of partial vials of the drug are wasted, given that plerixafor vials (Mozobil, Sanofi-Aventis Canada Inc) are currently deemed suitable only for single use.

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether the portion of plerixafor remaining in an opened vial of the Mozobil product after administration of a single dose is chemically stable, by comparison with the original product.

METHODS

Stability testing of partial drug contents of an opened vial, stored at room temperature or under refrigeration (4°C), was conducted using liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry analysis. The mean concentration of plerixafor (μmol/L), standard deviation, coefficient of variation, and bias were determined on days 2, 3, 11, 17, 24, and 31. Method validation included determination of precision, sensitivity, recovery, dilution linearity, and carryover.

RESULTS

Throughout the 4-week testing period, measured plerixafor concentration in aliquots stored at room temperature and under refrigeration, tested in series over time, appeared similar. The mean residual drug concentration after initial opening was slightly, but not significantly, higher for the sample designated for storage at room temperature than the one designated for refrigerated storage (40.4 versus 39.9 μmol/L; p = 0.37).

CONCLUSIONS

Residual plerixafor after initial opening of a vial of the Mozobil product remained chemically stable for at least 2 weeks both at room temperature and under refrigeration. The results of this study provide in vitro evidence to support multiple uses, instead of single use, of vials of this drug in an aseptic, controlled environment.

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.

Effectiveness of a Closed-System Transfer Device in Reducing Surface Contamination in a New Antineoplastic Drug-Compounding Unit: A Prospective, Controlled, Parallel Study

Background

The objective of this randomized, prospective and controlled study was to investigate the ability of a closed-system transfer device (CSTD; BD-Phaseal) to reduce the occupational exposure of two isolators to 10 cytotoxic drugs and compare to standard compounding devices.

Methods and Findings

The 6-month study started with the opening of a new compounding unit. Two isolators were set up with 2 workstations each, one to compound with standard devices (needles and spikes) and the other using the Phaseal system. Drugs were alternatively compounded in each isolator. Sampling involved wiping three surfaces (gloves, window, worktop), before and after a cleaning process. Exposure to ten antineoplastic drugs (cyclophosphamide, ifosfamide, dacarbazine, 5-FU, methotrexate, gemcitabine, cytarabine, irinotecan, doxorubicine and ganciclovir) was assessed on wipes by LC-MS/MS analysis. Contamination rates were compared using a Chi² test and drug amounts by a Mann-Whitney test. Significance was defined for p<0.05. Overall contamination was lower in the “Phaseal” isolator than in the “Standard” isolator (12.24% vs. 26.39%; p < 0.0001) although it differed according to drug. Indeed, the contamination rates of gemcitabine were 49.3 and 43.4% (NS) for the Standard and Phaseal isolators, respectively, whereas for ganciclovir, they were 54.2 and 2.8% (p<0.0001). Gemcitabine amounts were 220.6 and 283.6 ng for the Standard and Phaseal isolators (NS), and ganciclovir amounts were 179.9 and 2.4 ng (p<0.0001).

Conclusion

This study confirms that using a CSTD may significantly decrease the chemical contamination of barrier isolators compared to standard devices for some drugs, although it does not eliminate contamination totally.

Treatment time, ease of use and cost associated with use of Equashield™, PhaSeal® , or no closed system transfer device for administration of cancer chemotherapy to a dog model

This prospective experimental simulation study evaluated the efficiency, ease of use (EOU) and cost of administering chemotherapy with two closed system transfer devices (CSTD, Equashield™ and PhaSeal^® ) and no CSTD. Forty-six veterinary technicians (VT) working in oncology specialty practices were timed during chemotherapy administration simulated with water and a model canine limb 10 times with each system and with no CSTD. EOU and likelihood of recommending each system were rated by VT using visual analog scales. Costs were obtained from veterinary distributors. Administration was fastest with Equashield™ (P = 0.0003), but the difference was not enough to affect case flow. Equashield™ was easier to use than PhaSeal^® or no CSTD (P = 0.002), however VT recommended both CSTD more strongly than no CSTD (P < 0.0001). Equashield™ cost less than PhaSeal^® but was sold only in bulk quantities. CSTD did not decrease efficiency in administering chemotherapy and were readily accepted by VT.

Chemotherapy safety in clinical veterinary oncology

Exposure to chemotherapy is a health hazard for all personnel in facilities that store, prepare, or administer antineoplastic agents. Contamination levels have been measured as much as 15 times higher in the veterinary medicine sector than in human facilities. Recent publications in human and veterinary medicine indicate that exposure extends beyond the clinic walls to affect the patient's home and family. This article provides an update on the advances in chemotherapy safety, the current issues, and the impact on cancer management in veterinary medicine.