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

A systematic study of CSTD-generated stress on different biomolecular modalities

Although Closed System Transfer Devices (CSTDs) are used in oncology for dose preparation and administration, the impact of CSTDs on biologics and other non-small molecular modalities are not fully understood. We investigated particle formation when preparing and mock administering three experimental biologics (mAb, ADC, and fusion protein) using seven models of CSTDs. A wide range of visible and subvisible particle formation was observed among CSTD models. Particles were found to consist of silicone oil and protein. X-ray micro-computed tomographic images of the fluid paths of the CSTDs showed that most have highly tortuous fluid paths. Computational fluid dynamics analysis of dose preparation using the CSTDs that produced the highest and lowest amounts of particles demonstrated a 154-fold difference in maximum shear stress as well as a significant difference in solution residence time. Control experiments with silicone oil spiking showed that exposing the proteins to silicone oil does not account for the majority of visible and subvisible particle formation. These results demonstrate that the geometry of the fluid paths of CSTDs can have a detrimental effect on protein stability.

Current industry practices on closed system drug-transfer devices for parenteral drug products

USP<800> and NIOSH provide guidance on the use of Closed System Drug-Transfer Devices for hazardous drug in the healthcare setting. However, CSTDs are used by clinical sites irrespective of drug hazard status. In this paper, previous publications that describe evaluation and CSTD risk assessment strategies are presented. In addition, a pharmaceutical industry survey was performed to describe the current strategies for evaluation of CSTDs and how these devices are managed for clinical studies. Finally, recommendations are proposed to mitigate risks associated with CSTDs. These recommendations incorporate: testing considerations, risk assessments, and communication.

How are we handling protein drugs in hospitals? A human factors and systems engineering approach to compare two hospitals and suggest a best practice

Biopharmaceuticals are complex biological molecules that require careful storage and handling to ensure medication integrity. In this study, a work system analysis of real-world protein drug (PD) handling was performed with the following goals: identify main barriers and facilitators for successful adherence to accepted recommendations in PD handling, analyse differences in two organizations, and define a Best Current Practice in the real-life handling of PDs based on the results of the work system analysis. Observational study was held in two university hospitals in Spain and Sweden. Based on the Systems Engineering Initiative for Patient Safety (SEIPS) model, the tools chosen were: the PETT scan, in order to indicate the presence of barriers or facilitators for the PETT components (People, Environment, Tools, Tasks); the Tasks and tools matrices to construct a checklist to record direct observations during the real-life handling of biopharmaceuticals, and the Journey map to depict the work process. Observations were performed between March and November 2022. Each episode of direct observation included a single protein drug in some point of the supply chain and considered all the elements in the work system. Based on the results of the work system analysis and the literature review, the authors propose a list of items which could be assumed as Best Current Practice for PDs handling in hospitals. There were a total of 34 observations involving 19 PDs. Regarding People involved in the work process, there was a diversity of professionals with different previous training and knowledge, leading to an information gap. With respect to Environment, some structural and organizational differences between hospitals lead to risks related to the time exposure of PDs to room temperature and mechanical stress. Some differences also existed in the Tools and Tasks involved in the process, being especially relevant to the lack of compatibility information of PDs with new technologies, such as pneumatic tube system, robotic reconstitution, or closed-system transfer devices. Finally, 15 suggestions for best current practice are proposed. Main barriers found for compliance with accepted recommendations were related to the information gap detected in professionals involved in the handling of protein drugs, unmonitored temperature, and the lack of compatibility information of protein drugs with some new technologies. By applying a Human Factors and Systems Engineering Approach, the comparison of two European hospitals has led to a suggested list of Best Current Practices in the handling of protein drugs in a hospital.

A Survey on Handling and Administration of Therapeutic Protein Products in German and Swiss Hospitals

Protein products in hospitals often have to be compounded before administration to the patient. This may comprise reconstitution of lyophilizates, dilution, storage, and transport. However, the operations for compounding and administration in the hospital may lead to changes in product quality and possibly even impact patient safety. We surveyed healthcare practitioners from three clinical units using a questionnaire and open dialogue to document common procedures and their justification and to document differences in handling procedures. The survey covered dose compounding, transportation, storage and administration. One key observation was that drug vial optimization procedures were used for some products, e.g., use of one single-use vial for several patients. This included the use of spikes and needles or closed system transfer devices (CSTDs). Filters or light protection aids were used only when specified by the manufacturer. A further observation was a different handling of the overfill in pre-filled infusion containers, possibly impacting total dose. Lastly, we documented the complexity of infusion administration setups for administration of multiple drugs. In this case, flushing procedures or the placement and use of filters in the setup vary. Our study has revealed important differences in handling and administration practice. We propose that drug developers and hospitals should collaborate to establish unified handling procedures.

Characterization of Silicone from Closed System Transfer Devices and its Migration into Pharmaceutical Drug Products

Closed System Transfer Devices (CSTDs) are increasingly used in healthcare settings to facilitate compounding of hazardous drugs but increasingly also therapeutic proteins. However, their use may significantly impact the quality of the sterile product. For example, contamination of the product solution may occur by leaching of silicone or particulates from the CSTDs. It was therefore the aim of the present study to identify and quantify the types of silicone oil in a panel of typically used CSTDs. Particles found after simulated CSTD compounding processes were evaluated using Light Obscuration and Micro-Flow Imaging and were confirmed to be silicone oil particles. The number of particulates shed from CTSDs was in single cases exceeding pharmacopeial limits for a final parenteral product. Using X-ray microtomography, lubrication was shown to be primarily applied at connecting parts of the CSTD. Quantitative and qualitative analysis by Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy (FTIR) revealed a total released amount between 0.8 and 16 mg per CSTD of polydimethylsiloxane or polymethyltrifluoropropylsiloxane per CSTD. While pronounced differences in total silicone content between CSTDs were observed, it did not fully correlate with particle contamination in the test solutions, potentially due to variations in CSTD design. The impact of typical surfactants in biological formulations on silicone migration into product was additionally evaluated. We conclude that CSTDs may compromise final product quality, as (different types of) silicone oil may be released from these devices and contaminate the administered product.

Canadian monitoring program of the surface contamination with 11 antineoplastic drugs in 124 centers

INTRODUCTION

Occupational exposure to antineoplastic drugs can lead to long-term adverse effects on workers' health. A reproducible Canadian surface monitoring program was established in 2010. The objective was to describe contamination with 11 antineoplastic drugs measured on 12 surfaces among hospitals participating in this annual monitoring program.

METHODS

Each hospital sampled six standardized sites in oncology pharmacies and six in outpatient clinics. Ultra-performance liquid chromatography coupled with tandem mass spectrometry was used for cyclophosphamide, docetaxel, doxorubicin, etoposide, 5-fluorouracil, gemcitabine, irinotecan, methotrexate, paclitaxel, and vinorelbine. Platinum-based drugs were analyzed by inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry; this excludes inorganic platinum from the environment. Hospitals filled out an online questionnaire about their practices; a Kolmogorov-Smirnov test was used for some practices.

RESULTS

One hundred and twenty-four Canadian hospitals participated. Cyclophosphamide (405/1445, 28%), gemcitabine (347/1445, 24%), and platinum (71/756, 9%) were the most frequent. The 90th percentile of surface concentration was 0.01 ng/cm² for cyclophosphamide and 0.003 ng/cm² for gemcitabine. Centers that prepared 5000 or more antineoplastic per year had higher concentrations of cyclophosphamide and gemcitabine on their surfaces (p  =  0.0001). Almost half maintained a hazardous drugs committee (46/119, 39%), but this did not influence the cyclophosphamide contamination (p  =  0.051). Hazardous drugs training was more frequent for oncology pharmacy and nursing staff than for hygiene and sanitation staff.

CONCLUSIONS

This monitoring program allowed centers to benchmark their contamination with pragmatic contamination thresholds derived from the Canadian 90th percentiles. Regular participation and local hazardous drug committee involvement provide an opportunity to review practices, identify risk areas, and refresh training.

Developing a flowchart to evaluate the use of Closed System Drug-Transfer Devices with monoclonal antibodies: Focus on the clinical trial setting

OBJECTIVE

Available guidelines are ambiguous about safe handling monoclonal antibodies (MABs) and whether or not to use a Closed System Drug-Transfer Device (CSTD). In this article we want to describe a standardized working method on handling MABs in a clinical trial setting.

DATA SOURCES

The current workflow at the clinical trial unit of the Ghent University Hospital was critically analyzed, after which an extensive literature review was performed using the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health Working Group guidelines and the database PubMed (Keywords: monoclonal antibodies, closed system transfer devices, safety guidelines, safe handling, management, administration, (bio)compatibility, volume loss, contamination, clinical trial unit. Period: 2020-2022).

DATA SUMMARY

Literature data are ambiguous. CSTDs can reduce cross-contamination and minimize exposure to potential hazardous drugs for healthcare professionals. However, in recent years more questions have been raised about their in-use compatibility and their impact on final product quality. This makes the debate on implementing CSTDs a hot topic in daily pharmacy practice and demands a holistic and standardized approach when deciding whether or not to use a CSTD when handling MABs. In a clinical trial setting, where safety data are frequently not available and the compatibility of CSTDs and investigational product is often unknown, this poses additional challenges that need to be taken into account.

CONCLUSION

We developed a flowchart which standardizes the use of a CSTD when handling MABs. It allows other healthcare professionals and clinical trial sponsors to define and evaluate the necessary criteria when standardizing the position of a CSTD in their safe handling procedures.

A Systematic Approach to Evaluating Closed System Drug-Transfer Devices during Drug Product Development

The use of Closed System Drug-Transfer Devices (CSTDs) has increased significantly in recent years due to NIOSH and USP recommendations to use them during preparation of hazardous drugs. Mechanistic and material differences between CSTDs and traditional in-use components warrant an assessment of their impact on product quality and dosing accuracy. Using a combination of prevalent CSTDs with biologic molecules, we performed an extensive assessment of the effect of using CSTDs for dose preparation and observed no negative impact on product quality attributes. Additionally, we found that the CSTD hold-up volume is 2 to 4-fold higher than conventional in-use components and exhibited a strong dependence on the CSTD brand used. We also found that the CSTD brand and dosing volume have a major influence on dosing accuracy with suboptimal protein recovery at very low dosing volumes. We identified entrapment of product in the CSTD spike as the root cause for this sub-optimal recovery and found that flushing the CSTD spike with a brand-new syringe and not the dosing syringe aided in complete protein recovery. Taken together we present a systematic approach to evaluate the risks and impact of CSTD to drug product quality, dose preparation, and dosing accuracy.