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

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.

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.

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.

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.