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

References

• Negrão Carvalho R, Randi G, Giusti F, et al. Socio-economic regional microscope series. Cancer burden indicators in Europe: insights from national and regional information; 2018. Available from: https://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/bitstream/JRC111731/kjbf18204enn.pdf. Accessed November 11, 2020.
   Google Scholar
• Corrie PG. Cytotoxic chemotherapy: clinical aspects. Medicine. 2008;36(1):24–28. doi:10.1016/j.mpmed.2007.10.012
   Google Scholar
• Hon CY, Teschke K, Demers PA, Venners S. Antineoplastic drug contamination on the hands of employees working throughout the hospital medication system. Ann Occup Hyg. 2014;58(6):761–777.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Graeve CU, McGovern PM, Alexander B, et al. Occupational exposure to antineoplastic agents: an analysis of health care workers and their environments. Workplace Health Saf. 2017;65(1):9–20. doi:10.1177/2165079916662660
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ratner PA, Spinelli JJ, Beking K, et al. Cancer incidence and adverse pregnancy outcome in registered nurses potentially exposed to antineoplastic drugs. BMC Nurs. 2010;9:15. doi:10.1186/1472-6955-9-15
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• EU (Council of the European Union). Council Directive 90/394/EEC of 28 June 1990 on the protection of workers from the risks related to exposure to carcinogens at work (Sixth individual Directive within the meaning of Article 16 (1) of Directive 89/391/EEC). [Internet]; 1990. Available from: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:31990L0394. Accessed December 14, 2014.
   Google Scholar
• NIOSH. NIOSH Alert: preventing occupational exposures to antineoplastic and other hazardous drugs in health care settings. Cincinnati, OH: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, DHHS (NIOSH) Publication No. 2004–165. Available from: https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/2004-165/pdfs/2004-165.pdf. Accessed Nov 18, 2020.
   Google Scholar
• Siderov J, Kirsa J, McLauchlan R. Reducing workplace cytotoxic surface contamination using a closed-system transfer device. J Oncol Pharm Pract. 2010;16:19–25. doi:10.1177/1078155209352543
   Google Scholar
• Sessink PJ, Connor TH, Jorgenson JA, Tyler TG. Reduction in surface contamination with antineoplastic drugs in 22 hospital pharmacies in the US following implementation of a closed-system drug transfer device. J Oncol Pharm Pract. 2011;17(1):39–48. doi:10.1177/1078155210361431
   Google Scholar
• Clark BA, Sessink PJM. Use of a closed system drug-transfer device eliminates surface contamination with antineoplastic agents. J Oncol Pharm Pract. 2013;19:99–104. doi:10.1177/1078155212468367
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Yoshida J, Tei G, Mochizuki C, et al. Use of a closed system device to reduce occupational contamination and exposure to antineoplastic drugs in the hospital work environment. Ann Occup Hyg. 2009;53(2):153–160.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carey ET, Forrey RA, Haughs D. Second look at utilization of a closed-system transfer device (PhaSeal). Am J Pharm Benefits. 2011;3(6):311–318.
   Google Scholar
• De Prijck K, D’Haese E, Vandenbroucke J, et al. Microbiological challenge of four protective devices for the reconstitution of cytotoxic agents. Lett Appl Microbiol. 2008;47(6):543–548. doi:10.1111/j.1472-765X.2008.02463.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McMichael DM, Jefferson DM, Carey T, et al. Utility of the PhaSeal closed system drug transfer device. Am J Pharm Benefits. 2011;3(1):9–16.
   Google Scholar
• Terkola R, Czejka M, Bérubé J. Evaluation of real‐time data obtained from gravimetric preparation of antineoplastic agents shows medication errors with possible critical therapeutic impact: results of a large‐scale, multicentre, multinational, retrospective study. J Clin Pharm Ther. 2017;42(4):446–453. doi:10.1111/jcpt.12529
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Prusch AE, Suess TM, Paoletti RD, Olin ST, Watts SD. Integrating technology to improve medication administration. Am J Health Syst Pharm. 2011;68(9):835–842. doi:10.2146/ajhp100211
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Reece KM, Lozano MA, Roux R, Spivey SM. Implementation and evaluation of a gravimetric i.v. workflow software system in an oncology ambulatory care pharmacy. Am J Health Syst Pharm. 2016;73(3):165–173. doi:10.2146/ajhp150169
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Balick R. APhA resource helps pharmacist advocacy efforts. Patient Saf. 2016;22(7):486.
   Google Scholar
• SIFO. Gestione del rischio di esposizione del personale sanitario nella manipolazione dei farmaci antineoplastici iniettabili: gli aspetti di prevenzione e la caratterizzazione delle misure di sicurezza; 2017. Available from: https://www.sifoweb.it/images/pdf/attivita/attivita-scientifica/aree_scientifiche/area_oncologica/CONSENSUS_DOCUMENT_FINALE.pdf. Accessed November 11, 2020.
   Google Scholar
• Sampietro-Colom L, Lach K, Cicchetti A, et al. The AdHopHTA handbook: a handbook of hospital‑based Health Technology Assessment (HB-HTA); public deliverable; the AdHopHTA Project (FP7/2007-13 grant agreement nr 305018); 2015. Available from: http://www.adhophta.eu/handbook. Accessed November 11, 2020.
   Google Scholar
• Stern JAC, Herńan MA, Reeves BC, et al. ROBINS-I: a tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of intervention. BMJ. 2016;355:i4919. doi:10.1136/bmj.i4919
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wells GA, Shea B, O’Connell D, et al. The Newcastle–Ottawa Scale (NOS) for assessing the quality of non-randomized studies in meta-analysis; 2000. Available from: http://www.ohri.ca/programs/clinical_epidemiology/oxford.asp. Accessed November 11, 2020.
   Google Scholar
• Bubbio A. Calcolo dei costi per attività, Activity Based Costing. Milano: Guerini e Associati; 2002.
   Google Scholar
• Mauskopf JA, Sullivan SD, Annemans L, et al. Principles of good practice for budget impact analysis: report of the ISPOR Task Force on good research practices–budget impact analysis. Value Health. 2007;10(5):336–347. doi:10.1111/j.1524-4733.2007.00187.x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sullivan SD, Mauskopf JA, Augustovski F, et al. Budget impact analysis-principles of good practice: report of the ISPOR 2012 budget impact analysis good practice II task force. Value Health. 2014;17(1):5–14. doi:10.1016/j.jval.2013.08.2291
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Spiegelhalter DJ, Myles JP, Abrams KR. Bayesian Approaches to Clinical Trials and Health-Care Evaluation. N.Y: Wiley; 2003.
   Google Scholar
• Bernardo JM, Smith AFM. Bayesian Theory. West Sussex, England: John Wiley & Sons Ltd; 1994.
   Google Scholar
• Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG; The PRISMA Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med. 2009;6(7):e1000097. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gurusamy KS, Best LMJ, Tanguay C, Lennan E, Korva M, Bussières JF. 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. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018;(3):CD012860.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Simon N, Vasseur M, Pinturaud M, et al. Effectiveness of a closed-system transfer device in reducing surface contamination in a new antineoplastic drug- compounding unit: a prospective, controlled, parallel study. PLoS One. 2016;11(7):e0159052. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0159052
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Edwards MS, Solimando DA, Grollman FR, et al. Cost savings realized by use of the PhaSeal(®) closed-system transfer device for preparation of antineoplastic agents. J Oncol Pharm Pract. 2013;19(4):338–347. doi:10.1177/1078155213499387
   Google Scholar
• Franklin BD, O’ Grady K, Donyai P, et al. The impact of a closed-loop electronic prescribing and administration system on prescribing errors, administration errors and staff time: a before-and-after study. Qual Saf Health Care. 2007;16:279–284. doi:10.1136/qshc.2006.019497
   Google Scholar
• Power LA, Polovich M. Safe handling of hazardous drugs: reviewing standards for worker protection. Pharm Pract. 2012;31–42.
   Google Scholar