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.
DolorescoFFominayaCSchumockGT. Projecting future drug expenditures:2011. Am J Health Syst Pharm2011; 68: 921–932.
2.
Congress of the United States, Congressional Budget Office. Technological Change and the Growth of Health Care Spending, January 2008.
3.
Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, Office of the Actuary, National Health Statistics Group, National Health Care Expenditures Data, January 2012.
Pharmaceutical compounding—sterile preparations (general information chapter 797). In: The United States Pharmacopeia, 34th rev., and The National Formulary, 29th ed. Rockville, MD: United States Pharmacopeial Convention; 2011, pp.336–373.
6.
CundellA. Review of the media selection and incubation conditions for the compendial sterility and microbial limit tests. Pharm Forum2002; 28: 2034–2041.
7.
SessinkPJRolfMERydenNS. Evaluation of the phaseal hazardous drug containment system. Hosp Pharm1999; 34: 1311–1317.
8.
ConnorTHAndersonRWSessinkPJ. Effectiveness of a closed-system device in containing surface contamination with cyclophosphamide and ifosfamide in an i.v. admixture area. Am J Health Syst Pharm2002; 59: 68–72.
9.
SpiveySConnorTH. Determining sources of workplace contamination with antineoplastic drugs and comparing conventional iv drug preparation with a closed system. Hosp Pharm2003; 38: 135–139.
10.
WickCSlawsonMHJorgensonJA. Using a closed-system protective device to reduce personnel exposure to antineoplastic agents. Am J Health Syst Pharm2003; 60: 2314–2320.
11.
HarrisonBRPetersBGBingMR. Comparison of surface contamination with cyclophosphamide and fluorouracil using a closed-system drug transfer device versus standard preparation techniques. Am J Health Syst Pharm2006; 63: 1736–144.
12.
NymanHAJorgensonJASlawsonMH. Workplace contamination with antineoplastic agents in a new cancer hospital using a closed-system drug transfer device. Hosp Pharm2007; 42: 219–225.
13.
JorgensonJASpiveySMAuC. Contamination comparison of transfer devices intended for handling hazardous drugs. Hosp Pharm2008; 43: 723–727.
14.
YoshidaJTeiGMochizukiC. Use of a closed system device to reduce occupational contamination and exposure to antineoplastic drugs in the hospital work environment. Ann Occup Hyg2009; 53: 153–160.
15.
FavierBLabrosseHGilles-AfchainL. The PhaSeal® system: impact of its use on workplace contamination and duration of chemotherapy preparation. J Oncol Pharm Pract2012; 18: 37–45.
National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH). Preventing occupational exposure to antineoplastic and other hazardous drugs in health care settings (DHHS (NIOSH) Publication Number 2004−165), http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/2004-165/pdfs/2004-165.pdf. (2004, accessed 8 June 2012).
18.
Occupational Safety & Health Administration (OSHA), http://www.osha.gov/ (accessed 7 April 2013).
19.
De PrijckKD’HaeseEVandenbrouckeJ. Microbial challenge of four protective devices for the reconstitution of cytotoxic agents. Lett Appl Microbiol2008; 47: 543–548.
20.
McMichaelDMJeffersonDMCareyET. Utility of the PhaSeal closed system drug transfer device. Am J Pharm Benefits2011; 3: 9–16.
21.
CareyETForreyRAHaughsD. Second look at utilization of a closed-system transfer device (PhaSeal). Am J Pharm Benefits2011; 3: 311–318.
KupferMScribaGHartmannM. Stability of alemtuzumab in infusion-bags. Pharmazie2009; 64: 622–623.
27.
TrisselLA. Handbook on injectable drugs, 17th ed. Bethesda, MD: ASHP, 2013, pp. 156–160.
28.
VanderlooJPPomplunMLVermeulenLC. Stability of unused reconstituted bortezomib in original manufacturer vials. J Oncol Pharm Pract2011; 17: 400–402.
29.
Hadji-Minaglou-GonzalvezMFGayte-SorbierAAiraudoCB. Effects of temperature, solution composition, and type of container on the stability and absorption of carmustine. Clin Ther1992; 14: 821–824.
30.
TrisselLA. Handbook on injectable drugs, 17th ed. Bethesda, MD: ASHP, 2013, pp. 313–318.
31.
TrisselLA. Handbook on injectable drugs, 17th ed. Bethesda, MD: ASHP, 2013, pp. 327–329.
32.
XuQZhangYTrisselLA. Physical and chemical stability of gemcitabine hydrochloride solutions. J Am Pharm1999; 39: 509–513.
33.
RadfordJAMargisonJMSwindellR. The stability of ifosfamide in aqueous solution and its suitability for continuous 7-day infusion by ambulatory pump. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol1990; 26: 144–146.
34.
ZhangYTrisselLA. Physical and chemical stability of pemetrexed in infusion solutions. Ann Pharmacother2006; 40: 1082–1085.
35.
PatelKCraigSBMcBrideMG. Microbial inhibitory properties and stability of topotecan hydrochloride injection. Am J Health Syst Pharm1998; 55: 1584–1587.
