[Evaluation of two closed-system drug transfer device in the antineoplastic drug elaboration process]. / Evaluación de dos sistemas cerrados en el proceso de elaboración de quimioterapia parenteral.

OBJECTIVE: to assess the impact of two closed-system drug transfer device on the local and environmental contamination and preparation times in the process of preparation of parenteral chemotherapy compared to the standard system. METHOD: prospective observational study. Two different closed- systems providers, Care Fusion® and Icu Medical®, were compared to standard preparation. 15 nurses of Pharmacy Department prepared 5 preparations each one, one with the standard procedure and four using closed-systems. To evaluate the contamination, a fluorescein solution 0.5% was prepared. Two kind of contamination were evaluated, local (three points connection: closed-system connect vial, syringe and final infusion bags) and environmental (gloves and countertop). Percentage of contaminated preparations was obtained in each one. Time taken by each nurse in each preparation was recorded. RESULTS: 75 preparations were prepared. Local contamination was reduced 21% and 75% in closed-system Icu Medical® and Care Fusion® respectively. Care Fusion® closed system, local contamination was significantly lower than the standard system to the vial, syringe and final package, while Icu Medical® closed-systems only was significantly lower in the connection to the vial. Time of preparation was increased significantly with the use of closed-system between 23.4 and 30.5 seconds. CONCLUSIONS: both closed-systems drug transfer device have shown an improvement in contamination than the use of the standard system. However, preparation time has been significantly increased with the use of both systems.

Objetivo: evaluar el impacto del uso de dos sistemas cerrados sobre el proceso de preparación de quimioterapia parenteral, con respecto al sistema estándar, en términos de contaminación local y ambiental, y tiempos de preparación. Método: estudio observacional prospectivo. Se compararon dos proveedores distintos de sistemas cerrados, Icu Medical® y Care Fusion®, frente al sistema estándar de preparación de quimioterapia parenteral. Quince enfermeros del Servicio de Farmacia elaboraron cada uno de ellos 5 preparaciones, una siguiendo el procedimiento estándar y cuatro usando los sistemas cerrados. Para evaluar la aparición de contaminación se elaboró una solución de fluoresceína al 0,5%. Se evaluaron dos tipos de contaminación: local (en tres puntos: sistema acoplado a vial, jeringa y envase final) y ambiental (guantes y mesa de trabajo), obteniéndose el porcentaje de preparaciones contaminadas en cada uno de ellos. Se registró el tiempo empleado por cada enfermero en cada una de las preparaciones. Resultados: se elaboraron 75 preparaciones. Se produjo una reducción global de la contaminación local para los SC Icu Medical® y Care Fusion® del 24% y 74%, respectivamente. En el sistema cerrado Care Fusion® la contaminación local fue significativamente menor que en el sistema estándar en vial, jeringa y envase final; mientras que en el sistema cerrado Icu Medical® solo fue significativamente menor en la conexión al vial. Se produjo un incremento significativo del tiempo de preparación con la utilización de sistemas cerrados de los entre 23,4 y 30,5 segundos. Conclusiones: ambos sistemas cerrados han mostrado un beneficio con respecto a la utilización del sistema estándar. Sin embargo, se han visto incrementados significativamente los tiempos de preparación con ambos sistemas.

Evaluación de dos sistemas cerrados en el proceso de elaboración de quimioterapia parenteral / Evaluation of two closed-system drug transfer device in the antineoplastic drug elaboration process

Objetivo: evaluar el impacto del uso de dos sistemas cerrados sobre el proceso de preparación de quimioterapia parenteral, con respecto al sistema estándar, en términos de contaminación local y ambiental, y tiempos de preparación. Método: estudio observacional prospectivo. Se compararon dos proveedores distintos de sistemas cerrados, Icu Medical® y Care Fusion®, frente al sistema estándar de preparación de quimioterapia parenteral. Quince enfermeros del Servicio de Farmacia elaboraron cada uno de ellos 5 preparaciones, una siguiendo el procedimiento estándar y cuatro usando los sistemas cerrados. Para evaluar la aparición de contaminación se elaboró una solución de fluoresceína al 0,5%. Se evaluaron dos tipos de contaminación: local (en tres puntos: sistema acoplado a vial, jeringa y envase final) y ambiental (guantes y mesa de trabajo), obteniéndose el porcentaje de preparaciones contaminadas en cada uno de ellos. Se registró el tiempo empleado por cada enfermero en cada una de las preparaciones. Resultados: se elaboraron 75 preparaciones. Se produjo una reducción global de la contaminación local para los SC Icu Medical® y Care Fusion® del 24% y 74%, respectivamente. En el sistema cerrado Care Fusion® la contaminación local fue significativamente menor que en el sistema estándar en vial, jeringa y envase final; mientras que en el sistema cerrado Icu Medical® solo fue significativamente menor en la conexión al vial. Se produjo un incremento significativo del tiempo de preparación con la utilización de sistemas cerrados de los entre 23,4 y 30,5 segundos. Conclusiones: ambos sistemas cerrados han mostrado un beneficio con respecto a la utilización del sistema estándar. Sin embargo, se han visto incrementados significativamente los tiempos de preparación con ambos sistemas (AU)

Objective: to assess the impact of two closed-system drug transfer device on the local and environmental contamination and preparation times in the process of preparation of parenteral chemotherapy compared to the standard system. Method: prospective observational study. Two different closed-systems providers, Care Fusion® and Icu Medical®, were compared to standard preparation. 15 nurses of Pharmacy Department prepared 5 preparations each one, one with the standard procedure and four using closed-systems. To evaluate the contamination, a fluorescein solution 0.5% was prepared. Two kind of contamination were evaluated, local (three points connection: closed-system connect vial, syringe and final infusion bags) and environmental (gloves and countertop). Percentage of contaminated preparations was obtained in each one. Time taken by each nurse in each preparation was recorded. Results: 75 preparations were prepared. Local contamination was reduced 21% and 75% in closed-system Icu Medical® and Care Fusion® respectively. Care Fusion® closed system, local contamination was significantly lower than the standard system to the vial, syringe and final package, while Icu Medical® closed-systems only was significantly lower in the connection to the vial. Time of preparation was increased significantly with the use of closed-system between 23.4 and 30.5 seconds. Conclusions: both closed-systems drug transfer device have shown an improvement in contamination than the use of the standard system. However, preparation time has been significantly increased with the use of both systems (AU)

Incidencia, manejo y coste de los efectos adversos hematológicos y dermatológicos durante las 12 primeras semanas de tratamiento con triple terapia para hepatitis C / Incidence, management and costs of adverse effects in chronic hepatitis C patients on triple therapy with telaprevir or boceprevir: First 12 weeks of treatment

INTRODUCCIÓN: El objetivo es analizar la incidencia, el manejo y el coste asociado a los efectos adversos (EA) hematológicos y dermatológicos en pacientes con hepatitis C crónica en tratamiento con telaprevir (TVR) o boceprevir (BOC). MÉTODO: Estudio observacional y prospectivo de una cohorte de pacientes que iniciaron tratamiento con TVR o BOC asociado a peg-interferón-alfa y ribavirina con un seguimiento de 12 semanas. RESULTADOS: Se incluyeron 53 pacientes (TVR n = 36; BOC n = 17). Los EA más frecuentes fueron trombocitopenia (83% TVR vs. 88% BOC), seguida de neutropenia (89% TVR vs. 82% BOC). El 32% de los pacientes manifestaron EA dermatológicos. En 11 pacientes fue necesaria la suspensión del tratamiento (todos ellos tratados con TVR), siendo el motivo principal la toxicidad (64%). El 66% de los pacientes precisaron algún fármaco para el tratamiento de los EA, siendo la eritropoyetina el fármaco más empleado. En 8 pacientes fue necesaria asistencia de urgencia y 2 fueron hospitalizados debido a los EA. El coste total de los recursos adicionales fue de 32.522 Euros (625 [DE = 876] Euros/paciente) (TVR 759 [DE = 1.022] Euros/paciente vs. BOC 349 [DE = 327] Euros/paciente]; p > 0,05). Los pacientes con toxicidad grados iii-iv consumieron mayor número de recursos adicionales con mayor coste en comparación con los pacientes con toxicidad grados i-ii (849 [DE = 1.143] Euros/paciente vs. 387 [DE = 397] Euros/paciente; p = 0,053). CONCLUSIÓN: La incorporación de los nuevos inhibidores de proteasa al tratamiento convencional conlleva una mayor incidencia de EA hematológicos que la descrita en los ensayos clínicos. Esta elevada incidencia de EA hace necesaria la utilización de recursos adicionales que incrementan el coste total de la terapia

INTRODUCTION: The aim of the study was to analyze the incidence, management and cost associated to hematological and dermatological adverse effects (AE) in chronic hepatitis C patients on triple therapy (TT) with telaprevir (TVR) or boceprevir (BOC). METHODS: An analysis was made on the data recorded on patients who started treatment with TVR or BOC associated with peginterferon alfa and ribavirin in a 12-week follow-up period. RESULTS: Fifty-three patients were included (TVR n = 36; BOC n = 17). Thrombocytopenia (83% TVR vs. 88% BOC) followed by neutropenia (89% TVR vs. 82% BOC) were the most common AE. Dermatological AE were observed in 32% of patients. Eleven patients required treatment discontinuation (all of them received TVR), and toxicity was the main reason for discontinuation (64%). The percentage of patients who required supportive treatment for management of AE was 66%. The most used supportive treatment was erythropoietin. Eight patients required emergency health care, and 2 were hospitalized due to AE. Total cost of additional supportive resources was 32,522 Euros (625 [SD = 876] Euros/patient) (TVR 759 [SD = 1,022] Euros/patient vs. BOC 349 [SD = 327] Euros/patient; P > .05). Patients with grade iii-iv toxicity required greater supportive care with higher costs, compared to patients with grade i-ii toxicity (849 [SD = 1,143] Euros/patient vs. 387 [SD = 397] Euros/patient; P = .053). CONCLUSION: The addition of new protease inhibitors to conventional treatment leads to a higher incidence of hematological AE in our study, compared to data described in clinical trials. The elevated incidence of AE involves the use of supportive care, increasing total costs of therapy

[Incidence, management and costs of adverse effects in chronic hepatitis C patients on triple therapy with telaprevir or boceprevir: first 12 weeks of treatment]. / Incidencia, manejo y coste de los efectos adversos hematológicos y dermatológicos durante las 12primeras semanas de tratamiento con triple terapia para hepatitisC.

INTRODUCTION: The aim of the study was to analyze the incidence, management and cost associated to hematological and dermatological adverse effects (AE) in chronic hepatitis C patients on triple therapy (TT) with telaprevir (TVR) or boceprevir (BOC). METHODS: An analysis was made on the data recorded on patients who started treatment with TVR or BOC associated with peginterferon alfa and ribavirin in a 12-week follow-up period. RESULTS: Fifty-three patients were included (TVR n=36; BOC n=17). Thrombocytopenia (83% TVR vs. 88% BOC) followed by neutropenia (89% TVR vs. 82% BOC) were the most common AE. Dermatological AE were observed in 32% of patients. Eleven patients required treatment discontinuation (all of them received TVR), and toxicity was the main reason for discontinuation (64%). The percentage of patients who required supportive treatment for management of AE was 66%. The most used supportive treatment was erythropoietin. Eight patients required emergency health care, and 2 were hospitalized due to AE. Total cost of additional supportive resources was 32,522€ (625 [SD=876]€/patient) (TVR 759 [SD=1,022]€/patient vs. BOC 349 [SD=327]€/patient; P>.05). Patients with gradeiii-iv toxicity required greater supportive care with higher costs, compared to patients with gradei-ii toxicity (849 [SD=1,143]€/patient vs. 387 [SD=397]€/patient; P=.053). CONCLUSION: The addition of new protease inhibitors to conventional treatment leads to a higher incidence of hematological AE in our study, compared to data described in clinical trials. The elevated incidence of AE involves the use of supportive care, increasing total costs of therapy.