Evaluation of a safe infusion device on reducing occupational exposure of nurses to antineoplastic drugs: a comparative prospective study. Contamoins-1.

PURPOSE: Despite the decreasing of environmental contamination throughout the anticancer drug circuit, the administration of chemotherapies remains at risk of occupational exposure for nurses. Many medical devices aim at securing administration, but none have been scientifically evaluated to verify the actual improvement. METHODS: A monocentric comparative before/after study was carried out in an oncology day hospital to evaluate the efficacy of Safe Infusion Devices in reducing drug exposure compared to usual infusion practices. The rate of nurses' gloves contamination was estimated. To avoid false negatives and to ensure sampling reproducibility, each sample of gloves was contaminated with a drop of topotecan. Association between contamination and other variables was investigated using a multivariate logistic regression analysis. RESULTS: The usual practice led to a rate of 58.3% of contaminated samples while Safe Infusion Devices to a rate of 15%: Safe Infusion Devices reduced the risk of gloves contamination by 85% in multivariate analysis (Odds ratio = 0.15; 95% confidence interval = 0.05-0.46; p < 0.001). Topotecan was identified in 100% of the samples. Only one case of cross-contamination has occurred. CONCLUSION: Despite the current practice of using neutral solvent-purged infusers, the occupational exposure remains high for nurses and Safe Infusion Devices significantly reduced this risk of exposure. However, glove contamination is only a surrogate endpoint. The results confirmed that the disconnection of empty bags resulted in occupational exposure. Except a contamination due to the leakage of a bag, no cross-contamination was detected. Safe Infusion Devices were highly effective but did not completely eliminate exposure.

How human activity impacted manufacturing non-compliances: A multivariate analysis in a centralized cytotoxic preparation unit.

INTRODUCTION: The aim of the study was to identify risk factors related to human errors in the preparation of anticancer drugs in order to improve the pharmaceutical process by setting corrective actions. METHOD: Risk factors which could increase the probability of error were identified: daily workload, workload on the previous day and subcontractors' workload, time slot of the preparation, understaffing, incidents which could affect workflow, individual experience of technicians and cleanrooms layout. Drug reconstitution or complex fabrications were also considered as risk factors. We used univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses to screen for correlation between risks and errors. RESULT: Among 11 278 preparations analyzed, 115 were non-compliant. Univariate analysis shows significant variables: individual experience of technicians, technicians working in the same cleanrooms and technicians' rotations. 2 technicians are significantly associated with a higher risk of error and 5 with a lower risk. The multivariate analysis confirmed the conclusions of the univariate. DISCUSSION: As expected, time slot of the manufacture, cleanrooms layout and some technicians increase the risk of error. Surprisingly, technicians' experience led to increase the risk. This study is a first approach to evaluate the human error aspect in non-compliant preparations, in order to optimize security of antineoplastic drugs preparations.

Pancytopenia in a patient treated with fusidic acid and niraparib: a case report.

Fusidic acid is an antibiotic used in the treatment of staphylococcal infections. Niraparib is an anticancer drug indicated for the treatment of advanced ovarian cancer. The interaction between these two drugs has not been studied and is not referenced in drug databases. We present the case of a patient with pancytopenia who had been treated with fusidic acid and niraparib. No other treatment was taken by this patient. According to the literature, both substances can cause haematological toxicity. It seems unlikely that this is due to niraparib alone because it had been well tolerated by the patient for over a year before the pancytopenia was diagnosed. It was also perfectly well tolerated when it was reintroduced. We cannot determine whether this pancytopenia is due to fusidic acid alone or to a drug interaction between the two treatments. We therefore recommend caution in patients treated with this combination.

Economic Burden of Metastatic Clear-Cell Renal Cell Carcinoma for French Patients Treated With Targeted Therapies.

BACKGROUND: Targeted therapies have transformed the treatment of metastatic clear-cell renal cell carcinoma (mccRCC). Despite the importance of mccRCC, studies on its economic burden in daily practice are sparse. The purpose of this retrospective study was to evaluate cost of illness for 224 patients with mccRCC included in the cohort published by Thiery-Vuillemin et al (Factors influencing overall survival for patients with metastatic clear-cell renal cell-carcinoma in daily practice. Clin Genitourin Cancer 2018; 16:e297-305), and then to determine the explanatory factors of cost of illness. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The study was performed from the French Public Healthcare System perspective with lifetime horizon. Only direct medical costs were included. Multiple linear regression was used to search for explanatory factors of cost of illness. The robustness of results was assessed. RESULTS: The mean cost of illness was estimated at €71,185 ± 52,683. Outpatient/inpatient treatment and hospitalization represented 76.0% and 19.7% of this cost, respectively. After adjustment, 5 explanatory factors were identified: time of disease control for the metastatic first-line treatment ≥6 months, number of lines of treatment >2, nephrectomy at metastatic stage, lack of metastases at presentation, and age at metastatic diagnosis younger than 65 years. Individually, they increased cost of illness by 128%, 95%, 53%, 53%, and 23%, respectively. CONCLUSION: Although it is difficult to transpose our economic evaluation results to those obtained in other countries, it should be noted that our findings were consistent with them and robust. To our knowledge, our study was the first to accurately identify explanatory factors of cost of illness. Identifying them could enable us to predict the budgetary effect on a regional level of managing patients who began their first-line treatment with a targeted therapy.

Factors Influencing Overall Survival for Patients With Metastatic Clear-Cell Renal-Cell Carcinoma in Daily Practice.

PURPOSE: To describe factors associated with overall survival (OS) among patients with metastatic clear-cell renal-cell carcinoma (mccRCC) in regard to evolution of systemic therapies. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Two hundred twenty-four consecutive patients with histologically confirmed mccRCC who received targeted therapy on first-line treatment between January 2007 and March 2015 were included. The primary end point was OS for metastatic first-line or second-line treatment. An analysis of prognostic factors of long survival was performed using a 2-step approach: univariate, then multivariate analysis. RESULTS: Median OS [95% confidence interval] was 19.4 months [16.1-24.9]. Three prognostic factors were identified in first-line treatment: Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC) favorable and intermediate risks (hazard ratio [95% confidence interval] = 0.362 [0.207-0.630] and 0.561 [0.393-0.801], respectively, P = 4.10-4), metastasectomy (0.667 [0.468-0.951], P = .03), and lack of lymph node metastasis (0.715 [0.513-0.994], P = .049). In second-line treatment, median OS [95% confidence interval] was 11.0 months [8.9-14.4] for 167 patients. Three different prognostic factors predicted long survival: toxicity for first-line treatment discontinuation (HR [95% confidence interval] = 0.298 [0.180-0.493], P < 10-4), duration of disease control in first-line therapy (0.961 [0.942-0.979], P = 2.10-4), and MSKCC favorable and intermediate risks (0.461 [0.252-0.843] and 0.936 [0.607-1.443], respectively, P = .02). CONCLUSION: These real-life data confirm the positive impact of targeted therapy in the mccRCC setting. Moreover, it emphasizes the importance of considering many factors in order to better estimate prognosis in patient pretreated with systemic therapy.

Clinical impact of targeted therapies in patients with metastatic clear-cell renal cell carcinoma.

INTRODUCTION: The aim of this retrospective clinical study was to assess, in the context of the recent evolution of systemic therapies, the potential effect of targeted therapies on overall survival (OS) of patients with metastatic clear-cell renal cell carcinoma (mccRCC) in daily practice. PATIENTS AND METHODS: All consecutive patients with histologically confirmed mccRCC who received systemic therapy between January 2000 and December 2010 in two oncology treatment centers in our Franche-Comté region in eastern France were included in the analysis. The primary end point was OS. The analysis of prognostic factors was performed using a two-step approach: univariate then multivariate analysis with a stepwise Cox proportional hazards regression model. RESULTS: For the entire cohort of 111 patients, the median OS was 17 months (95% confidence interval [CI]; 13-22 months) and the two-year OS was 39%. Three prognostic factors were independent predictors of long survival: prior nephrectomy (hazard ratio =0.38 [0.22-0.64], P<0.0001); systemic therapy by targeted therapy (hazard ratio =0.50 [0.31-0.80], P=0.005); and lack of liver metastasis (hazard ratio =0.43 [0.22-0.82], P=0.002). Median OS was 21 months [14-29 months] for patients who received at least one targeted therapy compared with 12 months [7-15 months] for patients who were treated only by immunotherapy agents (P=0.003). CONCLUSION: Our results suggest that targeted therapies are associated with improved OS in comparison with cytokines, which is in line with other publications.