The Clinical and Economic Implications of Different Treatment Pathways for Patients With Rapidly Recurrent Malignant Pleural Effusion.

BACKGROUND: Malignant pleural effusion (MPE) is a common cancer complication. Clinical and economic implications of different recurrent MPE treatment pathways have not been evaluated fully. RESEARCH QUESTION: What clinical outcomes, complications, health care resource use, and costs are associated with various rapidly recurrent MPE treatment pathways? STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: This retrospective cohort study using Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results Medicare data (2011-2015) included patients 66 to 90 years of age with rapidly recurrent MPE. Rapid recurrence was defined as receipt of a second pleural procedure within 14 days of the first thoracentesis, including nondefinitive repeated thoracentesis or a definitive treatment option including chest tube, indwelling pleural catheter (IPC), or thoracoscopy. RESULTS: Among 8,378 patients with MPE, 3,090 patients (36.9%) had rapidly recurrent MPE (mean ± SD age, 75.9 ± 6.6 years; 45.6% male; primary cancer, 62.9% lung and 37.1% other). Second pleural procedures were nondefinitive thoracentesis (62.3%), chest tube (17.1%), IPC (13.2%), or thoracoscopy (7.4%). A third pleural procedure was required more frequently if the second pleural procedure was nondefinitive thoracentesis vs chest tube placement, IPC placement, or thoracoscopy (70.3% vs 44.1% vs 17.9% vs 14.4%, respectively). The mean number of subsequent pleural procedures over the patient's lifetime varied significantly among the procedures (1.74, 0.82, 0.31, and 0.22 procedures for patients receiving thoracentesis, chest tube, IPC, and thoracoscopy, respectively; P < .05). Average total costs after the second pleural procedure to death adjusted for age at primary cancer diagnosis, race, year of second pleural procedure, Charlson comorbidity index, cancer stage at primary diagnosis, and time from primary cancer diagnosis to diagnostic thoracentesis were lower with IPC ($37,443; P < .0001) or chest tube placement ($40,627; P = .004) vs thoracentesis ($47,711). Patients receiving thoracoscopy ($45,386; P = .5) incurred similar costs as patients receiving thoracentesis. INTERPRETATION: Early definitive treatment was associated with fewer subsequent procedures and lower costs in patients with rapidly recurrent MPE.

Assessing the Clinical, Economic, and Health Resource Utilization Impacts of Prefilled Syringes Versus Conventional Medication Administration Methods: Results From a Systematic Literature Review.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this systematic review was to assess the clinical, economic, and health resource utilization outcomes associated with the use of prefilled syringes in medication administration compared with traditional preparation methods. DATA SOURCES: We conducted a systematic literature review to evaluate outcomes such as medication errors, wastage, time savings, and contamination in prefilled syringes. Our search encompassed multiple databases, including PubMed and Embase, for studies published between January 1, 2017, and November 1, 2022. STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION: Peer-reviewed publications meeting our inclusion criteria underwent rigorous screening, including title, abstract, and full-text article assessments, performed by two reviewers. DATA SYNTHESIS: Among reviewed articles, 24 met our eligibility criteria. Selected studies were primarily observational (46%) and conducted in Europe (46%). Our findings indicated that prefilled syringes consistently reduced medication errors (by 10%-73%), adverse events (from 1.1 to 0.275 per 100 administrations), wastage (by up to 80% of drug), and preparation time (from 4.0 to 338.0 seconds) (ranges varied by drug type, setting, and dosage). However, there was limited data on contamination. Economically, prefilled syringes reduced waste and error rates, which may translate into overall savings. RELEVANCE TO PATIENT CARE AND CLINICAL PRACTICE: This review highlights the value of prefilled syringes, which can streamline medication delivery, save nursing time, and reduce preventable medication errors. Moreover, prefilled syringes have the potential to minimize medication wastage, optimizing resource utilization and efficiency in health care settings. CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE: Our findings provide new insights into clinical and economic benefits of prefilled syringe adoption. These benefits include improved medication delivery and safety, which can lead to time and cost reductions for health care departments, hospitals, and health systems. However, further real-world research on clinical and economic outcomes, especially in contamination, is needed to better understand the benefits of prefilled syringes.

Creating an evidence-based economic model for prefilled parenteral medication delivery in the hospital setting.

OBJECTIVES: Prefilled syringes (PFS) may offer clinical and economic advantages over conventional parenteral medication delivery methods (vials and ampoules). The benefits of converting from vials and ampoules to PFS have been explained in previous drug-specific economic models; however, these models have limited generalisability to different drugs, healthcare settings and other countries. Our study aims to (1) present a comprehensive economic model to assess the impact of switching from vials to PFS delivery; and (2) illustrate through two case studies the model's utility by highlighting important features of shifting from vials to PFS. METHODS: The economic model estimates the potential benefit of switching to PFS associated with four key outcomes: preventable adverse drug events (pADE), preparation time, unused drugs, and cost of supplies. Model reference values were derived from existing peer-reviewed literature sources. The user inputs specific information related to the department, drug, and dose of interest and can change reference values. Two hypothetical case studies are presented to showcase model utility. The first concerns a cardiac intensive care unit in the United Kingdom administering 30 doses of 1 mg/10 mL atropine/day. The second concerns a coronavirus (COVID-19) intensive care unit in France that administers 30 doses of 10 mg/25 mL ephedrine/day. RESULTS: Total cost savings per hospital per year, associated with reductions in pADEs, unused drugs, drug cost and cost of supplies were £34 829 for the atropine example and €104 570 for the ephedrine example. Annual preparation time decreased by 371 and 234 hours in the atropine and ephedrine examples, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The model provides a generalisable framework with customisable inputs, giving hospitals a comprehensive view of the clinical and economic value of adopting PFS. Despite increased costs per dose with PFS, the hypothetical case studies showed notable reductions in medication preparation time and a net budget savings owing to fewer pADEs and reduced drug wastage.