Economic analysis of new workplace technology including productivity and injury: The case of needle-less injection in swine.

Increasing intensification in swine production has led to new and specialized technologies, but the occupational health and safety impacts are rarely quantified in the business plans for adoption. Needle-less injection has potential to increase productivity and eliminate needle stick injury in workers, but it is not clear whether these benefits offset high capital investment and potential increases in musculoskeletal loads. This economic evaluation employed probabilistic scenario analysis using injury, cost, and production data gathered from interviews with swine producers in Manitoba and Saskatchewan. After adoption of needle-less injection, rates of needle-stick injury went down with no measureable effect on upper limb musculoskeletal disorders, resulting in lower health and safety costs for needle-less injectors. Needle-less injection duration was 40% faster once workers acclimatized, but large start-up costs mean economic benefits are realized only after the first year. The incremental benefit cost ratio promoted adoption of needle-less injectors over conventional needles for the base case of a 1200 sow barn; the conventional method is beneficial for barns with 600 sows or less. Findings indicate that well-designed technologies have the potential to achieve the dual ergonomics goals of enhancing human wellbeing and system performance. We anticipate that the economic and decision models developed in this study can be applied to other new technologies in agriculture and animal production.

Power-efficient controlled jet injection using a compound ampoule.

We present a new mechanism for achieving needle free jet injection that significantly reduces the power required to perform a given injection. Our 'compound ampoule' produces two phases of jet speed under a constant force input by changing the effective piston area part-way through the injection. In this paper we define the benefits associated with a compound ampoule, relative to those of the conventional single piston design, by developing expressions for the power and energy required to perform an injection. We demonstrate that a compound ampoule can reduce the maximum input power required to perform a jet injection to less than one fifth of that previously required, enabling motors of less than half the mass to perform the same injection. We then detail the development of a prototype compound ampoule injector. Results from testing of this prototype demonstrate the function of a compound ampoule and verify the expected reduction in the required power and energy. Injections into post mortem porcine tissue confirm that our compound ampoule prototype can achieve the delivery of 1 mL of liquid into post-mortem tissue at least as effectively as a conventional ampoule. This approach will advance progress toward light-weight and power-efficient needle-free jet injectors for transdermal drug delivery.

Analysis of the injection force of solostar® compared with other disposable insulin pen devices at constant volume flow rates.

Insulin pen devices have greatly enhanced the portability and accessibility to insulin therapy for millions of people with diabetes. Comparison research data should be reviewed thoroughly. In this issue of Journal of Diabetes Science and Technology, the study presented by Thomas van der Burg is balanced in number of samples tested, same tensile meter, and identical units per second delivery rate into an open beaker. Mean plateau force of SoloSTAR® and KwikPen™ were significantly lower. KwikPen and SoloSTAR utilized 5-mm length 31-gauge (G) needles vs 6-mm 31G needles for FlexPen® and Next Generation FlexPen®, perhaps skewing results in favor of shorter needles instead of device design. Individual understanding of correct insulin use, appropriate self-monitoring of blood glucose, vision and dexterity capability, and affordability of therapy must be considered first. SoloSTAR holds one unique market advantage, delivery of up to 80 units of insulin per injection.

Incremental costs of introducing jet injection technology for delivery of routine childhood vaccinations: comparative analysis from Brazil, India, and South Africa.

BACKGROUND: Disposable-syringe jet injectors (DSJIs) have the potential to deliver vaccines safely and affordably to millions of children around the world. We estimated the incremental costs of transitioning from needles and syringes to delivering childhood vaccines with DSJIs in Brazil, India, and South Africa. METHODS: Two scenarios were assessed: (1) DSJI delivery of all vaccines at current dose and depth; (2) a change to intradermal (ID) delivery with DSJIs for hepatitis B and yellow fever vaccines, while the other vaccines are delivered by DSJIs at current dose and depth. The main advantage of ID delivery is that only a small fraction of the standard dose may be needed to obtain an immune response similar to that of subcutaneous or intramuscular injection. Cost categories included were vaccines, injection equipment, waste management, and vaccine transport. Some delivery cost items, such as training and personnel were excluded as were treatment cost savings caused by a reduction in diseases transmitted due to unsafe injections. RESULTS: In the standard dose and depth scenario, the incremental costs of introducing DSJIs per fully vaccinated child amount to US$ 0.57 in Brazil, US$ 0.65 in India and US$ 1.24 in South Africa. In the ID scenario, there are cost savings of US$ 0.11 per child in Brazil, and added costs of US$ 0.45 and US$ 0.76 per child in India and South Africa, respectively. The most important incremental cost item is jet injector disposable syringes. CONCLUSION: The incremental costs should be evaluated against other vaccine delivery technologies that can deliver the same benefits to patients, health care workers, and the community. DSJIs deserve consideration by global and national decision-makers as a means to expand access to ID delivery and to enhance safety at marginal additional cost.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of anesthetic agents during peripheral intravenous cannulation in the pediatric emergency department.

OBJECTIVE: To conduct a cost-effectiveness analysis of anesthetic agents to reduce the pain of peripheral intravenous cannulation in an emergency department (ED) setting. DESIGN: Cost-effectiveness analysis in which costs were measured as the cost of the agent plus costs associated with time in the ED using data from our hospital cost accounting system. Outcomes were measured as improvements in the self-reported visual analog scale (VAS) pain scores. Variables considered unique to the various agents were cost of the agent, time to peak onset, success rates of cannulation, and mean reduction in VAS scores. SETTING: Decision model. Patients A cohort of patients aged 3 through 18 years enrolled in randomized controlled trials that compared analgesic modalities to facilitate peripheral intravenous cannulation was identified through medical databases searched from their inception (earliest year, 1966) through June 2007. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The main outcome measure was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, which represented the additional cost that must be incurred by the hospital to obtain a reduction of 1 additional unit (10 mm or 1 cm) in the VAS score compared with a baseline option of no anesthetic. RESULTS: Our results suggest that the needle-free jet injection of lidocaine device had the lowest incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, followed by intradermal injection of buffered lidocaine; lidocaine iontophoresis; nitrous oxide inhalation analgesia; a heated lidocaine and tetracaine patch; sonophoresis with lidocaine cream, 4%; lidocaine cream alone, 4%; and use of a eutectic mixture of lidocaine and prilocaine cream. CONCLUSION: Currently, the needle-free jet injection of lidocaine device and injection of buffered lidocaine appear to provide the most cost-effective alternatives to pediatric ED physicians.

Model-based estimates of risks of disease transmission and economic costs of seven injection devices in sub-Saharan Africa.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate and compare seven types of injection devices for their risks of iatrogenic transmission of bloodborne pathogens and their economic costs in sub-Saharan Africa. METHODS: Risk assumptions for each device and cost models were constructed to estimate the number of new hepatitis B virus (HBV) and human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infections resulting from patient-to-patient, patient-to-health care worker, and patient-to-community transmission. Costs of device purchase and usage were derived from the literature, while costs of direct medical care and lost productivity from HBV and HIV disease were based on data collected in 1999 in Côte d'Ivoire, Ghana, and Uganda. Multivariate sensitivity analyses using Monte Carlo simulation characterized uncertainties in model parameters. Costs were summed from both the societal and health care system payer's perspectives. FINDINGS: Resterilizable and disposable needles and syringes had the highest overall costs for device purchase, usage, and iatrogenic disease: median US dollars 26.77 and US dollars 25.29, respectively, per injection from the societal perspective. Disposable-cartridge jet injectors and automatic needle-shielding syringes had the lowest costs, US dollars 0.36 and US dollars 0.80, respectively. Reusable-nozzle jet injectors and auto-disable needle and syringes were intermediate, at US dollars 0.80 and US dollars 0.91, respectively, per injection. CONCLUSION: Despite their nominal purchase and usage costs, conventional needles and syringes carry a hidden but huge burden of iatrogenic disease. Alternative injection devices for the millions of injections administered annually in sub-Saharan Africa would be of value and should be considered by policy-makers in procurement decisions.

[Cost of tetanus toxoid injection using a jet-injector (Imule) in collective immunization in Senegal: comparison with injection using a syringe and resterilizable needle]. / Coût de l'injection d'anatoxine tétanique par injecteur sans aiguille(Imule) lors dúne vaccination collective au Sénégal: comparaison avec l'injection par seringues et aiguilles restérilisables.

Needle-less jet injectors were developed by the US army after World War II. Their principal use, however, has been in the administration of lyophilized vaccines from multidose vials to at-risk populations in developing countries. In 1983, a hepatitis B epidemic occurred among customers of a beauty clinic in California (USA) following the use of jet-injectors, demonstrating a clear risk of cross-contamination associated with this technique. As a result, the WHO and Unicef stopped recommending jet-injectors for collective immunizations in developing countries. To eliminate the risk of contamination, Pasteur Mérieux Sérums et Vaccins (now Aventis Pasteur) developed, in 1990, jet-injectors for use with single-use vaccine cartridges. These injectors were tested for tetanus toxoid, DTP, influenza, hepatitis A and typhoid Vi vaccination. The immunogenic reaction was as strong and the injection as well tolerated as for injections using a standard needle and syringe. The additional cost of the Imule technique was evaluated in a district-wide (127,000 inhabitants) tetanus toxoid immunization program at Velingara, Senegal in 1993. The total cost was estimated to be 1.51 FF (76 F CSA, 0.32 US dollars) for one dose of tetanus vaccine given by needle and syringe and 2.41 FF (121 F CSA, 0.56 US dollars) for one dose given by Imule. Thus, the additional cost of injection by ImuleTM was 0.90 FF (45 F CSA, 0.21 US dollars). The cost of cross infection in sub-Saharan Africa has been estimated to be 2.37 FF (118 F CSA, 0.55 US dollars) per injection if injection practices are not supervised. Therefore, the Imule technique may be considered to be cost-effective. However, the technique is still not completely reliable, as shown by the total breakdown of four jet injectors during this vaccination session. Lyophilized vaccines have also not been tested in the field. Vaccinators prefer Imule, training is easy and immunization can be carried out on a day-to-day basis with no vaccine wastage. Imule is not yet in mass production, which would reduce costs. In the face of the ever-increasing risk of cross-contamination during vaccination sessions in sub-Saharan Africa, the Imule technique deserves considerable attention.

Reducing the risk of unsafe injections in immunization programmes: financial and operational implications of various injection technologies.

The unsafe use and disposal of injection equipment continues to put patients, health care workers, and the general community at risk of infections such as hepatitis B virus and human immunodeficiency virus. Although the potential for unsafe injection practices varies substantially with the type of equipment that is used, technology alone cannot totally eliminate the risk. A knowledge of the cost, practicality and, most importantly, the potential for misuse, is critical for selecting the most appropriate injection equipment for each immunization setting. Four types of injection equipment are currently available for administering vaccines: sterilizable needles and syringes; standard disposable needles and syringes; autodestruct needles and syringes; and jet injectors. In general, the cost per injection is lowest with sterilizable equipment and highest with autodestruct. However, only autodestruct syringes virtually eliminate the risk of unsafe injection practices. Owing to differences in cost and programme factors, in some settings it may be appropriate to use a combination of equipment. For example, autodestruct syringes may be used in areas where it is difficult to ensure adequate supervision, while in medium-sized, fixed-site clinics with safe injection practices, sterilizable equipment will be the most cost-effective.

PIP: Every year, more than 550 million injections are administered in developing countries through the Expanded Program on Immunization. It is imperative that great care be given to providing these immunizations with only sterile injection equipment. Otherwise, children may be subjected during immunization to infections such as hepatitis B virus and HIV. Sterilizable needles and syringes, standard disposable needles and syringes, autodestruct needles and syringes, and jet injectors are currently available for administering vaccines. The design and operation of the former two types of needles and syringes are, by definition, evident. The design of autodestruct needles and syringes and jet injectors, however, is less directly apparent from their nomenclature. Autodestruct syringes have a device in the barrel which prevents the plunger from being redrawn after a single use, thereby automatically blocking the syringe and preventing it from being reused. Jet injectors deliver immunizations with a high pressure jet of fluid generated by either a hydraulic or mechanical compression system. This equipment was developed for high workload use and has been employed in immunization campaigns for many years. Low workload injectors are being developed for use in the small immunization clinic setting. In general, the cost per injection is lowest with sterilizable equipment and highest with the autodestruct device. Only autodestruct syringes, however, virtually eliminate the risk of unsafe injection practices. It must be emphasized that technology alone cannot eliminate the risk of accidental infection using unsterile injection equipment. The authors note that it may be appropriate in some settings to use a combination of equipment. For example, autodestruct syringes may be used in areas where it is difficult to ensure adequate supervision, while in medium-sized, fixed-site clinics with safe injection practices, sterilizable equipment will be the most cost-effective.

Insulin therapy: progress and prospects.

Approaches to better control of diabetes with more sophisticated insulin therapy are being tested in the hope that they will prevent the sequelae that incapacitate and kill. Some of the regimens and techniques are relatively simple and practicable; others are less easily implemented; still others are speculative. Collectively, they add up to an encouraging outlook for effective treatment.