Preventing drug vial wastage and reducing expenditure associated with injectable cancer drugs: International oncology pharmacy survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Our objective was to determine what vial sharing techniques and other strategies were being used globally to reduce wastage from partially used single-use drug vials, what barriers are preventing these strategies being employed, and what savings are being achieved. METHODS: A survey, comprising 19 questions, was distributed to the membership of the International Society of Oncology Pharmacy Practitioners and British Oncology Pharmacy Association. Questions asked included how parenteral cancer drugs are obtained and prepared, what vial sharing strategies are used, what means are employed to extend stability, how prepared products are reused and what cost savings are achieved. RESULTS: In all, 74 responses were received from 20 countries, most from the United Kingdom. Some manufacturing is done by 60.8% of institution, with 41.9% making all products. Vial sharing strategies, for frequently used drugs, were employed in 53% of cases. Barriers preventing vial sharing being used included government legislation, USP 797 guidelines, and health insurance companies. Extension of stability was possible for 70.2% of centres. Most respondents reported reduction in cytotoxic and biological waste, and alleviation of drug shortages from vial sharing utilisation. Cost savings were achieved in 74% of cases and was significant in one third. CONCLUSIONS: The survey has determined that drug vial wastage and expenditure can be reduced, and vial sharing facilitates this. International collaboration plus the assistance of governments and the pharmaceutical industry is vital in achieving this aim. These findings can hopefully guide oncology pharmacy in establishing appropriate strategies to reduce wastage internationally.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".