Literature DB >> 19732500

A systematic review and meta-analysis of the risk of microbial contamination of aseptically prepared doses in different environments.

Peter David Austin1, Marinos Elia.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To review microbial contamination rates about preparation of individual and batch doses using aseptic techniques within pharmaceutical (controlled) and clinical (ward and theatre) environments.
METHODS: Systematic review, involving amalgamation of data using a random effect model and metaanalysis.
RESULTS: A total of 19 studies from 17 reports (7277 doses), mostly single arm studies, were identified for analysis. The overall contamination rates for doses prepared in clinical environments were found to be 5.0% (95% CI; 1.8%, 13.1%, n = 8 studies) for individual doses and 2.0% (95% CI; 0.3%, 13.1%; n = 5) for doses prepared as part of a batch. Rates for doses prepared in pharmaceutical environments were found to be 1.9% (95% CI; 0.8%, 4.2%; n = 5) for individual doses and 0.0% (95% CI; 0.0%, 0.8%; n= 1) for doses prepared as part of a batch. The results indicate greater overall contamination rates of doses prepared in clinical than pharmaceutical environments, in those prepared individually than in batch preparation, and in those in which additions rather than no additions were made. Significant differences were only found between pharmaceutical and clinical environments for batch doses, and between batch and individual doses prepared in a pharmaceutical environment. The studies differed substantially in sample size, interventions and comparison conditions, especially in the clinical setting. The quality of the data was judged to be low.
CONCLUSION: Contamination rates in clinical and pharmaceutical environments were commonly found to be unacceptably high. Intuitive recommendations for reducing contamination rates by carrying out the procedures in a pharmaceutical environment using batch doses are supported by an evidence base that needs to be strengthened further.

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19732500     DOI: 10.18433/j3jp4b

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Pharm Pharm Sci        ISSN: 1482-1826            Impact factor:   2.327


  6 in total

1.  Incorrect aseptic techniques in medicine preparation and recommendations for safer practices: a systematic review.

Authors:  Eeva Suvikas-Peltonen; Suvi Hakoinen; Ercan Celikkayalar; Raisa Laaksonen; Marja Airaksinen
Journal:  Eur J Hosp Pharm       Date:  2016-10-12

2.  Influenza and bacterial pathogen coinfections in the 20th century.

Authors:  Xuan-Yi Wang; Paul E Kilgore; Kyung Ah Lim; Song-Mei Wang; Jeongseok Lee; Wei Deng; Mei-Qi Mo; Batmunkh Nyambat; Jing-Chen Ma; Michael O Favorov; John D Clemens
Journal:  Interdiscip Perspect Infect Dis       Date:  2011-05-11

Review 3.  Burden of pneumonia and meningitis caused by Streptococcus pneumoniae in China among children under 5 years of age: a systematic literature review.

Authors:  Ying Chen; Wei Deng; Song-Mei Wang; Qi-Mei Mo; Huan Jia; Qun Wang; Song-Guang Li; Xiang Li; Bao-Dong Yao; Cheng-Jun Liu; Yi-Qiang Zhan; Chen Ji; Anna Lena Lopez; Xuan-Yi Wang
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2011-11-16       Impact factor: 3.240

Review 4.  Surveillance of bloodstream infections in pediatric cancer centers - what have we learned and how do we move on?

Authors:  Arne Simon; Rhoikos Furtwängler; Norbert Graf; Hans Jürgen Laws; Sebastian Voigt; Brar Piening; Christine Geffers; Philipp Agyeman; Roland A Ammann
Journal:  GMS Hyg Infect Control       Date:  2016-05-12

5.  Impact of a modified Broviac maintenance care bundle on bloodstream infections in paediatric cancer patients.

Authors:  Rhoikos Furtwängler; Carolin Laux; Norbert Graf; Arne Simon
Journal:  GMS Hyg Infect Control       Date:  2015-11-16

Review 6.  Aerosol-Transmitted Infections-a New Consideration for Public Health and Infection Control Teams.

Authors:  Julian W Tang; Peter Wilson; Nandini Shetty; Catherine J Noakes
Journal:  Curr Treat Options Infect Dis       Date:  2015-07-23
  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.