Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for March 23rd, 2008

(WSJ) – In a bid to save costs and stem a rising tide of medical waste, hospitals are recycling a growing number of medical devices labeled as single-use, from scissors and scrubs to the sharp blades surgeons use to saw through bones.

Recycling medical devices labeled for single use is legal as long as certain Food and Drug Administration guidelines are followed. But the practice, which involves shipping devices to reprocessing facilities to be cleaned, sterilized and tested for reuse, has raised concerns about safety. Medical device makers say their single-use products are just that, and pose a higher risk of failure and harm when recycled. Reprocessing companies, hospital associations and environmental groups counter that the devices they reprocess are as safe as new thanks to modern sterilization methods, cost 40% to 60% less, and can eliminate thousands of tons of waste from landfills.

In January, after reviewing eight years of FDA data, the Government Accountability Office weighed in with a report concluding there is no evidence that reprocessed single-use devices create an elevated health risk for patients. About 100 devices — just 2% of all devices labeled for single use — are now reprocessed.

But while the GAO report tilts the debate strongly in favor of reprocessing and opens the door to more widespread use, device makers are sticking to their guns. They are lobbying in several states for legislation that would require health-care providers to obtain “informed consent” from a patient before using a reprocessed device during a procedure. Utah already has approved liability protections for original equipment makers, and other state bills include measures that would free original manufacturers from liability if a reprocessed device fails and causes injury or death.

Device makers maintain that their products labeled for single use aren’t designed to hold up to harsh sterilization chemicals and processes. Even when the devices are sterilized, blood, tissue or other bodily fluids on porous surfaces and in tiny crevices could allow transmission of viral and bacterial infections, they say. In general, “single-use devices present an increased safety risk to patients because they are designed for optimal performance and safety in a single patient,” says Tara Federici, vice president of technology and regulatory affairs at AdvaMed, a trade group that represents leading device makers.

For example, heart stabilizers, the devices used to position a beating heart during surgery, have hollow tubes and other parts that device manufacturers say could harbor blood and tissue and become weakened during reprocessing in ways that might not be evident during inspection. A study by the University of Minnesota of stabilizers made by Medtronic Inc. found that while new devices showed little or no manufacturing debris, a majority of reprocessed devices had corroded parts and traces of human hair and protein, bringing into question the effectiveness of the reprocessing efforts.

Last year, the FDA began requiring that reprocessed heart stabilizers undergo more rigorous premarket clearance reviews, and a Medtronic spokesman says the company plans to repeat the tests to see if the more stringent requirements improve performance. Until then, he says, the company stands by its position that the devices can’t safely be reprocessed.

The Association of Medical Device Reprocessors, a trade group whose members reprocess the majority of devices, counters that it recycles only products made from rigid, hard metals or durable polymers and plastics that can safely be reused between two and five times, depending on the device. The group has petitioned the FDA to require new heart stabilizers to undergo the same premarket review as reprocessed ones, because the device itself is high-risk. Since 2001, the group notes, there have been 73 adverse events reported to the FDA involving devices used to stabilize the heart, including incidents in which pieces have broken off and fallen into the chest cavity.

Dan Vukelich, president of the group, says reprocessed devices can be safer in some cases because each must be inspected before reuse, while original manufacturers test new devices only in batches. He also contends that device makers label many products as single-use merely to be able to sell more new devices to hospitals and thwart competition — a contention that medical device makers dismiss.

About $31.5 billion of single-use medical devices are sold annually in U.S. hospitals and surgery centers, of which around $150 million are recycled, according to Ascent Healthcare Solutions, a leading reprocessing company. John Grotting, Ascent’s chief executive, estimates that about $3.6 billion of single-use devices are safe for reprocessing, which could save the health-care industry about $1.8 billion a year. Ascent hospital customers eliminated about 1,684 tons of waste from their local landfills last year, a 31% increase over 2006, by using reprocessed devices, Ascent says.

Mr. Grotting says reprocessed devices are as safe as new ones. Of 65 events reported to the FDA from October 2003 to July 2006 involving or suspected to involve reprocessed devices, the device was just one of several possible causes of harm, and the adverse events were of the same type reported for new, nonreprocessed devices, the FDA found.

Manufacturers began labeling more products as single use starting in the 1980s, partly in response to concern about the spread of infectious diseases like AIDS. Single-use items such as tongue depressors, bandages, adhesive tape, urinary catheters and breathing tubes are discarded after one use. FDA-approved reprocessing, with sterilization methods that would result in only a one-in-a-million chance of a contaminant surviving the process, is very different from cases such as a recent outbreak of hepatitis C in Nevada traced to the reuse of unreprocessed syringes.

But hospital administrators and other experts say many products such as saw blades that were historically designated as reusable now carry single-use labels, with no obvious difference in the product.

“Single-use labeling is a real scam for a lot of devices, and by not using reprocessed devices where possible it is wasteful and not environmentally responsive, since these items have to be disposed of as biomedical waste,” says Kenneth Kizer, a consultant and former undersecretary for health at the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs. “The reuse of medical devices that are labeled for single-use only is a well-established and safe practice regulated by the FDA and utilized by most of the top-ranked hospitals in the country.”

Dr. Kizer testified last year at a congressional hearing that the VA could save up to $30 million in 2008 by using reprocessed medical devices. The VA, with 153 hospitals, has had a longstanding policy against the use of reprocessed devices on the grounds that it can’t determine if they are safe, noting that manufacturers didn’t design them to be used more than once and don’t provide instructions on cleaning and sterilizing the devices. A spokesman says the VA reviews the policy from time to time but has no plans to change it at present.

The FDA has stepped up its oversight of reprocessing, including more plant inspections, after new legislation in 2002 began requiring devices to be labeled if they are reprocessed. The FDA says it is working on a new strategy for monitoring and communicating information about reprocessed devices, and conducting research on “acceptable” single-use device-cleaning criteria.

AMDR, the reprocessing group, is fighting efforts to require that patients go through formal informed-consent processes. Mr. Vukelich says informed consent is meant for experimental treatments and clinical trials, and not for devices that are legally marketed and approved by the FDA. For patients, however, it may be reassuring to ask physicians whether a reprocessed single-use device will be used during an invasive procedure and what steps have been taken to ensure it carries no additional risk

Oakland, Calif.-based health-care giant Kaiser Permanente started working with Ascent to reprocess single-use devices more than a decade ago, and sharply increased its use of reprocessed devices in 2006. Dean Edwards, vice president and chief procurement officer, says Kaiser shaved about $3.5 million from its device costs in 2007, and eliminated about 45.7 tons of medical waste.

At Catholic Healthcare West, the nation’s eighth-largest hospital system, a wide range of medical devices labeled as “single use” are reprocessed each year. Last year, the San Francisco-based concern figures it reduced waste volume by 41 tons and saved $1.8 million.

“The safe use of these reprocessed devices helps us conserve resources so we can be more cost-effective in delivering care” says Sister Susan Vickers, vice president of community health. “And we are diverting significant amounts of medical waste, which definitely benefits our planet.”

Read Full Post »

 

USDA Certified Products Test Dioxane-Free

A newly released study commissioned by the Organic Consumers Association (OCA), a watchdog group with over 500,000 members, and overseen by environmental health consumer advocate David Steinman (author of The Safe Shopper’s Bible), analyzes leading “natural” and “organic” brand shampoos, body washes, lotions and other personal care products for the presence of the undisclosed carcinogenic contaminant 1,4-Dioxane. A reputable third-party laboratory, known for rigorous testing and chain-of-custody protocols, performed all testing.

Ethoxylation, a cheap short-cut companies use to provide mildness to harsh ingredients, requires the use of the cancer-causing petrochemical Ethylene Oxide, which generates 1,4-Dioxane as a by-product. 1,4-Dioxane is considered a chemical “known to the State of California to cause cancer” under proposition 65, and has no place in “natural” or “organic” branded personal care products. 1,4-dioxane is also suspected as a kidney toxicant, neurotoxicant and respiratory toxicant, among others, according to the California EPA, and is a leading groundwater contaminant. Although previous studies have revealed 1,4-Dioxane is often present in conventional personal care products, this new study indicates the toxin is also present in leading “natural” and “organic” branded products, none of which are certified under the USDA National Organic Program. The products/brands tested are listed on the attached page with the level of 1,4-Dioxane detected, if any, along with ethoxylated ingredients listed on the label.

Some of the Leading Brands Found to Contain 1,4-Dioxane: JASON Pure Natural & Organic; Giovanni Organic Cosmetics; Kiss My Face; Nature’s Gate Organics. Please see attached sheet for full listing.

Both the OCA and Steinman are calling for misleadingly labeled “Organic(s)” brands which include ethoxylate ingredients or otherwise utilize petrochemicals in their ingredients, to drop all organic claims from their branding and labeling. “The practice of ethoxylating ingredients or using other petroleum compounds must end for natural personal care, and is that much more outrageous in so-called ‘organics’ brand products,” says Ronnie Cummins, Executive Director of the OCA.

“At a time when our nation is dangerously dependent on foreign oil and attempting to wean itself off unnecessary dependence on petroleum-based ingredients in major consumer products for national security reasons, it is self-defeating that we are literally bathing ourselves and our children in toxic petroleum compounds,” says Steinman. “But consumers should also take heart in the emergence of a growing number of companies who’ve received the message and who are seeking to completely avoid petrochemicals in their cosmetic and personal care products. Your best bet is to purchase products whose ingredients you can pronounce or better yet are certified under the USDA National Organic Program.”

Brands Found not to Contain 1,4-Dioxane: All USDA Certified brands tested in this study were 1,4-Dioxane-free, including: Dr. Bronner’s, Sensibility Soaps (Nourish), Terressentials. All German Natural “BDIH” Certified brands tested were found to be 1,4-Dioxane-free: Aubrey Organics, Dr. Hauschka. See http://www.organicconsumers.org/bodycare for all the results.

A visit to any health food store unfortunately reveals the majority of products in the personal care section with “organic” brand claims are not USDA certified, and contain only cheap water extracts of organic herbs and maybe a few other token organic ingredients for organic veneer. The core of such products are composed of conventional synthetic cleansers and conditioning ingredients usually made in part with petrochemicals. According to market statistics, consumers are willing to pay significantly more for products branded “natural” or “organic” which they believe do not contain petrochemical-modified ingredients or toxic contaminants like 1,4-Dioxane.

To avoid 1,4-Dioxane, the OCA urges consumers to search ingredient lists for indications of ethoxylation including: “myreth,” “oleth,” “laureth,” “ceteareth,” any other “eth,” “PEG,” “polyethylene,” “polyethylene glycol,” “polyoxyethylene,” or “oxynol,” in ingredient names. In general, the OCA urges consumers to avoid products with unpronounceable ingredients. “When it comes to misbranding organic personal care products in the U.S., it’s almost complete anarchy and buyer beware unless the product is certified under the USDA National Organic Program,” says Cummins.

The study builds on the extensive survey conducted by Steinman for his book Safe Trip to Eden (Perseus Books 2007), in association with the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics, the Breast Cancer Fund and the Environmental Working Group, which found that many mainstream children’s bubble bath and shampoo products contain dangerous amounts of this undisclosed carcinogen.

Further Resources:

OCA’s “Coming Clean” Campaign: http://www.organicconsumers.org/bodycare/

Campaign for Safe Cosmetics: http://www.safecosmetics.org/newsroom/press.cfm?pressReleaseID=21

FDA: http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/cos-hdb3.html

Organic Consumers Association:

Web site: http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/cos-hdb3.html/

Home


http://www.safecosmetics.org/

 

Read Full Post »