The following is a summary of “Influences Shaping Clinicians’ Monoclonal Antibody and Immune Checkpoint Inhibitor Preparation and Administration Management Practices: A Systematic Review,” published in the February 2024 issue of Oncology by Ballard et al.
Over the past three decades, monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) and immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICPIs) have significantly improved cancer survival and patients’ quality of life. However, there remains a limited understanding of the potential long-term risks associated with repeated exposure, particularly among cancer nurses responsible for their preparation and administration. This systematic review aimed to discern the factors influencing clinicians’ awareness and practices concerning the safe handling of mAbs and ICPIs.
Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, this systematic review comprehensively searched databases including CINAHL, EMBASE, Joanna Briggs Institute, OVID, MEDLINE, and Cochrane. A team of four reviewers evaluated eligibility criteria and risk of bias.
Of 7,301 initially identified studies, 481 duplicates were eliminated, and 6,673 were excluded following title and abstract review. A thorough examination of 147 full-text studies resulted in the inclusion of six studies. A narrative synthesis revealed two overarching themes: (1) ambiguity contributing to variations in handling practices and (2) the critical importance of continuing professional development (CPD), albeit challenging to implement in the absence of robust evidence.
Uncertainty persists regarding the long-term risks and consensus on the hazardous nature of unconjugated mAbs and ICPIs, leading to diverse risk reduction approaches during preparation and administration and inconsistent CPD efforts. Safeguarding the long-term well-being of clinicians mandates the establishment of consensus on risk reduction strategies. However, achieving such consensus poses a challenge without compelling evidence or international accord regarding their hazardous classification.
Source: sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0749208124000044