Presentation (CTI)

OBJECTIVES: A prefilled syringe (PFS) is a single use method of administration used by medicines in many therapeutic areas. PFS offers similar efficacy with several advantages over conventional vial, including convenience, faster administration, and lower risk of medical errors and injection-site pain. Where PFS and conventional vials are both an option (e.g., oncology), hospitals should weigh economic implications, however, these are not broadly known. The objective of this literature review was to evaluate the economic impact of a PFS versus a vial.
METHODS: MEDLINE, Embase, and CENTRAL were searched for studies that compare PFS and vial in the last 5 years (1/1/2020 to 25/11/2025). The search strategy was developed by an informational specialist and records were screened by a single reviewer. Only studies published in English were eligible for inclusion.
RESULTS: Of 1,659 records identified, 13 studies were deemed relevant. Hospital payer perspectives included: assessments of emergency drugs (N=5 studies; USA, France, UK [3], Ireland), anesthesia (3; USA [2] and Brazil), vaccinations (2; Albania and global), IV opioids (1, USA), oncology (1, Mexico), and primary immunodeficiency (PID [1, USA]). Among the studies that evaluated the benefit of PFS vs vials for the administration of emergency drugs, PFS use was associated with lower annual cost due to fewer preventable adverse drug events, reduced medication waste, supply costs, and staff preparation time. Anesthesia using PFS was associated with cost savings versus vials, attributed to reduced waste and bacterial contamination. Across oncology, vaccines, IV opioids, and PID populations, PFS were considered cost-saving and cost-effective compared to vials due to reduced error rates, shorter infusion times, and avoidance of lost wages.
CONCLUSIONS: Although few studies compared PFS and vial formulation head-to-head, PFS clearly demonstrated economic benefits for payers.