The aim of this study was to develop a specific simulation program for the validation of a cytotoxic compounding robot, KIRO® Oncology, for the preparation of sterile monoclonal antibodies and anti-infectious drugs. The impact of excipient formulations was clearly measured using simulation accuracy tests with worst case excipient (i.e. viscous, foaming) and allowed to correct the robotic settings prior to real production. Corrections brought accuracies within the acceptable range of ±5%. KIRO® Oncology robot has also the capacity of self-cleaning and a simulation combining media fill test, and environmental monitoring was able to validate the aseptic process including simulation of worst case conditions and highlighting the areas not accessible to self-cleaning to be corrected by additional manual cleaning measures. The risk of chemical contamination was simulated by using fluorescent dye of the process with high-risk excipient formulation and overpressure vials. Quality control reliability was simulated by using a model drug, and final concentration was determined by high-performance liquid chromatography-ultraviolet detection. Finally, productivity was simulated using different models of production showing the impact of the type of drug, the number of vials and the poor standardization of the process.
SegerACChurchillWWKeohaneCA, et al.Impact of robotic antineoplastic preparation on safety, workflow, and costs. J Oncol Pract2012; 8: 344–349.
4.
GandréBKrämerI. Cytotoxic surface contamination in a robotic system compared with manual preparation. Eur J Hosp Pharm2012; 19: 151–151.
5.
Ayadi M, Jobard M, Cros C, et al. Evaluation of the chemical contamination related to the manual cytotoxic production in an isolator and a new robotic drug preparation system (Kiro Oncology®). In: 20th European GERPAC conference, Giens Peninsula, France, www.gerpac.eu/congres-2017 (2017, accessed 15 August 2018).
6.
PalmaEBufariniC. Robot-assisted preparation of oncology drugs: the role of nurses. Int J Pharm2012; 15; 439: 286–288.
7.
Reisz F, Gairard-Dory A, Fonmartin K, et al. Prevention of work related musculoskeletal disorders in pharmaceutical technology. In: 19th European GERPAC conference, Giens Peninsula, France, www.gerpac.eu/congres-2016 (2016, accessed 15 August 2018).
8.
IwamotoTMorikawaTHiokiM, et al.Performance evaluation of the compounding robot, APOTECAchemo, for injectable anticancer drugs in a Japanese hospital. J Pharm Health Care Sci2017; 3: 12–12.
9.
Eudralex. The Rules Governing Medicinal Products in the European Union. Volume 4. EU Guidelines for Good Manufacturing Practice for Medicinal Products for Human and Veterinary Use. Annex 15: qualification and validation Ref. Ares(2015)1380025 - 30/03/2015, http://ec.europa.eu/health/documents/eudralex/vol-4/index_en.htm (2015, accessed 30 Decembrer 2018).
10.
YanivAWOrsbornABonkowskiJJ, et al.Robotic i.v. medication compounding: recommendations from the international community of APOTECAchemo users. Am J Health Syst Pharm2017; 74: e40–e46.
11.
International Organization of Standardization. ISO 14644-1:2015 – cleanrooms and associated controlled environments, Geneva, Switzerland: Author, 2015.
12.
Eudralex. The Rules Governing Medicinal Products in the European Union. Volume 4. EU Guidelines for Good Manufacturing Practice for Medicinal Products for Human and Veterinary Use. Annex 1: manufacture of sterile medicinal products (2008). http://ec.europa.eu/health/documents/eudralex/vol-4/index_en.htm (2008, accessed 30 December 2018).
StrickleyRG. Solubilizing excipients in oral and injectable formulations. Pharm Res2004; 21: 201–230.
19.
EngelsFKMathotRAAVerweijJ. Alternative drug formulations of docetaxel: a review. Anticancer Drugs2007; 18: 95–103.
20.
CarrezLBouchoudLFleury-SouverainS, et al.Reliability of chemotherapy preparation processes: evaluating independent double-checking and computer-assisted gravimetric control. J Oncol Pharm Pract2017; 23: 83–92.
21.
Carrez L, Martin V, Verrey AS, et al. Qualification and performance evaluation of an automated system for compounding injectable cytotoxic drugs. Pharm Technol Hosp Pharm 2018; 3: 165--175. DOI: 10.1515/pthp-2018-0012.
22.
TelisVRNTelis-RomeroJMazzottiHB, et al.Viscosity of aqueous carbohydrate solutions at different temperatures and concentrations. Int J Food Prop2007; 10: 185–195.
MasiniCNanniOAntaridiS, et al.Automated preparation of chemotherapy: quality improvement and economic sustainability. Am J Health Syst Pharm2014; 71: 579–585.
25.
SchoeningTArtesAEhmannM, et al.Semiautomated aseptic preparation of patient individual antineoplastic intravenous solutions: first experiences in a German hospital pharmacy. Eur J Hosp Pharm2016; 23: 44–49.
LagarceF. Centrally prepared cytotoxic drugs: what is the purpose of their quality control?Pharm Technol Hosp Pharm2017; 2: 29–33.
29.
Krämer I, Federici M and Schierl R. Environmental and product contamination during the preparation of antineoplastic drugs with robotic system. Pharm Technol Hosp Pharm 2018; 3: 153--164. DOI: 10.1515/pthp-2018-0018.
30.
SchierlRMasiniCGroeneveldS, et al.Environmental contamination by cyclophosphamide preparation: comparison of conventional manual production in biological safety cabinet and robot-assisted production by APOTECAchemo. J Oncol Pharm Pract2016; 22: 37–45.
31.
SessinkPJMLeclercqGMWoutersD-M, et al.Environmental contamination, product contamination and workers exposure using a robotic system for antineoplastic drug preparation. J Oncol Pharm Pract2015; 21: 118–127.
32.
Creus N, Lopez C, Oliveras M, et al. Cytotoxic contamination level follow-up during the implementation of an automated compounding system. In: 18th European GERPAC conference, Giens Peninsula, France, www.gerpac.eu/congres-2015 (2015, accessed 15 August 2018).
33.
VazquezRBoubetKGuerrault-MoroM-N, et al.Impact of handling errors for chemical cross-contamination risk for the preparation of parenteral cytotoxic drugs. Pharm Technol Hosp Pharm2016; 1: 115–122.
34.
International Organization of Standardization. ISO 13408-1:2008 – aseptic processing of health care products – part 1: general requirements, Geneva, Switzerland: Author, 2008.
35.
ISOPP standards of practice. Section 4 – education and training. J Oncol Pharm Pract2007; 13: 1–81.
36.
PIC/S. Recommendation on the validation of aseptic processes, www.picscheme.org/ (2011, accessed 20 August 2018).
37.
SigwardEFourgeaudMVazquezR, et al.Aseptic simulation test challenged with microorganisms for validation of pharmacy operators. Am J Health Syst Pharm2012; 69: 1218–1224.
38.
KrämerIFedericiMKaiserV, et al.Media-fill simulation tests in manual and robotic aseptic preparation of injection solutions in syringes. J Oncol Pharm Pract2016; 22: 195–204.
39.
ChenWHShenLJGuanRJ, et al.Assessment of an automatic robotic arm for dispensing of chemotherapy in a 2500-bed medical center. J Form Med Assoc2013; 112: 193–200.
40.
NurgatZFarisDNominahM, et al.A three-year study of a first-generation chemotherapy compounding robot. Am J Health-Sys Pharm2015; 72: 1036–1045.
41.
YanivAWKnoerSJ. Implementation of an i.v.-compounding robot in a hospital-based cancer center pharmacy. Am J Health Syst Pharm2013; 15; 70: 2030–2037.
42.
PlumridgeRJSewellGJ. Dose-banding of cytotoxic drugs: a new concept in cancer chemotherapy. Am J Health Syst Pharm2001; 58: 1760–1764.
