Non-Sterile to Sterile Compounding: An Unconventional Response During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

The drug supply chain has suffered many interruptions over the past decade. The COVID-19 pandemic exacerbated an already fragile infrastructure for supplying critical medications to hospitals and health-systems. The purpose of this paper is to provide insight to the history, thought-processes, and response to critical medication shortages during the COVID-19 pandemic, with a focus on hydromorphone infusions and the action steps taken to engage in non-sterile to sterile (NSTS) compounding. Over a period of 6 weeks, we compounded 1,613 NSTS hydromorphone infusion bags. All lots were cleared for sterility, particulate, potency, and endotoxin testing by an outside FDA registered laboratory. We did not have any safety reports filed specific to the NSTS compounded hydromorphone infusion bags. Over a period of 15 weeks, 715 infusions were consumed. The drug supply chain suffers frequent interruptions and critical shortages, particularly in times of a natural disaster or a global pandemic. Non-sterile to sterile compounding is often associated with risks of inaccuracies, impurities, and contamination. There are instances in which non-sterile to sterile compounding is appropriate and should be considered in times of drug shortages to support the care of hospitalized patients.

Evaluation of the maximum beyond-use-date stability of regular human insulin extemporaneously prepared in 0.9% sodium chloride in a polyvinyl chloride bag.

BACKGROUND: Regular human insulin 100 units added to a sufficient quantity of 0.9% sodium chloride, to yield a total volume of 100 mL within a polyvinylchloride bag, is accepted to be stable for 24 hours due to physical denaturation and chemical modification. The objective of this study was to evaluate the extended stability of such extemporaneously prepared regular human insulin, stored under refrigeration, to the maximum beyond-use-date allowed by United States Pharmacopeia chapter 797. METHODS: At time "0" three admixtures of regular human insulin were prepared by withdrawing 1 mL of regular human insulin with a concentration of 100 units/mL and adding it to a sufficient quantity of 0.9% sodium chloride for injection in a polyvinylchloride bag to yield a total volume of 100 mL. The three admixtures were stored under refrigeration (2°C-8°C [36°F-46°F]), and one sample of each admixture was withdrawn and tested in duplicate at 0, 6, 24, 48, 72, 144, 168, 192, 216, 240, 312, and 336 hours. Utilizing high performance liquid chromatography, each sample underwent immediate testing. The time points were stable if the mean concentration of the samples exceeded 90% of the equilibrium concentration at 6 hours. RESULTS: The equilibrium concentration was 0.89 units/mL. Time points were stable if the mean concentration was at least 0.80 units/mL. All time points retained at least 90% of the equilibrium concentration, with the exception of hour 168 (0.79 ± 0.03 units/mL). At 192 hours the mean concentration was 0.88 ± 0.03 units/mL. At 336 hours the mean concentration was 0.91 ± 0.02 units/mL. CONCLUSION: Based on these results, regular human insulin 100 units added to 0.9% sodium chloride for injection in a polyvinylchloride bag to yield a total volume of 100 mL is stable for up to 336 hours when stored at 2°C-8°C (36°F-46°F).

Impact of robotic antineoplastic preparation on safety, workflow, and costs.

PURPOSE: Antineoplastic preparation presents unique safety concerns and consumes significant pharmacy staff time and costs. Robotic antineoplastic and adjuvant medication compounding may provide incremental safety and efficiency advantages compared with standard pharmacy practices. METHODS: We conducted a direct observation trial in an academic medical center pharmacy to compare the effects of usual/manual antineoplastic and adjuvant drug preparation (baseline period) with robotic preparation (intervention period). The primary outcomes were serious medication errors and staff safety events with the potential for harm of patients and staff, respectively. Secondary outcomes included medication accuracy determined by gravimetric techniques, medication preparation time, and the costs of both ancillary materials used during drug preparation and personnel time. RESULTS: Among 1,421 and 972 observed medication preparations, we found nine (0.7%) and seven (0.7%) serious medication errors (P = .8) and 73 (5.1%) and 28 (2.9%) staff safety events (P = .007) in the baseline and intervention periods, respectively. Drugs failed accuracy measurements in 12.5% (23 of 184) and 0.9% (one of 110) of preparations in the baseline and intervention periods, respectively (P < .001). Mean drug preparation time increased by 47% when using the robot (P = .009). Labor costs were similar in both study periods, although the ancillary material costs decreased by 56% in the intervention period (P < .001). CONCLUSION: Although robotically prepared antineoplastic and adjuvant medications did not reduce serious medication errors, both staff safety and accuracy of medication preparation were improved significantly. Future studies are necessary to address the overall cost effectiveness of these robotic implementations.