ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVES: To describe the application of the model described in part A and part B of this series of articles for risk assessment (RA) and risk control (RC) of non-sterility during aseptic handling. The model was applied in nine hospital pharmacies. METHODS: The starting point was an audit of each hospital pharmacy. The determined risk reduction and remaining risks were entered into a risk assessment model. The corresponding risk prioritisation numbers (RPNs) for each source of risk were calculated and these values were summed up to a cumulative RPN. Subsequently, all hospital pharmacies started an improvement programme, using the risk assessment as input. Results of aseptic process simulation (APS) and microbiological monitoring (MM) were also collected. The participants were informed about their progress of risk reduction and results of APS and MM during the study period. At the end of the study (about 4 years after the start), a final assessment was executed by using a checklist with risk reducing measures for each source of risk. Additional risk reduction and remaining risks were put in an RA and RC template and corresponding RPN values and a new cumulative RPN were determined. RESULTS: At the start of the study differences in cumulative RPN values were relatively small (from 630 to 825). At the end they were relatively great (from 230 to 725), which illustrates a different sense of urgency for reducing the risk of non-sterility. Of all the risk reducing measures, a yearly audit of all operators had the greatest impact on reducing the risk of non-sterility. Except for glove prints, there was no correlation between process improvement (lower cumulative RPN) and results of microbiological controls. CONCLUSION: A systematic and science-based reduction of the risks of non-sterility can be done by using a checklist with risk reducing measures and an RA & RC template. Prospectively, the relevance of each risk reducing measure can be demonstrated by RPN calculations. Microbiological controls are an important part of the overall assurance of product quality. However, the results are less useful for assessing the risk of non-sterility.
Subject(s)
Pharmacies , Humans , Risk Assessment/methods , HospitalsABSTRACT
OBJECTIVES: To determine prospectively the sources of risk of non-sterility during aseptic handling and to quantify the risks of each of these sources. METHODS: A risk assessment (RA) of non-sterility according to Failure Mode and Effect Analysis was executed by a multidisciplinary team of (hospital) pharmacists and technicians, a consultant experienced in aseptic processing and an independent facilitator. The team determined the sources of risk of non-sterility, a 5 point scale for severity, occurrence and detection, and risk acceptance levels. Input about general applied risk reduction was collected by audits in 10 hospital pharmacies. The results of these audits were used for determining the remaining risks. The results, as well as scientific information and the experience of the team members, was used to determine scores for severity, occurrence and detection. RESULTS: Multiplying the scores for severity, occurrence and detection results in the risk prioritisation number (RPN) which is a relative value of the remaining risks of non-sterility for each source. Incorrect disinfection techniques of non-sterile materials and the chances of touching critical spots were estimated as the greatest risks. The risk of non-sterility via the airborne route was low. RPN values were helpful in prioritising measures for additional risk reduction (this will be described in an accompanying article). CONCLUSION: The RA, described here, was a systematic survey related to all sources of risk of non-sterility during aseptic handling. The determined RPN values were helpful in prioritising measures for additional risk reduction.
Subject(s)
Pharmacies , Hospitals , Humans , Pharmacists , Risk AssessmentABSTRACT
OBJECTIVES: To determine prospectively the risk reducing measures of non-sterility during aseptic handling and to develop a method for prioritising these measures. METHODS: In the first part of this series of articles, we identified all sources of risk which could contaminate a product during aseptic handling, and calculated the remaining risks of non-sterility using a risk assessment (RA) model. We concluded that additional research of some risk sources was needed before risk control (RC) could be executed on all risk sources.The chances of technical problems with a laminar airflow cabinet or safety cabinet (LAF/SC) were collected from 10 hospital pharmacies using a questionnaire. The chances of blocking first air were examined by airflow visualisation (smoke studies). For checking the way of working during aseptic handling, a checklist for an audit was developed.Risk control was executed by a multidisciplinary team of (hospital) pharmacists and technicians, a consultant experienced in aseptic processing and an independent facilitator. They determined the risk reducing measures for each source of risk and the influence of these measures on the remaining risk (expressed as risk prioritisation number). RESULTS: The chances of defects of the LAF/SC were low. Airflow visualisation is a sensible method to find the correct location of materials and equipment inside the LAF/SC and to detect a way of working without blocking first air on critical spots. Audits will provide valuable information about the way aseptic handling is executed and the remaining risks as a consequence. The risk of non-sterility caused by needle or spike contact with critical spots of vials and ampoules (stopper or ampoule neck), blocking first air under downflow and touching critical spots cannot be eliminated completely. CONCLUSION: The RA/RC model shows the impact of risk reducing measures on the probability of non-sterility during aseptic handling. The calculated risk prioritisation numbers are helpful in prioritising these measures. Audits result in risk reduction for nearly all sources of risk.
Subject(s)
Pharmacies , Hospitals , Humans , Pharmacists , Risk AssessmentABSTRACT
Purpose: Bevacizumab (Avastin) is a humanized monoclonal antibody approved by the European Medicines Agency for the intravenous treatment of cancer. However, it is often used as an intravitreal injection for the treatment of macular degeneration or edema. For this purpose, bevacizumab is repackaged from glass vials into plastic syringes. The formation of particles during this compounding process as well as during storage is a source of concern. The aim of this study was to test the sub-visible particulate contamination in bevacizumab material, both in the glass vial and after repackaging into polycarbonate BD Luer-Lok™ syringes. Methods: Syringes with repackaged bevacizumab from 3 different compounding hospital pharmacies were tested for sub-visible particles at different time points during storage at 2-8°C. Results: The batches of bevacizumab starting product complied with the European Pharmacopoeia (Ph. Eur.) for small-volume parenterals. Repackaging into syringes led to an immediate increase in small particles. The number of particles ≥25 µm increased 1.3-fold, and the number of particles ≥10 µm increased 5-fold, respectively. Storage of up to 37 days did not lead to an additional increase in particle counts. All batches complied with the national criteria for particles in intravitreal solutions. Conclusions: Particle count increased due to the repackaging process, but no substantial increase was observed during storage. Formation of sub-visible particles does not impact the shelf-life of bevacizumab repackaged into BD Luer-Lok syringes.
