Evaluation of Robotic Systems on Cytotoxic Drug Preparation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background and Objectives: With the increased prevalence of patients with cancer, the demand for preparing cytotoxic drugs was increased by health-system pharmacists. To reduce the workload and contamination of work areas in pharmacies, compounding robots preparing cytotoxic drugs have been introduced, and the use of the robots has been expanded in recent years. As reports on the comprehensive and quantitative evaluation of compounding robots remain lacking, a systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted to provide descriptive and quantitative evaluations of the accuracy of preparing injectable cytotoxic drugs. Materials and Methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted using published studies up to 2020. To identify eligible studies, PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library were used. All studies reporting the outcomes relevant to drug-compounding robots such as accuracy, safety, and drug contamination were included. Outcomes from included studies were descriptively summarized. Drug contamination by the robot was quantitatively analyzed using the odds ratio (OR) with a 95% confidence interval (CI). The risk of bias was assessed using the Risk of Bias Assessment tool for Non-randomized Studies (RoBANS). Results: A total of 14 compounding robot studies were eligible for review and 4 studies were included in the meta-analysis. Robotic compounding showed failure rates of 0.9–16.75%, while the accuracy range was set at 5%. Two studies reported that robotic compounding needed more time than manual compounding, two reported that robotic compounding needed less time, and one just reported preparation time without a control group. In a meta-analysis regarding the contamination of the compounding area, manual compounding was associated with lower contamination, although the result was not statistically significant (OR 4.251, 95% CI 0.439–51.772). For the contamination of infusion bags, the robot was associated with lower contamination (OR 0.176, 95% CI 0.084–0.365). Conclusions: Robotic compounding showed better accuracy than manual compounding and, without control groups, showed a high accuracy rate and also reduced the risk of drug contamination and compounding workload. The preparation time of the robot was not consistent because the type of robot and introduced system were different. In conclusion, robotic compounding showed mixed results compared to the manual compounding of drugs, so the system should be introduced considering the risks and benefits of robots.