Quantcast
Last updated on April 18, 2014 at 13:13 EDT

On 25th Anniversary of IHS-RIVA[1], Health Robotics’ Issues Side-by-Side Comparisons of Competitors’ IV Automation

September 16, 2013

BOZEN, Sud-Tirol, Italy, September 16, 2013 /PRNewswire/ –

On the 25th anniversary of the first RIVA announcement in Winnipeg [1989], Health
Robotics thought appropriate and timely to review the 25-year history of the IV Automation
and IV Robotics sectors, major milestones, industry consolidation moves and acquisitions,
and the effect of new companies entering the Automation sector and 2nd generation products
changing the competitive landscape[2], with such comparisons made available at:

http://www.health-robotics.com/en/competition

Gaspar DeViedma, Health Robotics’ Executive Vice President stated: “It is not
unexpected that after Health Robotics reached 500 global installations and 80-90% global
market share [with its open IV consumables design for the vast majority of IV Bags,
Syringes, etc.], some large industry players such as BD, Fresenius Kabi, Baxter, ICU,
entered the sector with at best, partially-automated products to protect revenues of their
proprietary IV consumables. In my opinion, pharmacists should exercise a “buyer-beware”
attitude in their purchasing decisions and conduct extensive due diligence with “apples to
apples” comparisons between proprietary semi-automated IV products and Health Robotics’
fully-automated solutions.”

Just as an example, Fresenius Kabi [after their 4-year old failed RIVA installation],
acquired semi-automated MDS and selectively market it in some countries while of course
requiring separate laminar airflow hoods or isolators for its operation:

http://www.health-robotics.com/en/competition/ivstation-onco-vs-fresenius-pharmahelp

In parallel, Loccioni and most of the individuals [management and salespeople] that
were responsible for the now-settled Devon Robotics’ litigation with hospitals are
attempting to sell a copy of the old semi-automated CytoCare, by changing its label to
APOTECAchemo, with an “apples and oranges” comparison available at:

http://www.health-robotics.com/en/competition/ivstation-onco-vs-loccioni-apoteca

Health Robotics will continue to add/or update side-by-side competitive analysis
comparisons on an ongoing basis in a continuous effort to make buyers beware.

About Health Robotics:

Founded in 2006 and now reaching 80% total IV Robots market share in the world
[including over 90% the Oncology Robots global market], Health Robotics is the undisputed
leading supplier of life-critical intravenous medication robots, providing almost 500
hospital installations in 5 continents with the only fully-integrated Robotics-based
technology, IV Workflow, and manual compounding software automation solutions. Health
Robotics’ second generation products [i.v.STATION, i.v.SOFT, and i.v.STATION ONCO] have
been found [through scientific and peer-reviewed studies[3],[4],[5]] to greatly contribute
to ease hospitals’ growing pressures to improve patient safety[3], increase throughput,
and contain costs[3],[5]. Through the effective and efficient production of sterile,
accurate, tamper-evident and ready-to-administer IVs, Health Robotics’ medical devices and
integrated workflow solutions help hospitals eliminate life-threatening drug[3] and
diluent[3] exchange errors, improve drug potency[4], decrease other medical mistakes and
sterility risks, work more efficiently[3],[5], reduce waste and controlled substances’
diversion, reduce pharmacy technician upper-limb injuries[5], and diminish the gap between
rising patient volume/acuity and scarce nursing and pharmacy staff. For more information,
please visit: http://www.health-robotics.com

1. Intelligent Hospital Systems/Technology 2000 started in IV Robotics in 1989: Am J
Hosp Pharm 46(11): 2286–93 1989. St. Boniface Hospital, Winnipeg.

2. Competitors (11) in IV Automation: Baxter, Fresenius, Health Robotics, Integra,
Intelligent Hospital Systems, Kiro, Loccioni, Panasonic, Pharmoduct, Yasukawa, and Yuyama.

3. Impact of Robotic Antineoplastic Preparation on Safety, Workflow, Costs. Seger,
Churchill, Keohane, Belisle, Wong, Sylvester, Chesnick, Burdick, Wien, Cotugno, Bates, and
Rothschild. Brigham & Women’s Hospital, Massachusetts College of Pharmacy, and Harvard
Medical School. Journal of Oncology Practice, Nov. 2012, Volume 8, number 6.

4. Validation of an automated method for compounding monoclonal antibody patient
doses: case studies of Avastin(R), Remicade(R), and Herceptin(R). Peters, Capelle,
Arvinte, van de Garde. St. Antonius Hospital. mAbs January 2013, Volume 5, Issue 1.

5. Comparing the upper limb disorder risks associated with manual and automated
cytotoxic compounding. McLeod, Zochowska, Leonard, Crow, Jacklin, Dean, Franklin. Imperial
College Healthcare NHS Trust. European Journal of Hospital Pharmacy April 2012.

        For additional information, please contact:
        Sarah Epstein
        epstein@health-robotics.com
        +1-786-417-1251

SOURCE Health Robotics


Source: PR Newswire