Background 3D-printing, compared to conventional medicine manufacturing technologies, is a versatile and highly modifiable technique that has the flexibility to produce medicine that meet patients’ specific requirements such as individualized dosing, but also to customize the appearance of the dosage form, e.g., shape and colour. Objective To explore polypharmacy patients’ perceptions and preferences regarding 3D-printed medicine, including their acceptability of patient-designed medicine. Setting The study was conducted in Zealand, Denmark. Method Polypharmacy patients were recruited using convenience sampling (mostly on Facebook) and interviewed twice using semi-structured interviews. Interviews were analysed thematically into five predetermined themes (shapes, colours, embossing designs, polypills, and patient-designed dosage forms). At the first interview patients were asked about their perceptions and preferences towards 3D-printed solid dosage forms, and were presented to different shapes, colours, embossing designs and examples of polypills. They were also invited to design their own medicine from the ones presented. Their self-designed medicines were presented at the second interview, where acceptability of both their self-designed medicine and the concept of designing one’s own medicine, was investigated. Main outcome measure Patients’ perceptions, preferences towards and acceptability of 3D-printed medicines. Results Eight patients were included. They tended to prefer shapes similar to conventional medicine. Different colours were preferred by different people. The presented embossing designs seemed to be irrelevant. Polypills were generally believed to be a good idea due to the reduction of number of medicines. Acceptability of patient-designed medicine was mainly determined by whether patients thought 3Dprinting technology was reliable or not. Conclusions The patients had various perceptions and preferences of 3D-printed medicine. Factors affecting the patient views were aesthetic (appealing), physiological (swallowing), practical (handling), pedagogical (understanding) and psychological (relate to). Trust in the technology seemed to be important for acceptability.
3D printing Denmark Patient-designed medicine Patient acceptability Personalized medicine Semi-structured interviews Pharmaceutical technology
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.
This work was supported by The Independent Research Fund Denmark (DFF), Technology and Production Sciences (FTP), Grant No. 12-126515/0602-02670B.
Conflicts of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Di Prima M, Coburn J, Hwang D, Kelly J, Khairuzzaman A, Ricles L. Additively manufactured medical products—the FDA perspective. 3D Print Med. 2015;2:1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lind J, Kälvemark Sporrong S, Kaae S, Rantanen J, Genina N. Social aspects in additive manufacturing of pharmaceutical products. Expert Opin Drug Deliv. 2017;14:927–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaae S, Lind JLM, Genina N, Sporrong SK. Unintended consequences for patients of future personalized pharmacoprinting. Int J Clin Pharm. 2018;2018(40):321–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goyanes A, Scarpa M, Kamlow M, Gaisford S, Basit AW, Orlu M. Patient acceptability of 3D printed medicines. Int J Pharm. 2017;530:71–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scoutaris N, Ross SA, Douroumis D. 3D printed “Starmix” Drug loaded dosage forms for paediatric applications. Pharm Res. 2018;35:34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Khaled SA, Burley JC, Alexander MR, Yang J, Roberts CJ. 3D printing of five-in-one dose combination polypill with defined immediate and sustained release profiles. J Control Release. 2015;217:308–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Khaled SA, Burley JC, Alexander MR, Yang J, Roberts CJ. 3D printing of tablets containing multiple drugs with defined release profiles. Int J Pharm. 2015;494:643–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bryant L, Martini N, Chan J, Chang L, Marmoush A, Robinson B, Yu K, Wong M. Could the polypill improve adherence? The patient perspective. J Prim Health Care. 2013;5:28–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams B, Shaw A, Durrant R, Crinson I, Pagliari C, de Lusignan S. Patient perspectives on multiple medications versus combined pills: a qualitative study. QJM Int J Med. 2005;98:885–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saedder EA, Lisby M, Nielsen LP, Bonnerup DK, Brock B. Number of drugs most frequently found to be independent risk factors for serious adverse reactions: a systematic literature review. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2015;80:808–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aho J, Bøtker JP, Genina N, Edinger M, Arnfast L, Rantanen J. Roadmap to 3D-printed oral pharmaceutical dosage forms: feedstock filament properties and characterization for fused deposition modeling. J Pharm Sci. 2019;108:26–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith DM, Kapoor Y, Klinzing GR, Procopio AT. Pharmaceutical 3D printing: design and qualification of a single step print and fill capsule. Int J Pharm. 2018;544:21–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trenfield SJ, Awad A, Goyanes A, Gaisford S, Basit AW. 3D Printing Pharmaceuticals: Drug Development to Frontline Care. Trends Pharmacol Sci. 2018;2018(39):440–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kvale S, Brinkmann S. Interview: det kvalitative forskningsinterview som håndværk. Copenhagen: Hans Reitzels Forlag; 2015.Google Scholar
Robson C. Real world research. 3rd ed. Hoboken: Wiley; 2011.Google Scholar
Marquis J, Schneider M-P, Payot V, Cordonier C, Bugnon O, Hersberger KE, Arnet I. Swallowing difficulties with oral drugs among polypharmacy patients attending community pharmacies. Int J Clin Pharm. 2013;35:1130–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liu F, Ghaffur A, Bains J, Hamdy S. Acceptability of oral solid medicines in older adults with and without dysphagia: a nested pilot validation questionnaire based observational study. Int J Pharm. 2016;512:374–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar