Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Unintended consequences for patients of future personalized pharmacoprinting

  • Commentary
  • Published:
International Journal of Clinical Pharmacy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Manufacturing pharmaceuticals by the use of 3D printing is a promising way to achieve more personalized drug treatment. To effectively use this technology, patients need to continuously measure their health, and new decisions have to be taken, for example, regarding the number of daily drugs including how many active pharmaceutical substances these should contain along with decisions around size, shape and color. Positive as well as negative effects of pharmacoprinted medicine on patients are likely to occur. Negative consequences with influence on patient autonomy and role might include: patients not being capable or interested in conducting self-monitoring, loosing overview of the medical treatment, reducing the ability to perform self-regulation, loosing trust in the pharmacoprinted medicine, and not being interested in taking on a new role in medical decision making. These issues are discussed in the paper in order to prevent upcoming challenges in the area of pharmacoprinting.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Alhnan M, Okwuosa T, Sadia M, Wan K-W, Ahmed W, Arafat B. Emergence of 3D printed dosage forms: opportunities and challenges. Pharm Res. 2016. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11095-016-1933-1.

    Google Scholar 

  2. 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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Norman J, Madurawe R, Moore C, Khan M, Khairuzzaman A. A new chapter in pharmaceutical manufacturing: 3D-printed drug products. Adv Drug Deliv Rev. 2016. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addr.2016.03.001.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Lind J, Sporrong S, Kaae S, Rantanen J, Genina N. Social aspects in additive manufacturing of pharmaceutical products. Expert Opin Drug Deliv. 2017;14:927–36.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Goole J, Amighi K. 3D printing in pharmaceutics: a new tool for designing customized drug delivery systems. Int J Pharm. 2016;499:376–94.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Ursan I, Chiu L, Pierce A. Three-dimensional drug printing: a structured review. J Am Pharm Assoc. 2013;53:136–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Alomari M, Mohamed F, Basit A, Gaisford S. Personalised dosing: printing a dose of one´s own medicine. Int J Pharm. 2015;494:568–77.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Larsen A, Haugbølle L. The impact of an automated dose-dispensing scheme on user compliance, medication understanding, and medication stockpiles. Res Soc Adm Pharm. 2007;3:265–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Shah S, Robinson I. Patients’ perspectives on self-testing of oral anticoagulation therapy: content analysis of patients’ internet blogs. BMC Health Serv Res. 2011;11: http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-6963/11/25.

  10. Finkelstein J, Khare R, Ansell J. Feasibility and patients’ acceptance of home automated telemanagement of oral anticoagulation therapy. AMIA 2003 symposium proceedings; 2003. p. 230–234.

  11. Kulinna W, Wenzel T, Heene D, Harenberg J. The effect of self-monitoring the INR on quality of anticoagulation and quality of life. Semin Thromb Hemost. 1999;25:123–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Scherman M, Löwhagen O. Drug compliance and identity: reasons for non-compliance. Experiences of medication from persons with asthma/allergy. Pat Educ Couns. 2004;54:3–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Leventhal H, Leventhal E, Contrada R. Self-regulation, health and behavior: a perceptual-cognitive approach. Psychol Health. 1998;13:717–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Williams B, Shaw A, Durrant R, Crinson I, Pagliary C, De Lusignan S. Patient perspective on multiple medications versus combined pills: a qualitative study. Q J Med. 2005;98:885–93.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Bryant L, Martini N, Chan J, Chan L, Marmoush A, Robinson B, Yu K, Wong M. Could the polypill improve adherence. J Prim Health Care. 2013;5:28–35.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Geest S, Whyte S. The charm of medicines: metaphors and metonyms. Med Anthropol Q. 1989;3:345–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Pound P, Britten N, Morgan M, Yardley L, Pope C, Daker-White G, Campell R. Resisting medicines: a synthesis of qualitative studies of medicine taking. Soc Sci Med. 2005;61:133–55.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Liu F, Ranmal S, Batchelor H, Orlu-Gul M, Ernest T, Thomas I, Flanagan T, Tuleu C. Patient-centred pharmaceutical design to improve acceptability of medicines: similarities and differences in paediatric and geriatric populations. Drugs. 2014;74:1871–89.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. 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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Chewning B, Bylund C, Shah B, Arora N, Gueguen J, Makoul G. Patient preferences for shared decisions: a systematic review. Pat Educ Couns. 2012;86:9–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Légarè F, Thompson-Leduc P. Twelve myths about shared desicion making. Pat Educ Couns. 2014;96:281–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Shay L, Lafata L. Understanding patient perception of shared decision making. Pat Educ Couns. 2014;96:293–301.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

The authors received no funding in connection with the paper.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Pharmacy, The University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark

    Susanne Kaae, Johanna Lena Maria Lind, Natalja Genina & Sofia Kälvemark Sporrong

Authors
  1. Susanne Kaae
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Johanna Lena Maria Lind
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Natalja Genina
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Sofia Kälvemark Sporrong
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Susanne Kaae.

Ethics declarations

Conflicts of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kaae, S., Lind, J.L.M., Genina, N. et al. Unintended consequences for patients of future personalized pharmacoprinting. Int J Clin Pharm 40, 321–324 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11096-018-0596-x

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11096-018-0596-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation