Skip to main content
Top
Published in: International Journal of Clinical Pharmacy 2/2018

01-04-2018 | Commentary

Unintended consequences for patients of future personalized pharmacoprinting

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

Published in: International Journal of Clinical Pharmacy | Issue 2/2018

Login to get access

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.
Literature
2.
go back to reference 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.CrossRefPubMed 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.CrossRefPubMed
4.
go back to reference 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.CrossRefPubMed 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.CrossRefPubMed
5.
go back to reference Goole J, Amighi K. 3D printing in pharmaceutics: a new tool for designing customized drug delivery systems. Int J Pharm. 2016;499:376–94.CrossRefPubMed Goole J, Amighi K. 3D printing in pharmaceutics: a new tool for designing customized drug delivery systems. Int J Pharm. 2016;499:376–94.CrossRefPubMed
6.
go back to reference Ursan I, Chiu L, Pierce A. Three-dimensional drug printing: a structured review. J Am Pharm Assoc. 2013;53:136–44.CrossRef Ursan I, Chiu L, Pierce A. Three-dimensional drug printing: a structured review. J Am Pharm Assoc. 2013;53:136–44.CrossRef
7.
go back to reference 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.CrossRefPubMed 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.CrossRefPubMed
8.
go back to reference 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.CrossRef 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.CrossRef
10.
go back to reference 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. 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.
go back to reference 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.CrossRefPubMed 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.CrossRefPubMed
12.
go back to reference 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.CrossRef 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.CrossRef
13.
go back to reference Leventhal H, Leventhal E, Contrada R. Self-regulation, health and behavior: a perceptual-cognitive approach. Psychol Health. 1998;13:717–33.CrossRef Leventhal H, Leventhal E, Contrada R. Self-regulation, health and behavior: a perceptual-cognitive approach. Psychol Health. 1998;13:717–33.CrossRef
14.
go back to reference 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.CrossRef 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.CrossRef
15.
go back to reference 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 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
16.
go back to reference Geest S, Whyte S. The charm of medicines: metaphors and metonyms. Med Anthropol Q. 1989;3:345–67.CrossRef Geest S, Whyte S. The charm of medicines: metaphors and metonyms. Med Anthropol Q. 1989;3:345–67.CrossRef
17.
go back to reference 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.CrossRefPubMed 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.CrossRefPubMed
18.
go back to reference 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.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral 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.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
19.
go back to reference 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.CrossRefPubMed 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.CrossRefPubMed
20.
go back to reference 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.CrossRef 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.CrossRef
21.
go back to reference Légarè F, Thompson-Leduc P. Twelve myths about shared desicion making. Pat Educ Couns. 2014;96:281–6.CrossRef Légarè F, Thompson-Leduc P. Twelve myths about shared desicion making. Pat Educ Couns. 2014;96:281–6.CrossRef
22.
go back to reference Shay L, Lafata L. Understanding patient perception of shared decision making. Pat Educ Couns. 2014;96:293–301.CrossRef Shay L, Lafata L. Understanding patient perception of shared decision making. Pat Educ Couns. 2014;96:293–301.CrossRef
Metadata
Title
Unintended consequences for patients of future personalized pharmacoprinting
Authors
Susanne Kaae
Johanna Lena Maria Lind
Natalja Genina
Sofia Kälvemark Sporrong
Publication date
01-04-2018
Publisher
Springer International Publishing
Published in
International Journal of Clinical Pharmacy / Issue 2/2018
Print ISSN: 2210-7703
Electronic ISSN: 2210-7711
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11096-018-0596-x

Other articles of this Issue 2/2018

International Journal of Clinical Pharmacy 2/2018 Go to the issue
Live Webinar | 27-06-2024 | 18:00 (CEST)

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Live: Thursday 27th June 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)

WHO estimates that half of all patients worldwide are non-adherent to their prescribed medication. The consequences of poor adherence can be catastrophic, on both the individual and population level.

Join our expert panel to discover why you need to understand the drivers of non-adherence in your patients, and how you can optimize medication adherence in your clinics to drastically improve patient outcomes.

Prof. Kevin Dolgin
Prof. Florian Limbourg
Prof. Anoop Chauhan
Developed by: Springer Medicine
Obesity Clinical Trial Summary

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.

Developed by: Springer Medicine