Search

Background Magistral compounding has always been an integral part of pharmacy practice. The increasing demand worldwide for personalized drug treatments might be accommodated by an increase in magistral compounding. The new, flexible technology of 3D medicine printing could advance this process even further. However, the issue of how 3D medicine printing can be implemented within the existing magistral compounding infrastructure has not been explored. Aims To investigate how 3D printing can be integrated into the existing compounding system by taking regulatory, economic, and profession-oriented aspects into account. Methods Semi-structured interviews were conducted with relevant Dutch stakeholders representing various health institutions, such as health ministries and boards, professional bodies, and different types of pharmacies. Participants were identified through purposeful sampling. Content analysis was applied to identify the main themes. Results A total of 15 Dutch stakeholders were interviewed. It was found that the prevalence of compounding in community pharmacies in the Netherlands has decreased as a result of the practice shifting to specialized compounding pharmacies due to higher costs, lack of space, and the need to fulfill quality requirements. All interviewees considered 3D printing to be a promising compounding technique for community pharmacies, as it offers an automated approach with high digital flexibility and enables adapted formulations, including 'polypills.' Regulatory and quality assurance challenges were considered comparable to those of normal magistral products; however, there remain pending regulatory issues regarding quality control, particularly for Active Pharmaceutical Ingredients containing intermediate feedstock materials (e.g., prefilled cartridges) in 3D printing. 3D printing was believed to become cost effective over time. Conclusion In the Netherlands, specialized compounding pharmacies have largely taken over compounding act

Background Magistral compounding has always been an integral part of pharmacy practice. The increasing demand worldwide for personalized drug treatments might be accommodated by an increase in magistral compounding. The new, flexible technology of 3D medicine printing could advance this process even further. However, the issue of how 3D medicine printing can be implemented within the existing magistral compounding infrastructure has not been explored. Aims To investigate how 3D printing can be integrated into the existing compounding system by taking regulatory, economic, and profession-oriented aspects into account. Methods Semi-structured interviews were conducted with relevant Dutch stakeholders representing various health institutions, such as health ministries and boards, professional bodies, and different types of pharmacies. Participants were identified through purposeful sampling. Content analysis was applied to identify the main themes. Results A total of 15 Dutch stakeholders were interviewed. It was found that the prevalence of compounding in community pharmacies in the Netherlands has decreased as a result of the practice shifting to specialized compounding pharmacies due to higher costs, lack of space, and the need to fulfill quality requirements. All interviewees considered 3D printing to be a promising compounding technique for community pharmacies, as it offers an automated approach with high digital flexibility and enables adapted formulations, including 'polypills.' Regulatory and quality assurance challenges were considered comparable to those of normal magistral products; however, there remain pending regulatory issues regarding quality control, particularly for Active Pharmaceutical Ingredients containing intermediate feedstock materials (e.g., prefilled cartridges) in 3D printing. 3D printing was believed to become cost effective over time. Conclusion In the Netherlands, specialized compounding pharmacies have largely taken over compounding act

Background Magistral compounding has always been an integral part of pharmacy practice. The increasing demand worldwide for personalized drug treatments might be accommodated by an increase in magistral compounding. The new, flexible technology of 3D medicine printing could advance this process even further. However, the issue of how 3D medicine printing can be implemented within the existing magistral compounding infrastructure has not been explored. Aims To investigate how 3D printing can be integrated into the existing compounding system by taking regulatory, economic, and profession-oriented aspects into account. Methods Semi-structured interviews were conducted with relevant Dutch stakeholders representing various health institutions, such as health ministries and boards, professional bodies, and different types of pharmacies. Participants were identified through purposeful sampling. Content analysis was applied to identify the main themes. Results A total of 15 Dutch stakeholders were interviewed. It was found that the prevalence of compounding in community pharmacies in the Netherlands has decreased as a result of the practice shifting to specialized compounding pharmacies due to higher costs, lack of space, and the need to fulfill quality requirements. All interviewees considered 3D printing to be a promising compounding technique for community pharmacies, as it offers an automated approach with high digital flexibility and enables adapted formulations, including 'polypills.' Regulatory and quality assurance challenges were considered comparable to those of normal magistral products; however, there remain pending regulatory issues regarding quality control, particularly for Active Pharmaceutical Ingredients containing intermediate feedstock materials (e.g., prefilled cartridges) in 3D printing. 3D printing was believed to become cost effective over time. Conclusion In the Netherlands, specialized compounding pharmacies have largely taken over compounding act

Background Magistral compounding has always been an integral part of pharmacy practice. The increasing demand worldwide for personalized drug treatments might be accommodated by an increase in magistral compounding. The new, flexible technology of 3D medicine printing could advance this process even further. However, the issue of how 3D medicine printing can be implemented within the existing magistral compounding infrastructure has not been explored. Aims To investigate how 3D printing can be integrated into the existing compounding system by taking regulatory, economic, and profession-oriented aspects into account. Methods Semi-structured interviews were conducted with relevant Dutch stakeholders representing various health institutions, such as health ministries and boards, professional bodies, and different types of pharmacies. Participants were identified through purposeful sampling. Content analysis was applied to identify the main themes. Results A total of 15 Dutch stakeholders were interviewed. It was found that the prevalence of compounding in community pharmacies in the Netherlands has decreased as a result of the practice shifting to specialized compounding pharmacies due to higher costs, lack of space, and the need to fulfill quality requirements. All interviewees considered 3D printing to be a promising compounding technique for community pharmacies, as it offers an automated approach with high digital flexibility and enables adapted formulations, including 'polypills.' Regulatory and quality assurance challenges were considered comparable to those of normal magistral products; however, there remain pending regulatory issues regarding quality control, particularly for Active Pharmaceutical Ingredients containing intermediate feedstock materials (e.g., prefilled cartridges) in 3D printing. 3D printing was believed to become cost effective over time. Conclusion In the Netherlands, specialized compounding pharmacies have largely taken over compounding act

Background Magistral compounding has always been an integral part of pharmacy practice. The increasing demand worldwide for personalized drug treatments might be accommodated by an increase in magistral compounding. The new, flexible technology of 3D medicine printing could advance this process even further. However, the issue of how 3D medicine printing can be implemented within the existing magistral compounding infrastructure has not been explored. Aims To investigate how 3D printing can be integrated into the existing compounding system by taking regulatory, economic, and profession-oriented aspects into account. Methods Semi-structured interviews were conducted with relevant Dutch stakeholders representing various health institutions, such as health ministries and boards, professional bodies, and different types of pharmacies. Participants were identified through purposeful sampling. Content analysis was applied to identify the main themes. Results A total of 15 Dutch stakeholders were interviewed. It was found that the prevalence of compounding in community pharmacies in the Netherlands has decreased as a result of the practice shifting to specialized compounding pharmacies due to higher costs, lack of space, and the need to fulfill quality requirements. All interviewees considered 3D printing to be a promising compounding technique for community pharmacies, as it offers an automated approach with high digital flexibility and enables adapted formulations, including 'polypills.' Regulatory and quality assurance challenges were considered comparable to those of normal magistral products; however, there remain pending regulatory issues regarding quality control, particularly for Active Pharmaceutical Ingredients containing intermediate feedstock materials (e.g., prefilled cartridges) in 3D printing. 3D printing was believed to become cost effective over time. Conclusion In the Netherlands, specialized compounding pharmacies have largely taken over compounding act

Healthcare systems have reached a critical point regarding the question of whether biosimilar substitution should become common practice. To move the discussion forward, the study objective was to investigate the views of experts from medicines agencies and the pharmaceutical industry on the science underpinning interchangeability of biosimilars. We conducted an empirical qualitative study using semi-structured interviews informed by a cross-disciplinary approach encompassing regulatory science, law, and pharmaceutical policy. In total 25 individuals with experience within biologics participated during September 2018-August 2019. Eight participants were EU national medicines authority regulators, and 17 had pharmaceutical industry background: five from two originator-only companies, four from two companies with both biosimilar and originator products, and eight from seven biosimilar-only companies. Two analysts independently conducted inductive content analysis, resulting in data-driven themes capturing the meaning of the data. The participants reported that interchangeability was more than a scientific question of likeness between biosimilar and reference products: it also pertained to regulatory practices and trust. Participants were overall confident in the science behind exchanging biosimilar products for the reference products via switching, i.e., with physician involvement. However, their opinions differed regarding the scientific risk associated with biosimilar substitution, i.e., without physician involvement. Almost all participants saw no need for additional scientific data to support substitution. Moreover, the participants did not believe that switching studies, as required in the US, were appropriate for obtaining scientific certainty due to their small size. It is unclear why biosimilar switching is viewed as scientifically safer than substitution; therefore, we expect greater policy debate on biosimilar substitution in the near future. We urge Europea

Healthcare systems have reached a critical point regarding the question of whether biosimilar substitution should become common practice. To move the discussion forward, the study objective was to investigate the views of experts from medicines agencies and the pharmaceutical industry on the science underpinning interchangeability of biosimilars. We conducted an empirical qualitative study using semi-structured interviews informed by a cross-disciplinary approach encompassing regulatory science, law, and pharmaceutical policy. In total 25 individuals with experience within biologics participated during September 2018-August 2019. Eight participants were EU national medicines authority regulators, and 17 had pharmaceutical industry background: five from two originator-only companies, four from two companies with both biosimilar and originator products, and eight from seven biosimilar-only companies. Two analysts independently conducted inductive content analysis, resulting in data-driven themes capturing the meaning of the data. The participants reported that interchangeability was more than a scientific question of likeness between biosimilar and reference products: it also pertained to regulatory practices and trust. Participants were overall confident in the science behind exchanging biosimilar products for the reference products via switching, i.e., with physician involvement. However, their opinions differed regarding the scientific risk associated with biosimilar substitution, i.e., without physician involvement. Almost all participants saw no need for additional scientific data to support substitution. Moreover, the participants did not believe that switching studies, as required in the US, were appropriate for obtaining scientific certainty due to their small size. It is unclear why biosimilar switching is viewed as scientifically safer than substitution; therefore, we expect greater policy debate on biosimilar substitution in the near future. We urge Europea

Healthcare systems have reached a critical point regarding the question of whether biosimilar substitution should become common practice. To move the discussion forward, the study objective was to investigate the views of experts from medicines agencies and the pharmaceutical industry on the science underpinning interchangeability of biosimilars. We conducted an empirical qualitative study using semi-structured interviews informed by a cross-disciplinary approach encompassing regulatory science, law, and pharmaceutical policy. In total 25 individuals with experience within biologics participated during September 2018-August 2019. Eight participants were EU national medicines authority regulators, and 17 had pharmaceutical industry background: five from two originator-only companies, four from two companies with both biosimilar and originator products, and eight from seven biosimilar-only companies. Two analysts independently conducted inductive content analysis, resulting in data-driven themes capturing the meaning of the data. The participants reported that interchangeability was more than a scientific question of likeness between biosimilar and reference products: it also pertained to regulatory practices and trust. Participants were overall confident in the science behind exchanging biosimilar products for the reference products via switching, i.e., with physician involvement. However, their opinions differed regarding the scientific risk associated with biosimilar substitution, i.e., without physician involvement. Almost all participants saw no need for additional scientific data to support substitution. Moreover, the participants did not believe that switching studies, as required in the US, were appropriate for obtaining scientific certainty due to their small size. It is unclear why biosimilar switching is viewed as scientifically safer than substitution; therefore, we expect greater policy debate on biosimilar substitution in the near future. We urge Europea

Healthcare systems have reached a critical point regarding the question of whether biosimilar substitution should become common practice. To move the discussion forward, the study objective was to investigate the views of experts from medicines agencies and the pharmaceutical industry on the science underpinning interchangeability of biosimilars. We conducted an empirical qualitative study using semi-structured interviews informed by a cross-disciplinary approach encompassing regulatory science, law, and pharmaceutical policy. In total 25 individuals with experience within biologics participated during September 2018-August 2019. Eight participants were EU national medicines authority regulators, and 17 had pharmaceutical industry background: five from two originator-only companies, four from two companies with both biosimilar and originator products, and eight from seven biosimilar-only companies. Two analysts independently conducted inductive content analysis, resulting in data-driven themes capturing the meaning of the data. The participants reported that interchangeability was more than a scientific question of likeness between biosimilar and reference products: it also pertained to regulatory practices and trust. Participants were overall confident in the science behind exchanging biosimilar products for the reference products via switching, i.e., with physician involvement. However, their opinions differed regarding the scientific risk associated with biosimilar substitution, i.e., without physician involvement. Almost all participants saw no need for additional scientific data to support substitution. Moreover, the participants did not believe that switching studies, as required in the US, were appropriate for obtaining scientific certainty due to their small size. It is unclear why biosimilar switching is viewed as scientifically safer than substitution; therefore, we expect greater policy debate on biosimilar substitution in the near future. We urge Europea

Healthcare systems have reached a critical point regarding the question of whether biosimilar substitution should become common practice. To move the discussion forward, the study objective was to investigate the views of experts from medicines agencies and the pharmaceutical industry on the science underpinning interchangeability of biosimilars. We conducted an empirical qualitative study using semi-structured interviews informed by a cross-disciplinary approach encompassing regulatory science, law, and pharmaceutical policy. In total 25 individuals with experience within biologics participated during September 2018-August 2019. Eight participants were EU national medicines authority regulators, and 17 had pharmaceutical industry background: five from two originator-only companies, four from two companies with both biosimilar and originator products, and eight from seven biosimilar-only companies. Two analysts independently conducted inductive content analysis, resulting in data-driven themes capturing the meaning of the data. The participants reported that interchangeability was more than a scientific question of likeness between biosimilar and reference products: it also pertained to regulatory practices and trust. Participants were overall confident in the science behind exchanging biosimilar products for the reference products via switching, i.e., with physician involvement. However, their opinions differed regarding the scientific risk associated with biosimilar substitution, i.e., without physician involvement. Almost all participants saw no need for additional scientific data to support substitution. Moreover, the participants did not believe that switching studies, as required in the US, were appropriate for obtaining scientific certainty due to their small size. It is unclear why biosimilar switching is viewed as scientifically safer than substitution; therefore, we expect greater policy debate on biosimilar substitution in the near future. We urge Europea

Background 3D printing is a promising new technology for medicines' production. It employs additive manufacturing techniques, and is ideal for producing personalized medicines (e.g., patient-tailored dose, dosage form, drug release kinetics). Objective To investigate how 3D printing technologies can be implemented in a European pharmaceutical system, by suggesting different scenarios and assessing aspects that could affect its implementation. Method Qualitative, semi-structured interviews were conducted with key stakeholders (e.g., from ministry, authorities, research organizations, pharmacies) in the Netherlands to elicit perspectives on 3D printing of personalized medicines. The Netherlands were chosen since it has a strong tradition in compounding. Five general scenarios were investigated: placing the 3D printers in industry, community pharmacies, hospital pharmacies, compounding facilities, and in patients' homes. Content analysis was used, building on verbatim transcripts. Results Fifteen stakeholders were interviewed. Regulatory, economic, ethical and organizational challenges were identified to varying degrees in the different scenarios. The industry and home scenarios were associated with the most challenges, hospital pharmacies and compounding facilities with the least. Other important aspects identified were the role of community pharmacies, and who should design the tablets to be printed. Conclusion All potential scenarios for 3D printing of personalized medicines include challenges. These should be taken into account when pursuing the use of 3D printing of medicine.

Background 3D printing is a promising new technology for medicines' production. It employs additive manufacturing techniques, and is ideal for producing personalized medicines (e.g., patient-tailored dose, dosage form, drug release kinetics). Objective To investigate how 3D printing technologies can be implemented in a European pharmaceutical system, by suggesting different scenarios and assessing aspects that could affect its implementation. Method Qualitative, semi-structured interviews were conducted with key stakeholders (e.g., from ministry, authorities, research organizations, pharmacies) in the Netherlands to elicit perspectives on 3D printing of personalized medicines. The Netherlands were chosen since it has a strong tradition in compounding. Five general scenarios were investigated: placing the 3D printers in industry, community pharmacies, hospital pharmacies, compounding facilities, and in patients' homes. Content analysis was used, building on verbatim transcripts. Results Fifteen stakeholders were interviewed. Regulatory, economic, ethical and organizational challenges were identified to varying degrees in the different scenarios. The industry and home scenarios were associated with the most challenges, hospital pharmacies and compounding facilities with the least. Other important aspects identified were the role of community pharmacies, and who should design the tablets to be printed. Conclusion All potential scenarios for 3D printing of personalized medicines include challenges. These should be taken into account when pursuing the use of 3D printing of medicine.

Background 3D printing is a promising new technology for medicines' production. It employs additive manufacturing techniques, and is ideal for producing personalized medicines (e.g., patient-tailored dose, dosage form, drug release kinetics). Objective To investigate how 3D printing technologies can be implemented in a European pharmaceutical system, by suggesting different scenarios and assessing aspects that could affect its implementation. Method Qualitative, semi-structured interviews were conducted with key stakeholders (e.g., from ministry, authorities, research organizations, pharmacies) in the Netherlands to elicit perspectives on 3D printing of personalized medicines. The Netherlands were chosen since it has a strong tradition in compounding. Five general scenarios were investigated: placing the 3D printers in industry, community pharmacies, hospital pharmacies, compounding facilities, and in patients' homes. Content analysis was used, building on verbatim transcripts. Results Fifteen stakeholders were interviewed. Regulatory, economic, ethical and organizational challenges were identified to varying degrees in the different scenarios. The industry and home scenarios were associated with the most challenges, hospital pharmacies and compounding facilities with the least. Other important aspects identified were the role of community pharmacies, and who should design the tablets to be printed. Conclusion All potential scenarios for 3D printing of personalized medicines include challenges. These should be taken into account when pursuing the use of 3D printing of medicine.

Background 3D printing is a promising new technology for medicines' production. It employs additive manufacturing techniques, and is ideal for producing personalized medicines (e.g., patient-tailored dose, dosage form, drug release kinetics). Objective To investigate how 3D printing technologies can be implemented in a European pharmaceutical system, by suggesting different scenarios and assessing aspects that could affect its implementation. Method Qualitative, semi-structured interviews were conducted with key stakeholders (e.g., from ministry, authorities, research organizations, pharmacies) in the Netherlands to elicit perspectives on 3D printing of personalized medicines. The Netherlands were chosen since it has a strong tradition in compounding. Five general scenarios were investigated: placing the 3D printers in industry, community pharmacies, hospital pharmacies, compounding facilities, and in patients' homes. Content analysis was used, building on verbatim transcripts. Results Fifteen stakeholders were interviewed. Regulatory, economic, ethical and organizational challenges were identified to varying degrees in the different scenarios. The industry and home scenarios were associated with the most challenges, hospital pharmacies and compounding facilities with the least. Other important aspects identified were the role of community pharmacies, and who should design the tablets to be printed. Conclusion All potential scenarios for 3D printing of personalized medicines include challenges. These should be taken into account when pursuing the use of 3D printing of medicine.

Background A biosimilar is a biological medicine highly similar to another already approved biological medicine (reference product). The availability of biosimilars promotes competition and subsequently lower prices. Changing the current biosimilar clinical comparability trial requirements may lead to lower biosimilar development costs that potentially could increase patients' access to biologics. Objective The aim was to determine the perceptions of industry and medicines agency regulators regarding the value, necessity, and future developments of the European biosimilar clinical comparability trial requirements for establishing biosimilarity. Methods Semi-structured interviews were conducted with eight European national medicines agency regulators and 17 pharmaceutical company employees or consultants with experience in biologics between September 2018 and August 2019. Data were subjected to content analysis. Results In general, the participants expected that clinical comparability trial requirements will continue to be reduced, in particular based on advancements in analytical testing and knowledge generated from prior biosimilar approvals. However, there are also competing issues at play, such as competition, physician's trust, and ethical considerations. Participants also reported that any new initiative to reduce or waive biosimilar clinical requirements needs to be scientifically sound and could potentially lower biosimilar development costs. Conclusion The main findings are that biosimilar clinical comparability trial requirements are likely to change in the near future. Clarity is needed on how to ensure adequate correlation between physicochemical data, pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic studies, and the drugs' performance in the clinic, as well as how to continue sufficient immunogenicity assessment. Obtaining this clarity can facilitate regulatory assessment of the next biosimilars.

Background 3D printing is a promising new technology for medicines' production. It employs additive manufacturing techniques, and is ideal for producing personalized medicines (e.g., patient-tailored dose, dosage form, drug release kinetics). Objective To investigate how 3D printing technologies can be implemented in a European pharmaceutical system, by suggesting different scenarios and assessing aspects that could affect its implementation. Method Qualitative, semi-structured interviews were conducted with key stakeholders (e.g., from ministry, authorities, research organizations, pharmacies) in the Netherlands to elicit perspectives on 3D printing of personalized medicines. The Netherlands were chosen since it has a strong tradition in compounding. Five general scenarios were investigated: placing the 3D printers in industry, community pharmacies, hospital pharmacies, compounding facilities, and in patients' homes. Content analysis was used, building on verbatim transcripts. Results Fifteen stakeholders were interviewed. Regulatory, economic, ethical and organizational challenges were identified to varying degrees in the different scenarios. The industry and home scenarios were associated with the most challenges, hospital pharmacies and compounding facilities with the least. Other important aspects identified were the role of community pharmacies, and who should design the tablets to be printed. Conclusion All potential scenarios for 3D printing of personalized medicines include challenges. These should be taken into account when pursuing the use of 3D printing of medicine.