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 compou

Objective: In 2021, thrombocytopenia syndrome (TTS) was confirmed by the European Medicines Agency (EMA) as a rare side effect of the COVID-19 adenovirus vector vaccines from AstraZeneca or Janssen. This study aimed to describe the public’s knowledge of TTS and how it affected the willingness to be vaccinated with COVID-19 and other vaccines. Methods: In 2022, a multi-country cross-sectional online survey was conducted in Denmark, Greece, Latvia, Netherlands, Portugal and Slovenia. The minimum target of participants to be recruited was linked to the country’s population. The results were analysed descriptively. Results: In total, 3794 respondents were included in the analysis. Many (33.3% to 68.3%) reported being aware about TTS and its association with the vaccines from AstraZeneca and Janssen, though most were not familiar with the exact symptoms. Changes in willingness to be vaccinated with COVID-19 and other vaccines varied by country. The largest change in the willingness to be vaccinated with AstraZeneca and Janssen vaccines was in Denmark (61.2%), while the largest change in the willingness to be vaccinated with other COVID-19 vaccines was in Slovenia (30.4%). Conclusion: Information about TTS seemed to be considered by the public in the European countries resulting in changed willingness to be vaccinated with the COVID-19 vaccines from AstraZeneca and Janssen. Willingness to be vaccinated against other COVID-19 vaccines and vaccines in general seemed to be determined by the approaches of the national health authorities to react to and communicate about the COVID-19 vaccination risks. Further investigation of risk communication strategies is warranted.

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.