Fashion + Tech

[Dannyalcatraz]

Near term...say...up to 2030? I agree. Long term, though, its a technology like any other: it will become more efficient, and as adopters continue to buy, prices will fall. Miniaturization will make the machinery more practical to operate in smaller scale operations.

And, of course, the ILLICIT drug trade will be all over that.

 

[Umbran]

And, of course, the ILLICIT drug trade will be all over that.

The excellent thing about 3D printers is how they allow us to create physical forms. It is not a "perform arbitrary chemical reactions machine".

The drug trade isn't cared so much about the *shape* of things, merely their chemical composition.

 

[TarionzCousin]

I suspect that spokeswoman is not a natural redhead.

 

[Scott DeWar]

To be honest, it is probably harder to produce than surgical cleanliness. Surgical cleanliness is produced largely by using things that are disposable or can be put in an autoclave. And the compounding pharmacies have to prevent chemical cross-contamination, but they're typically about *oral* medications, and the human digestive system handles a lot.

The procedures to meet FDA approval for the original chemical (or biological) production of drugs, though, is an order more complicated and difficult. And the mechanism of a 3D printer has more in common with the biopharma production machinery than it does with surgical scalpels - pipes and nozzles, small, good places for microbes and contaminants to hide.

Not that it couldn't be done. But in the near term, I would expect it not to be done on the scale of each hospital. Maybe one production facility in each major city...

re: 1/ major city
That sounds feasible. The clean room conditions needed just to manufacture the medium would be tricky at best, not to mention the 'nooks and crannies' of the mechanism of the print head hiding little buggies and such.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

The excellent thing about 3D printers is how they allow us to create physical forms. It is not a "perform arbitrary chemical reactions machine".

The drug trade isn't cared so much about the *shape* of things, merely their chemical composition.

True, but just last year, I was looking at articles by people in the medical/pharma field* who were speculating that the tech could be bent to the task of creating a more efficient way of creating & distributing medications.

And if it is possible to do so, the illicit drug trade will be alllllll over it.

It isn't a today issue, or even a tomorrow issue. But it could well be a day after tomorrow tech.

* Such as:
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-17744314

http://www.pharmacytimes.com/public...ional-Drug-Printing-Potential-in-the-Pharmacy

 

[Umbran]

True, but just last year, I was looking at articles by people in the medical/pharma field* who were speculating that the tech could be bent to the task of creating a more efficient way of creating & distributing medications.

Not so much creating as packaging. In one of the articles you linked to speaks about, for example:

"If common medications for chronic diseases were available in the 3-D printer, a customized “polypill” could be created that could potentially contain all the medications a patient needs in 1 pill. Think of how much easier it would be for a patient to take 1 pill daily instead of 15, of how much this could improve adherence."

So, more about dispensing than creating drugs.

And another speaker also notes:

"Meeting the regulatory requirements of the US Food and Drug Administration could be a hurdle to be cleared before large-scale use of 3-D printed products could be realized. We are talking about an immensely complex regulation process. Different manufacturing regulations and state board requirements could impose obstacles to the adoption of the drug printers in practice. An imperative difference must be established to distinguish drug printers as manufacturing or compounding technologies."

And if it is possible to do so, the illicit drug trade will be alllllll over it.

For the illicit trade - so they can make what they have in the form of a pill. Yippee.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Not so much creating as packaging. In one of the articles you linked to speaks about, for example:

"If common medications for chronic diseases were available in the 3-D printer, a customized “polypill” could be created that could potentially contain all the medications a patient needs in 1 pill. Think of how much easier it would be for a patient to take 1 pill daily instead of 15, of how much this could improve adherence."

So, more about dispensing than creating drugs.

Actually, we're kinda talking the same thing. A polypill is a combination of drugs in one gelcap, capsule, solid pill (or other forms). There are a few in the market today.

To create one with a 3D printer, you'd have to combine the pharmaceuticals, binders and whatnot according to a formula, just like a standard pill today. So in the sense that it is packaging things from a known formula, it is sort of "dispensing".

But it is doing so in individually customized pills- something we can't really do today. Not with any efficiency, that is. And since it would be making pills that at pharmacologically unique, it would be "creating drugs".

Ditto the case in which they're talking about tailoring things like chemotherapy or gene therapy.

And another speaker also notes:

"Meeting the regulatory requirements of the US Food and Drug Administration could be a hurdle to be cleared before large-scale use of 3-D printed products could be realized. We are talking about an immensely complex regulation process. Different manufacturing regulations and state board requirements could impose obstacles to the adoption of the drug printers in practice. An imperative difference must be established to distinguish drug printers as manufacturing or compounding technologies."

That's all a given. Of course there would be regulatory hurdles to jump. And the EU and other major countries would have their own regulations as well.

For the illicit trade - so they can make what they have in the form of a pill. Yippee.

Well, yeah.

They already make their own pills. If the 3D tech is compact and clean enough, it would make detecting their manufacturing sites much harder to find. If pharma-printers become able to work from downloadable formulas or data on a removable drive and the right mix of ingredients, the task become harder still.

For instance, if the Hell's Angels want to make a meth lab today, one hurdle they face is that it is currently much harder to acquire sudafed than it was 30 years ago. But if your pharma-printer can make sudafed- or just the ingredients you need from it- with substances that aren't scrutinized the same way sudafed is, meth labs get that much harder to find.

It is potentially like how, before OKC and a couple of other events, certain fertilizers could be ordered with impunity. But now, ammonium nitrate fertilizer is not only scrutinized, each maker includes microscopic beads that are unique identifiers for the manufacturers.

...except you might not be able to include analogous tracing techniques in a pharma-printer, since that could potentially screw u the machine and/or the efficacy of the product.

 

[Umbran]

But it is doing so in individually customized pills- something we can't really do today. Not with any efficiency, that is. And since it would be making pills that at pharmacologically unique, it would be "creating drugs".

With respect, we *can* do it today. It isn't all that difficult. It is called "compounding", and any compounding pharmacy can do it. My wife (a veterinarian) gets things compounded for her patients pretty much every day.

We don't do it much these days for humans much, not because of an technical difficulties*, but because insurance companies find it unnecessary, and won't pay for it. And it is only an option for drugs to be taken with the same frequency and conditions. You can't compound the "Once Daily, with food" with the "Twice daily, on an empty stomach" drugs, and the 3d printer won't change that.

*There are some - mostly in the binding agents. F'rex: some meds like binder X, others binder Y, and you *can't* put them together, as they won't bind up properly.

Ditto the case in which they're talking about tailoring things like chemotherapy or gene therapy.

Again, chemotherapy drugs are already tailored. Carefully. And, since they are generally intravenous, you don't need a printer for them.

For instance, if the Hell's Angels want to make a meth lab today, one hurdle they face is that it is currently much harder to acquire sudafed than it was 30 years ago. But if your pharma-printer can make sudafed- or just the ingredients you need from it- with substances that aren't scrutinized the same way sudafed is, meth labs get that much harder to find.

Well, this is my point - it might be able to print you a pill of sudafed, but only if it has pseudoephedrine in its stock. It can't make pseudoephedrine from base materials. It is a printer, not a "general chemical reaction machine". You're asking for a printer that not only puts out photo-quality prints, but also creates its own ink!

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Like I said, "not with any efficiency." Compounding takes a fair bit of time: there is something my mom had to get from a local compounding pharmacy here in D/FW, one of our country's top 10 metropolitan areas. It took them nearly a week to get the supplies for that particular combo.

And as for the base materials point you're raising, Prof. Lee Cronin of Glascow University is one who talking about doing exactly that. He is working towards using 3D printing to make pharmaceuticals from base elements & some simple reagents. While he says he's still 5-10 years away from a real commercially viable "chemputer" (as he calls them), at a TEDtalk, he did claim that his prototype model successfully produced ibuprofen.

Like the dress, it was probably slowly and inefficiently made, and even more likely, was not pure enough to be medically useful,mwhich is why he has said that his work is in "the Sci-Fi" stage.

http://www.chem.gla.ac.uk/cronin/

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Side note on binders: they're a non-trivial issue.

My mom has been on synthroid my whole life. They switched her to a generic @5 years ago, to save money. She lost 50lbs and developed what they initially thought was ALS. Turns out, she had had a toxic reaction to a binder in the generic. They had to put her back on synthroid.