Advertisement

Challenges and Opportunities for Patient Centric Drug Product Design: Industry Perspectives

  • Matthew D. BurkeEmail author
  • Melissa Keeney
  • Rochelle Kleinberg
  • Rubi Burlage
Commentary

Abstract

For an industry dedicated to preventing and treating disease, the concept of patient centric drug product design is remarkably new, yet it is beginning to transform medicinal development. The paternalistic paradigm of delivering efficacious and safe medicinal products, with inconsistent emphasis on patient centric considerations, is no longer sufficient. Patient expectations have evolved, and treatment use must complement patients’ daily lives. While designing medicines to facilitate patients’ use is now expected, the patient diversity across sub-populations and markets as well as industrial factors such as physicochemical properties, supply chain and shelf life aspects may preclude the development of a single, universal patient centric solution that meets all the needs of those with a particular disease. The objective of this publication is to highlight the complexities of implementing patient centric drug product design through a hypothetical HIV case study using the existing development and business processes to raise awareness and to suggest opportunities for collaboration.

Key Words

dosage form design drug product design patient centric patient focused drug development patient insights 

Notes

References

  1. 1.
    Yoeman G, Furlong P, Seres M, Binder H, Chung H, Garzya V, et al. Defining patient centricity with patients for patients and caregivers: a collaborative endeavor. BMJ Innov. 2017;0:1–8.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Stegmann S, Ternik RL, Onder G, Khan MA, van Riet-Nales DA. Defining patient centric pharmaceutical drug product design. AAPS J. 2016;18(5):1047–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    European Medicines Agency, 18 May 2017, Draft Reflection paper on the pharmaceutical development of medicines for use in the older population, EMA/CHMP/QWP/292439/2017Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Drumond N, van Riet-Nales DA, Karapinar-Carkit F, Stegemann S. Patients’ appropriateness, acceptability, usability and preferences for pharmaceutical preparations: results from a literature review on clinical evidence. Int J Pharm. 2017;521:294–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Greb E. Conference coverage: new dose of Glatiramer acetate may have advantages, compared with standard dose. Neurology reviews. 2014. 2014;22(6):15.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Armon L, Frohner R, Lachman H, Umansky T, Kott E. Conference abstract: quality of life in MS patients during copaxone treatment. J Neuroimmunol. 1995;56-63(56–63, Supplement 1):27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Heinemann L. The failure of Exubera: are we beating a dead horse? J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2008;2(3):518–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kararli T, Sedo K, Bossart J. Injectables: The new oral? Contract pharma, April 2016.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
  10. 10.
    Chieffo C, Cook D, Xiang Q, Frohman LA. Efficacy and safety of an octreotide implant in the treatment of patients with acromegaly. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2013;98(10):4047–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Collected from Drugs@FDA: FDA Approved Drug Products, https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cder/daf/index.cfm
  12. 12.
    The voice of the patient, human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) patient-focused drug development and HIV cure research, report date: march 2014, https://www.fda.gov/downloads/forindustry/userfees/prescriptiondruguserfee/ucm389379.pdf
  13. 13.
    Ostermann J, Derrick C, Hobbie A, Weinhold A, Al-Shareef N, Yelverton V, Weissman S, Albrecht H, Thielman N. Who wants to switch? Gauging interest in potential new antiretroviral therapies. CROI Conference, Seattle, Washington, March 4–7, 2018.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Corneli A, Perry B, McKenna K, Agot K, Ahmed K, Taylor J, et al. Participants’ explanations for nonadherence in the FEM-PrEP clinical trial. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2016;71(4):452–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Burke, M.D. Transforming the patient experience through long acting injectable/implantable formulations: New opportunities and technologies, AAPS annual conference, Washington, DC, USA. Nov 2018.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Implant patent WO 2017/222903 A1.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Implant patent WO 2010/072844 A1.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kleinberg, L. 2016. Polifeprosan 20, 3.85% carmustine slow release wafer in malignant glioma: patient selection and perspectives on a low-burden therapy. Patient Prefer Adherence. 2016; 10: 2397–2406.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.GlaxoSmithKlineCollegevilleUSA
  2. 2.Eli Lilly and CompanyIndianapolisUSA
  3. 3.Johnson and JohnsonNew YorkUSA
  4. 4.Merck Research LaboratoriesKenilworthUSA

Personalised recommendations