Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Medicine

Refrigerator-Sized Machine Can Print Pills on Demand (dailymail.co.uk) 113

MIT Researchers have created a new "Pharmacy on Demand" prototype that can produce 1,000 doses of medication every 24 hours. Their new system "can be easily transported in case of outbreaks, supply shortage or if a manufacturing plant shuts down," notes the Daily Mail, and the on-demand technology can address many of the challenges in supplying medications, for example regions without facilities for storing pills. "The dosages don't have to have long-term stability," says the head of MIT's Chemistry department. "People line up, you make it, and they take it." The DARPA-funded researchers produced Valium, Prozac, Benadryl, and lidocaine, and demonstrated that "Within a few hours we could change from one compound to the other." The machine can also switch to a different drug type within a few hours, making it economical to produce drugs needed by only a small number of patients.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Refrigerator-Sized Machine Can Print Pills on Demand

Comments Filter:
  • by damn_registrars ( 1103043 ) <damn.registrars@gmail.com> on Saturday April 02, 2016 @12:06PM (#51828339) Homepage Journal
    More drugs than people realize should be dosed in proportion to the patient's weight. Physicians often go for the closest size of pill to make it easier for the patient; if we could have a machine automatically print the pills of an exact size every month, that could be an important change.

    It would be interesting to see if it can do some of the new tamper-resistant coatings as well.
    • by Anonymous Coward

      So.. you're excited because the drug manufacturing industry is here to solve a problem that they, themselves caused?

      • by damn_registrars ( 1103043 ) <damn.registrars@gmail.com> on Saturday April 02, 2016 @01:00PM (#51828595) Homepage Journal
        The pharmaceutical industry did not create the dosage problem. They are responsible for plenty of problems, but the variety of sizes of humans is not one of them.

        For that matter, the machine would not be producing the drugs, it would just be packaging them. The drugs go in to the machine in some sort of loose form and the machine prints them into pills. Manufacturing is serious chemistry that would be hard to do in a fully automated manner in the field.
        • by Lumpy ( 12016 ) on Saturday April 02, 2016 @01:12PM (#51828659) Homepage

          The funny part is, this machine is nothing special. they have had powdered candy into pill pressing vending machines for 10 YEARS.

          My daughter used to use them on vacation all the time, the kids put in the $2.00 push the buttons to drop in the different color powders and then they press go and it presses the bin of powder into hard candies for them. It is a willy wonka brand.

          So the pharma companies are 10 years behind the candy companies It's very easy to convert the candy machine to a medicine machine. same size pill for everyone, you just adjust the medicine to filler ratio, drop those powders to a mixing chamber and then to the presser, Exactly how they do it in a factory. you could have a rotating die if you just want to adjust pill size, but adding filler is far easier.

          Problem is, their machine either needs to have separate hermetically sealed sections for each medicine, or you will have cross contamination. and who is going to wear the hazmat suit to clean the thing? it will have medical compound dust all over the inside.

          • Well, its a little more complicated that a candy press. It must be able to measure each ingredient in exact portions, evenly mix them, press them to the appropriate size (which might vary), and then be able to clear itself before new mixtures can be produced. All this must come with great precision and reliability, as someone could die if not done correctly.

            I think it would be interesting more for mixing custom meds for those who take several different pills a day. Maybe they could just take one or a few
            • "it would be interesting more for mixing custom meds for those who take several different pills a day. Maybe they could just take one or a few of the same pills that have all the needed ingredients."

              It might be difficult to do that in a reliable way. The fillers/binders and the active ingredients must be compatible in terms of grain size (for reliable, even mixing) and to result in a tablet that doesn't crumble and that dissolves quickly or slowly as desired. To make it work out for every possible combinati

        • For that matter, the machine would not be producing the drugs, it would just be packaging them. The drugs go in to the machine in some sort of loose form and the machine prints them into pills. Manufacturing is serious chemistry that would be hard to do in a fully automated manner in the field.

          The third sentence is correct, but the first is wrong. This new machine does actually do complex chemical synthesis; for an overview of what's impressive about it (as well as which of the researchers' claims are not feasible) see this post: http://blogs.sciencemag.org/pi... [sciencemag.org].

          • This new machine does actually do complex chemical synthesis

            Indeed, that's what the linked article says...

            Me too, I just blindly assumed that it was just packaging pre-manufactured drugs (who does RTFA these days).

            So, after RTFA'ing, and given the very intriguing claims, I CTFD'd, and indeed... :-)

        • For that matter, the machine would not be producing the drugs, it would just be packaging them. The drugs go in to the machine in some sort of loose form and the machine prints them into pills. Manufacturing is serious chemistry that would be hard to do in a fully automated manner in the field.

          No and yes: this is a proof of concept chemical synthesizer, it is making the drugs and then adding more ingredients to make the tablets. It can only make a few different drugs because that is probably all that can be made somewhat efficiently with this configuration. On the other hand you're right: it would be ludicrous to actually use this to make drugs for consumption. When it comes to making something simple like benadryl most of the complications aren't in making it safely, the complications are in leg

        • For that matter, the machine would not be producing the drugs, it would just be packaging them

          That was my reaction (no pun intended!) too at first, but no, this is actually chemical synthesis from starting materials. It is not quite as modular as they imply from the summary. You need to clean and restandardize the system to change product. But the idea is that it is capable of following a programmed synthesis and purification strategy. The purification is actually the coolest part to me. The synthesis uses an optimized flow chemistry design (think no solvents, short reaction times, high temperatures

        • The pharmaceutical industry did not create the dosage problem. They are responsible for plenty of problems, but the variety of sizes of humans is not one of them.

          Maybe so, but they didn't solve the problem either, MIT did.

        • by boa ( 96754 )

          For that matter, the machine would not be producing the drugs, it would just be packaging them. The drugs go in to the machine in some sort of loose form and the machine prints them into pills. Manufacturing is serious chemistry that would be hard to do in a fully automated manner in the field.

          AFAICT, the machine would actually *produce* the drugs.

          The chemical reactions required to synthesize each drug take place in the first of two modules. The reactions were designed so that they can take place at temperatures up to 250 degrees Celsius and pressures up to 17 atmospheres.
          By swapping in different module components, the researchers can easily reconfigure the system to produce different drugs. “Within a few hours we could change from one compound to the other,” Jensen says.
          In the second

    • As someone who has to give his cat 3/4 of a pill twice a day, this would be a very welcome change.

    • It's really the cost of the pharmacy that's inhibiting this, not the drug manufacturing. Compounding pharmacies were essentially the genesis of the profession, but it takes expert skills and knowledge, and is not a high throughout process. So it doesn't fit in with the fast food delivery system for drug dispensing that we use now. There are still some compounding pharmacies around for special niche cases, but outfits like cvs stick with very standardized methods and procedures so that they can hire a skelet

    • by jblues ( 1703158 )

      More drugs than people realize should be dosed in proportion to the patient's weight.

      Psychiatrist here: You're mostly correct, but in the case of anti-depressants, your weight just adjusts upwards to match the dose of the pill given. Until the pill stops working (people get depressed about the weight increase), and so a larger dose is given.

      The important thing is to not stop taking them at any time, and, if necessary, move from a generic to patented formula. If any of this causes anxiety, tachycardia or an allergic type cough, Lidocaine, Valium and Benadryl can be added.

    • More drugs than people realize should be dosed in proportion to the patient's weight. Physicians often go for the closest size of pill to make it easier for the patient; if we could have a machine automatically print the pills of an exact size every month, that could be an important change.

      Huh? Don't you realise that what you describe is PRECISELY dosing by weight. The physician looks at the patient's weight, estimates (from tables, whatever) the mg/kg dosage for the particular body weight, then issues the

      • The physician looks at the patient's weight, estimates (from tables, whatever) the mg/kg dosage for the particular body weight, then issues the appropriate prescription for so many pills per day for the patient.

        The problem I'm after though is that the physician is still limited to the pills that are in existence. If you have a prescription that is sold in 50mg and 100mg tablets, but the patient is best served by a 75mg tablet that doesn't exist, what is the physician to do? Yeah, you can tell the patient to cut 1/3 of their pills in half so they can take 1.5 pills each day, but that is actually quite a bit to ask of the patient and it won't have consistent results in most cases.

        If the doctor wanted me to maintain tighter limits, then he'd have issued 2x5mg pills per day - for morning and evening.

        That is another matter that work

        • Having friends who have been on anti-HIV retrovirals for approaching 2 decades now ... yes, that's difficult. That person's medication has hugely simplified over the years, but it's still a lot. Meanwhile Mum's cocktail is an ever-changing mish-mash that she depends on Dad to keep track of it.

          Quick hint : if getting your medicine protocol right is a matter of life and death, then most people do pay adequate attention to it. Or they end up in hospital (free in our country), or a morgue.

          If you have a prescr

          • if getting your medicine protocol right is a matter of life and death, then most people do pay adequate attention to it.

            Sure, but there are a lot of medications that end up being multiple-doses-per-day ordeals that won't lead to a quick death if they get it wrong. What if the drug is for Alzheimer's? Or Parkinson's? What if it's a diabetes medication or something for a heart condition? Yeah, they can end up dead if they screw it up repeatedly but the change could be so gradual that the patient won't notice it nearly in time.

            To make it worse, Americans pay some of the highest prices for medications anywhere. This le

            • there are a lot of medications that end up being multiple-doses-per-day ordeals that won't lead to a quick death if they get it wrong. What if the drug is for Alzheimer's? Or Parkinson's? What if it's a diabetes medication or something for a heart condition?

              All of these are matters of which I have personal experience. Oh, sorry, not the Parkinsons. That doesn't stop you from getting it right.

              To make it worse, Americans pay some of the highest prices for medications anywhere. This leads a lot of people to ex

              • To make it worse, Americans pay some of the highest prices for medications anywhere. This leads a lot of people to experiment with their own modified dosage to save money. [SNIP] Unfortunately I live in the US, where the most common cause of bankruptcy is currently medical bills

                My sympathies. If you have the option, leave, and take as many of your families and tax payments with you

                Thank you. Unfortunately leaving the US permanently is not as easy as some people suggest. I know this from having looked in to it in the past. Back in 2004 when the second President Bush managed to steal his second election, I started looking to see what it would take to move to Canada. Even with both my wife and I having at least four-year degrees (I have an advanced degree beyond my BSci) moving still required a job offer for at least one of us - we couldn't move first and then start looking for work

  • by 50000BTU_barbecue ( 588132 ) on Saturday April 02, 2016 @12:10PM (#51828361) Journal

    Just how far are we from Niven's autodocs now? We could medicate the psychopaths among us, so instead of becoming CEOs that steal and plunder ever more, we could neutralize their harmful tendencies humanely, and finally usher in the post-industrial leisure society?

    • by newcastlejon ( 1483695 ) on Saturday April 02, 2016 @12:30PM (#51828441)

      Just how far are we from Niven's autodocs now?

      A very, very long way. Autodocs were more about fully automated surgery and organ replacement rather than dispensing drugs. I particularly remember a case where one of the Wus is exposed to vacuum and the autodoc aboard ship replaces both lungs without any human intervention; one would have to assume that people are flying around with all manner of organs stored aboard just in case. Before we have anything like that I think we'll see something more like an automated pharmacy that takes blood samples, analyses them and manufactures/dispenses exactly what the patient needs... even medication for paranoid schizophrenics.

      • "A very, very long way."

        OK, but there's a way? Just kidding. I know it's just a figment of a terrible sci-fi writer's imagination.

      • by Agripa ( 139780 )

        Before we have anything like that I think we'll see something more like an automated pharmacy that takes blood samples, analyses them and manufactures/dispenses exactly what the patient needs... even medication for paranoid schizophrenics.

        That was the most common use for NIven's autodocs besides giving a manicure. The portable docs carried by the first Ringworld expedition were not any more capable and had limited consumables. They could diagnose various conditions through blood tests, administer medicati

  • ...this is better than using manual pill molds plus drying/baking...how?

    • by SNRatio ( 4430571 ) on Saturday April 02, 2016 @12:48PM (#51828535)
      This is a proof of concept flow synthesizer that makes the APIs (chemical compounds) and then formulates them with excipients to make the pills. Flow synthesis is definitely going to become more and more useful, but for emergency situations it's absolutely useless. You'd be much better off sending a 50 gallon carboy full of drugs then an easily damaged frig size synthesizer, drums full of solvents and reagents, a generator and gas to run it, etc. It's like sending a 3D printer on a camping trip instead of a box of plastic cutlery.
      • It's like sending a 3D printer on a camping trip instead of a box of plastic cutlery.

        You say this like it's a problem.

        • Hey, it's your backpack. By all means, carry a cow instead of steaks.
          • Cows carry themselves.

  • So how much longer until we have actual Atomic 3D Printers?

  • by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Saturday April 02, 2016 @12:44PM (#51828511)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion
    • A refrigerator size synthesizer will be a hideously expensive way to make drugs which then can't be legally sold except on the black market. I.e., the FDA has to approve each manufacturing site individually.
    • We don't need anything to make Daraprim. We just have to get the FDA out of the 19th century and understand that the REST OF THE WORLD can manufacture perfectly fine chemicals. Even places like Columbia and Afghanistan. It's not hard.

      • by Lumpy ( 12016 ) on Saturday April 02, 2016 @01:14PM (#51828669) Homepage

        It's not they are out of date, its that the FDA is owned and paid for by big US pharma companies.

        The FDA STILL says that getting drugs from canada for a discount is DANGEROUS!

        Canadian drugs are the EXACT SAME drugs in the USA and made on the same line, their government just doesn't allow the companies to violently rape their citizens on price.

      • Oh yeah, the 19th century, back when anyone could slap a label on bottle and call it medicine. Which is still what happens if you don't have a safety agency that actually tours the plants, reads the QC documents, tests samples, and then bans/fines companies that try to fake it. We do import drugs and chemicals from all over the world. Just like drugs and chemicals made here, they can be absolute shit if no one is doing due diligence.
        • by mi ( 197448 )

          In other words, too much freedom is bad for you, citizen. The omniscient and benevolent government officials will protect you. Even if you already have a terminal disease, that will kill you in 6 months, you can not be allowed to take a drug, until we've evaluated its safety for 5 years.

          Just like drugs and chemicals made here, they can be absolute shit if no one is doing due diligence.

          You, sir, can be a homicidal maniac and must not be allowed on the street until a diligent government official has determine

          • Even if you already have a terminal disease, that will kill you in 6 months, you can not be allowed to take a drug, until we've evaluated its safety for 5 years.

            Well, you could have a look at how long it takes the FDA to turn around applications on one of the accelerated approval tracks or how they relax safety standards for cancer, or how most cancer drugs fail in phase III because it turns out they are ineffective. But hey, let's just look at what happens with "too much freedom". Mostly: is the goal to create and distribute effective drugs or is the goal to sell whatever you want? Here are the two basic problems.

            1. OK: you have cancer. Would you rather enroll

            • gah, editing:

              1. OK: you have cancer. Would you rather enroll in a clinical trial with less than 50% chance of receiving the drug, or just ask for the drug? If most people just choose to take the drug, does the clinical trial ever enroll enough patients to determine its endpoints? Hint: getting enough patients to enroll is already a huge problem in some areas of drug research. Also, if you think that random doctors writing case reports about their uncontrolled, open label uses of an investigational drug y

              • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

                by mi ( 197448 )

                Would you rather [...]

                Now, you are offering me a choice. FDA does not. And I don't need to "look into it" — I have a very close friend waiting for FDA's approval of "experimental" treatment for him. He's been waiting for over 18 months now.

                I'm more worried about what happens to our medical system when doctors and companies have the freedom to put random chemicals into people's bodies.

                Doctors would not have that freedom my way either. But people would.

                Neither your way nor mine is bullet-proof — i

                • So you're ok with follks making and selling fraudulent and ineffective drugs? How exactly would you suggest preventing the practice under your model? If it's "let the market decide", how does the market decide when no one (not the pharmas, not the docs, not the patients, not the lawyers for the class action and malpractice suits: no one) has the information necessary to determine which drugs are worthwhile?
                  • by mi ( 197448 )

                    So you're ok with folks making and selling fraudulent and ineffective drugs?

                    Any and all false advertisement must be prosecuted. But only after they are made — not per-emptively.

                    How exactly would you suggest preventing the practice under your model?

                    The same way it is prevented now in most other markets except, for some reason, healthcare.

                    If it's "let the market decide", how does the market decide when no one (not the pharmas, not the docs, not the patients, not the lawyers for the class action and malp

                    • Any and all false advertisement must be prosecuted. But only after they are made — not per-emptively.

                      Again - how would anyone prove it?

                      The same way it is prevented now in most other markets except, for some reason, healthcare.

                      Because in healthcare there's really no way to prove it without running trials. Are you expecting class action lawyers to run them on contingency?

                      How does the FDA know today? Oh, they don't! So they ask for evidence and trials and whatnot, right? Well, some consumers may choose to wait for such trials to conclude and for such evidence to emerge. But no one would be legally obligated to.

                      Oh. Trials. Run by whom? Companies won't - why bother if they can sell the drugs without them? A well run trial just means a risk of having the drug proven unsellable. Consumer Reports? OK. Do you have ~$100B per year to spare to fund that operation, or will they do it based on magazine subscriptions?

                    • by mi ( 197448 )

                      Again - how would anyone prove it?

                      If no one can prove it, then it is not fraud, is it? Presumption of innocence, right? Right?!

                      Oh. Trials. Run by whom? Companies won't - why bother if they can sell the drugs without them?

                      Presumably, the consumers want to see these trials and would not buy the medicines (in sufficient quantities) without them — so, yes, companies would do it. But if that assumption is not valid, then FDA's continuing existence is tyranny — it protects us from things, we do not w

                    • by Dog-Cow ( 21281 )

                      Presumption of innocence, right?

                      That concept is applied (in theory), by the legal system, when prosecuting alleged criminals. It is not used by ordinary people deciding whether to chance taking some poison just because they have a tummy ache.

                      Your use of the phrase in this discussion informs me that you are a naive idiot or a shill. Either way, please trial every medicine that comes your way.

                    • by mi ( 197448 )

                      It is not used by ordinary people deciding whether to chance taking some poison just because they have a tummy ache.

                      My opponent spoke of fraud, which is a crime — in the very legal sense of the word.

                      People deciding, whether or not to take a particular medicine would have a large number of options — being legally barred by the government from exercising some of those options is a sign of tyranny, not a free country.

                      you are a naive idiot or a shill

                      Darling, behave yourself and don't use name-calli

  • the challenges in supplying medications, for example regions without facilities for storing pills

    How hard is it to store pills, FFS? So they will need a facility to store this machine instead then. Sales talk at its finest.

  • Producing less than 50 pills an hour? This would not be any good for anything but the smallest drug stores, and they have no need for it. This would be awful in an epidemic.
    • Then put another machine on the other side of town.

      That's kind of like saying that a gas powered generator is useless because it can only power one house.

      • Do you have any idea how many pills a city needs? The average adult has 12 prescriptions per year, and these pill machines can't fill many of them (insulin, liquid antibiotics, etc.), BTW - you'd be far better off hooking up a diesel locomotive to the mains than "getting another generator." Almost 2 MW of electricity [haya.qc.ca], but it made a mess driving it off the tracks and 1000 feet on city streets.
    • by mi ( 197448 )

      Producing less than 50 pills an hour?

      3D printers aren't especially high-yield either...

  • I read about this yesterday, assumed it was BS.
  • OK, this is a medium-sized pill processor that can be made up to dispense, out of some level of raw materials, pills. Some of the raw materials (whether they are fully-synthesized, nearly-so, or in base stock) will need to be kept cold in places where this sort of thing makes sense.

    So instead of shipping one of these do-dads that can do one thing at a time (and takes HOURS to switch over to a new product), why not ship a refrigerator filled with boxes of fully-finished pills? Surely the reliability is high

  • While we're on the subject of automation for pharmaceuticals, I've been wondering lately if druggists' jobs couldn't be a lot more automated. Instead of dispensing and counting out pills by hand, why couldn't it be done like surface mount devices: tape and reel? Have your pick and place dispensing machine automatically mount the correct pill reel, count out the right number of pills into a bottle, label it, and you're done.
  • If it can print Vicodins, I'll take 2.

  • Make this machine produce MDMA pills and I can guarantee its success.
    MDMA is also known as ecstasy, or molly.

    • by Z00L00K ( 682162 )

      Heroin, PCP, THC etc... It would become very popular.

      • by GuB-42 ( 2483988 )

        PCP is not that popular anymore. It seems that ketamine takes all the love.
        But seriously, for an emergency supply of drugs, opiates (like heroin, aka. diamorphine) and anesthetics (like ketamine) definitely have their place. And while these specific substances are usually not the first choice for human intervention, they are still used in a medical setting.

        As for THC, well, it literally grows on trees. You don't really need a machine for this.

  • If you have a steady supply of electricity, the refrigerator-sized machine needed to supply pills is called a "refrigerator". If you don't have a steady supply of electricity, a complex gadget like this will be worthless in a disaster.

The bomb will never go off. I speak as an expert in explosives. -- Admiral William Leahy, U.S. Atomic Bomb Project

Working...