pharmaceutical packaging

[caitlin]

Hi all, can any one explain what are the benefits of pharmaceutical packaging? How it is differ from general packaging methods?

[Dekan]

Hi all, can any one explain what are the benefits of pharmaceutical packaging? How it is differ from general packaging methods?

 

Well obviously, you make a small pill look impressive, by putting the small pill in a big package.

 

This benefits the pharmaceutical industry, the packaging industry, and the pill-swallower via placebo-effect.

[Phi for All]

Blister packs keep pills from scraping against each other, making the dosages more consistent. It's also easier to tell how many you've previously taken than pills from a bottle. They're also more moisture-resistant than bottles that have been opened.

 

Other products use blister packaging as well. Are there any specific "general packaging methods" you had in mind? Other pharmaceutical packaging you had in mind besides blisters? That was the only type I could think of off the top of my head.

[Dekan]

Blister packs keep pills from scraping against each other, making the dosages more consistent. It's also easier to tell how many you've previously taken than pills from a bottle. They're also more moisture-resistant than bottles that have been opened.

 

Other products use blister packaging as well. Are there any specific "general packaging methods" you had in mind? Other pharmaceutical packaging you had in mind besides blisters? That was the only type I could think of off the top of my head.

 

But why do you need "blister packaging" of pills? To keep the pills from scraping against each other?

 

No - the pills could all be put in a small brown bottle, with a white plastic screw-cap which could easily be undone.

 

The purpose of this difficult "blister-packaging" must be:

 

1. To make the pills look impressive ( sealed in their tough plastic shells )

2. To make them hard to get at, without tearing a fingernail or using a sharp knife

3. To give a sense of achievement when they're finally swallowed.

 

Pure placebo effect - which is all the pills probably do anyway

[Phi for All]

But why do you need "blister packaging" of pills? To keep the pills from scraping against each other?

 

No - the pills could all be put in a small brown bottle, with a white plastic screw-cap which could easily be undone.

When tablets rub against each other in a bottle, a bit of the drug is scraped off, wasted in the bottom of the bottle. And after the bottle is opened, moisture can cause tablets and capsules to stick together.

 

The purpose of this difficult "blister-packaging" must be:

 

1. To make the pills look impressive ( sealed in their tough plastic shells )

2. To make them hard to get at, without tearing a fingernail or using a sharp knife

3. To give a sense of achievement when they're finally swallowed.

 

Pure placebo effect - which is all the pills probably do anyway

This is the Engineering section, where engineering answers are usually sought. We don't have a marketing section, sorry. Perhaps you want the Psychiatry and Psychology section?

[CaptainPanic]

This is the Engineering section, where engineering answers are usually sought. We don't have a marketing section, sorry. Perhaps you want the Psychiatry and Psychology section?

I agree with Dekan that the packaging has everything to do with marketing.

 

Also, you should realize that the packaging of pharmaceutical products accounts for a very (very!!) tiny part of the total production costs. I mean, the packaging is no more expensive than for chewing gum, which also comes in blister packaging. We're talking cents per pack, not more.

 

They can easily spend some money on the packaging when the actual costs are the patent costs, research and testing.

 

And no, there is hardly any engineering involved. Also, I don't think it is very different from other packaging methods.

[Phi for All]

I agree with Dekan that the packaging has everything to do with marketing.

Being more successful at moisture and gas protection to ensure a longer shelf life is NOT marketing, it's effective engineering that helps the manufacturers and distributors more than the customers. Being more successful at helping customers with dosage schedules is NOT marketing, it's effective engineering that promotes safety and better health. Being more successful at helping seniors open the packaging is NOT marketing, it's effective engineering aimed at ease of use for the largest group of users. These things can, of course, be touted as benefits in the company's marketing platform, along with other properties of the drug in question. But to say, "the packaging has everything to do with marketing" is a false statement, imo.

 

Also, you should realize that the packaging of pharmaceutical products accounts for a very (very!!) tiny part of the total production costs. I mean, the packaging is no more expensive than for chewing gum, which also comes in blister packaging. We're talking cents per pack, not more.

 

They can easily spend some money on the packaging when the actual costs are the patent costs, research and testing.

I've re-read the thread several times now and have completely failed to understand where this argument is coming from. Did someone mention that packaging costs were prohibitive or detrimental in any way? Just like Dekan's argument that blister packs are, "To make them hard to get at, without tearing a fingernail or using a sharp knife", I fail to see how this supports the It's-only-marketing stance. Maybe I need more coffee, or some kind of blister-packed caffeine pill.

 

I have read where blister packaging is used a great deal more in Europe than in the US, but that it's starting to pick up here as well. Is there some kind of prejudice against this practice that I'm not aware of, something that would bias you against any kind of performance-based analysis?

 

And no, there is hardly any engineering involved. Also, I don't think it is very different from other packaging methods.

Please forgive me. I was going by the section the OP chose for this thread, mistakenly believing it had some relevance.

[CaptainPanic]

Being more successful at moisture and gas protection to ensure a longer shelf life is NOT marketing, it's effective engineering that helps the manufacturers and distributors more than the customers. Being more successful at helping customers with dosage schedules is NOT marketing, it's effective engineering that promotes safety and better health. Being more successful at helping seniors open the packaging is NOT marketing, it's effective engineering aimed at ease of use for the largest group of users. These things can, of course, be touted as benefits in the company's marketing platform, along with other properties of the drug in question. But to say, "the packaging has everything to do with marketing" is a false statement, imo.

I stand corrected. These are valid points. The shelf life is one I had not even thought of. I feel a little stupid now... it's so obvious.

[Phi for All]

I stand corrected. These are valid points. The shelf life is one I had not even thought of. I feel a little stupid now... it's so obvious.

Well, I feel a little stupid defending packaging so fiercely, especially when I actually support measures aimed at reducing as much packaging as possible. But in this instance, I think the marketing angle is merely a by-product that's capitalized on and the main goal is to insure that people take their meds in a timely and safe manner.

 

The only viable marketing angle I can see is that flat packaging allows for a better composition space for ad graphics than a label on a rounded bottle surface. But that's offset engineering-wise by the fact that flat packaging is easier and more economical to pack and ship, so again it seems like the marketing perks are secondary to the practical ones.

 

Perhaps my defense was an overreaction to Dekan's flippant remark, "Pure placebo effect - which is all the pills probably do anyway". I don't take many medications, but the ones I've taken have all been exceptionally effective at alleviating the symptoms I took them for in the first place.

[StringJunky]

There's no point spending hundreds of millions putting a product through stringent time-consuming safety trials then chucking them out in less than ergonomic containers that don't seek to maximise shelf-life...it could compromise safety, accessibilty and drug efficacy.

[InigoMontoya]

Placebos are addictive and overdoses of placebos can cause death. Huh. I learned something new today.

Edited September 14, 2012 by InigoMontoya

[Bill Angel]

I also think that it has to do with retail marketing. Shelf space in a supermarket or drug store is a valuable commodity and flat packs make better use of this space than does round bottles whose contents are mostly empty space.