The commercialization of additive manufacturing (AM) in pharmaceuticals manufacturing has attracted significant attention for its potential to produce customized products. However, the process is slow and hindered by the lack of designated regulatory guidelines tailored to 3D-printed pharmaceutical products (3DPPs). The 3D-printing technology has paved the way for personalized medicine, enabled treatment of rare genetic disorders, and offered many other possibilities for patients. Despite the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval of Spritam®, a clear regulatory framework for licensing 3DPPs by the FDA or EMA remains unavailable. The current practice considers all products the same, regardless of their manufacturing method and/or complexity. While this approach has been generally accepted, it frequently fails to evaluate the unique quality attributes of 3DPPs. The lack of a harmonized regulatory framework tailored to the 3DPPs presents a major barrier to the widespread adoption of AM and other innovative technologies. To bridge this gap, this review highlights the most critical parameters related to the feedstock materials and 3D-printing processes, emphasizing their impact on the quality attributes of finished 3DPPs. Numerous scenarios have been proposed to encourage regulatory authorities to establish robust regulatory guidance for the 3D-printing technology at either industrial or point-of-care (PoC) settings. Coordinated efforts between regulatory authorities, industry partners and other stakeholders are necessary to define product specifications and identify appropriate analytical techniques for evaluating finished 3DPPs. By developing a harmonized regulatory framework and establishing quality control measures, the full potential of AM can be realized. This will ultimately ensure that novel 3DPPs and personalized medicines adhere to rigorous regulatory standards of quality, safety and efficacy.
Alzhrani et al. (Tue,) studied this question.