ArticlePharmaceutics2022
3D-Powder-Bed-Printed Pharmaceutical Drug Product Tablets for Use in Clinical Studies.
Article in Pharmaceutics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Toward a harmonized regulatory framework for 3D-printed pharmaceutical products: the role of critical feedstock materials and process parameters.Drug delivery and translational research · 2025Review
- A review of precision medicine in developing pharmaceutical products: Perspectives and opportunities.International journal of pharmaceutics · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Printing of phase 1 and 2a clinical trial formulations represents an interesting industrial application of powder bed printing. Formulations for clinical trials are challenging because they should enable flexible changes in the strength of the dosage form by varying the active pharmaceutical ingredient (API) percentage and tablet mass. The aim of this study was to investigate how powder bed 3D printing can be used for development of flexible platforms for clinical trials, suitable for both hydrophilic and hydrophobic APIs, using only conventional tableting excipients. A series of pre-formulation and formulation studies were performed to develop two platform formulations for clinical trials using acetaminophen and diclofenac sodium as model compounds and lactose and starch as excipients. The results showed that the type of starch used as the formulation binder must be optimized based on the type of API. Moreover, powder blend flow and liquid penetration ability proved to be critical material attributes (CMAs) that need to be controlled, particularly at high drug loading. Optimization of these CMAs was performed by selecting the appropriate particle size of the API or by addition of silica. A critical process parameter that had to be controlled for production of tablets of good quality was the quantity of the printing ink. After optimization of both the formulation and process parameters, two platform formulations, that is, one for each API, were successfully developed. Within each platform, drug loading from 5 up to 50% w/w and tablet mass from 50 to 500 mg were achieved. All 3D-printed tablets could be produced at tensile strength above 0.2 MPa, and most tablets could enable immediate release (i.e., >80% w/w within 30 min).
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.