Building Value Layer by Layer: Costing Insights into 3D-printing Pharmaceuticals at the Point of Care.

Abstract

Aim: This study aims to evaluate the economic profile of novel 3D-printed nadolol tablets using SSE 3DP technology and compares their costing to conventional compounding methods through various case scenarios involving different production volumes. Method: A comprehensive Total Cost of Ownership (TCO) model was implemented to assess direct and indirect costs associated with 3DP and conventional compounding methods. The study focused on two types of 3D printers, Felix V1.5 and DoserRx, to investigate their economic profiles and primary cost determinants in the production process costs of nadolol at 10 mg and 40 mg and to assess their cost efficiency compared to conventional compounding. Key cost factors were analysed, including raw materials, labour, energy consumption, maintenance, and amortisation of machines and equipment. Results: Amortisation of machines and equipment was identified as the primary cost determinant, comprising 58 % of the total production process costs. The study found that while At a low utilisation rate of 5% (one patient), the Felix V1.5 3D printer had an annual cost of nadolol 10 mg of £4,308. The DoserRx was higher at £16,780 compared to £1,596 for conventional compounding, representing a 90% increase in the total production cost. At full utilisation (100% or 24 patients), the gap in cost between DoserRx and conventional compounding narrowed to £41,086 while conventional is £3,830. DoserRx offered a more cost-efficient option for multiple production runs at a higher utilisation level. However, despite its high initial investment, the Felix V1.5 offered a comparable cost profile to DoserRx for multiple productions. DoserRx compounding remained competitive compared to other methods, saving up to 42% of the total cost. This highlights the importance of maximising machine utilisation to fabricate more pharmaceutical products to achieve economic viability. Conclusion: While 3D printing offers significant customisation benefits, its economic profile depends on the type of printer, the system used and achieving high utilisation of the 3DP machines to offset initial and operational costs. Although 3D-printed pharmaceuticals could be more cost-efficient for personalised medicines at the point of care, especially at higher utilisation rates of the machines and particularly for special populations of patients, conventional compounding remains a more economical option for small-volume production.