Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42728466›Full record

ReviewThe AAPS journal2026

Four Decades of History & Evolution of Clinical Pharmacology at US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-Part II: Dose Individualization and Approvability Evidence.

Mehul Mehta

Abstract readHistorical ArticleReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in The AAPS journal, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Mehul MehtaDivision of Neuropsychiatric Products, Office of Clinical Pharmacology, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, US Food and Drug Administration, Room 2178, Building 51, 10903 New Hampshire Avenue, Silver Spring, Maryland, 20993, USA. mehul.mehta@fda.hhs.gov.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4973-3822

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The Office of Clinical Pharmacology (OCP) is a part of the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER) at the FDA. OCP is likely the largest group of scientists with expertise in the evaluation of all aspects of clinical pharmacology in new drug development, approval, and life cycle management. This article details the growth of this office over the last 40 years from one small Division of Biopharmaceutics (DB) in 1986, with staff of about 30 members carrying a large backlog of applications, to the current OCP of approximately 270 scientists with needed resources to carry out thousands of reviews and industry meetings in a timely manner. The growth of OCP is detailed with milestone developments in the areas of biopharmaceutics (BP) and CP science, which became a part of the review focus of new drug and biological applications over the last 40 years. Part I covered the organizational evolution of the OCP and the first segment of its scientific growth, i.e., bioanalysis, specific topics in the areas of bioavailability (BA) and bioequivalence (BE), biosimilars, and new drug applications (NDAs) on the basis of Sect. 505(b)(2) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDC Act). Part II covers the areas of metabolism and drug‒drug interactions (DDI), including DDI-induced fatal terfenadine cardiotoxicity, special populations, pediatric efficacy extrapolation, pharmacogenomics, quantitative clinical pharmacology (QCP), and conclusions.

Indexed as

Drug ApprovalPharmacology, ClinicalUnited States Food and Drug AdministrationHistory, 20th CenturyHistory, 21st CenturyHumansTherapeutic EquivalencyUnited Statesdrug‒drug interactionspediatric efficacy extrapolationpharmacogenomicsspecial populationsterfenadine cardiotoxicity

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.