ArticleThe Journal of clinical and aesthetic dermatology2026
The Misuse of Drug Compounding in the United States.
Article in The Journal of clinical and aesthetic dermatology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This commentary examines the regulatory, clinical, and ethical aspects of pharmaceutical drug compounding misuse in the United States (US), with a focus on dermatologic practice and associated patient safety risks. Drug compounding remains an essential component of clinical care when US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved therapies are unavailable, unsuitable, or discontinued. However, expansion of compounding beyond these limited indications has been accompanied by documented quality failures, inconsistent regulatory oversight, commercialization pressures, and avoidable patient harm. In the US, a hybrid federal-state framework governs compounding, creating regulatory gaps that can be exploited by high-volume compounders operating at the boundary between pharmacy practice and manufacturing. Evidence from statutory history, regulatory actions, clinical studies of compounded topical preparations, and public health investigations demonstrates that compounded products often lack validated manufacturing consistency, stability, labeling standardization, and systematic safety surveillance. Dermatology illustrates these risks because compounded combination topical therapies are frequently promoted as cash-pay alternatives, sometimes with physician dispensing and inadequate disclosure of limitations in safety, efficacy, costs, and conflicts of interest. Compounded drugs should be reserved for patient-specific indications when approved therapies cannot reasonably meet clinical needs. Policies that clarify the boundary between 503A compounding and 503B outsourcing, strengthen enforcement consistency, and require meaningful informed consent and disclosure can reduce preventable harm while preserving appropriate access.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42877392PMC13668097What 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.