ArticleBioDrugs : clinical immunotherapeutics, biopharmaceuticals and gene therapy2026
Clinical Benefit and Global Regulation of Bispecific Antibody Drugs: A Cross-sectional Analysis.
Article in BioDrugs : clinical immunotherapeutics, biopharmaceuticals and gene therapy, 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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundBispecific antibodies (BsAbs) that bind two distinct antigenic epitopes represent a new therapeutic paradigm. However, their clinical benefits and global regulatory status remain uncertain.
methodsIn this cross-sectional analysis, BsAbs data from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), European Medicines Agency (EMA), Chinese National Medical Products Administration (NMPA), and Japanese Pharmaceuticals and Medical Devices Agency (PMDA) were identified up to December 31, 2025. BsAb indications, supporting trials (pivotal and confirmatory), and regulatory approval statuses were analyzed. Clinical benefits based on improved efficacy endpoints, and approval time lags among agencies, were compared.
findingsTwenty BsAbs and 33 BsAb indications were identified. Of 33 indications, 27 were oncology and six were non-oncology. Among oncology indications, only six (6/27, 22.2%) demonstrated benefits with improvements in overall survival (OS) and/or quality of life (QoL). The remaining 21 (21/27, 77.8%) oncology BsAb indications showed benefits based on surrogate endpoints. All six non-oncology indications showed benefits based on true endpoints without surrogacy. Among the 38 supporting trials for oncology indications, the majority (36/38, 94.7%) were pivotal trials, while only two (2/38, 5.3%) were confirmatory trials. Most of these trials (32/38, 84.2%) recruited relapsed/refractory patients. Of 20 BsAbs, 12 received initial approval from the FDA, five from EMA, two from NMPA, and one from PMDA. FDA-approved BsAbs obtained EMA approvals with a median lag of 82.5 days, whereas approvals in China and Japan were delayed by a median of 602 and 455 days, respectively.
conclusionsMost oncology BsAb indications remain without OS or QoL benefits. The FDA approved the largest number of BsAbs. Regulatory approval time lags in NMPA and PMDA are substantially longer than those in EMA.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41931196What 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.