ArticleClinical drug investigation2026
Clinical Benefit of Multiple Myeloma Drugs at Regulatory Approval in Brazil, Europe, and the USA: A Retrospective Cohort Study (2003-2024).
Article in Clinical drug investigation, 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
objectivesThe value of new therapies depends on the magnitude of their clinical benefit. In multiple myeloma (MM), numerous drugs have been approved in the past two decades, yet the extent of clinical benefit at authorization remains uncertain. This study evaluated MM drugs approved by the European Medicines Agency (EMA), the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and the Brazilian Health Regulatory Agency (Anvisa).
methodsThis retrospective cohort study assessed MM drugs approved between 2003 and 2024. Data were extracted from publicly available regulatory documents. Clinical benefits were assessed using the European Society for Medical Oncology Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale for Haematological Malignancies (ESMO-MCBS:H v 1.1) based on pivotal trials. Descriptive statistics, Kaplan-Meier curves and log-rank tests were performed.
resultsDuring the study period, the EMA approved 17 drugs for MM, with 11 (64.7%) supported by single-arm studies and 4 (23.5%) through accelerated assessment. The FDA also approved 17 drugs, with 12 (70.6%) based on single-arm studies, 11 (64.7%) through expedited pathways, and 8 (47.1%) designated as Breakthrough Therapies. Anvisa approved 12 drugs, with 7 (58.3%) under priority registration. According to the ESMO-MCBS:H v1.1 scoring, only 4 of 17 drugs (23.5%) demonstrated meaningful clinical benefit, defined as a grade ≥4 in the non-curative setting. Accelerated timelines in Brazil were significantly associated with biologicals, monoclonal antibodies, and Breakthrough Therapy status (all p < .05).
conclusionMost MM therapies approved entered the market with limited evidence of meaningful clinical benefit. These findings support using the ESMO-MCBS:H to guide regulatory and reimbursement decisions in resource-constrained settings.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42012573What 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.