ArticleTherapeutic innovation & regulatory science2026
Therapeutic Horizon in Multiple Myeloma: Analysis of the Emerging Landscape of Clinical Trials.
Article in Therapeutic innovation & regulatory science, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundEmerging therapies for multiple myeloma (MM) have significantly improved patient outcomes extending survival and advancing treatment toward more targeted, effective, and less toxic approaches. However, the disease remains incurable.
objectivesAnalyze the therapeutic landscape of MM by evaluating drug candidates in clinical trials from 2014 to 2024.
methodsData were extracted from ClinicalTrials.gov (CTG) and Cortellis Drug Discovery Intelligence (CDDI), including active and completed studies with results on newly diagnosed and refractory MM. Joinpoint regression models estimated Annual Percent Changes (APCs) and Average Annual Percent Changes (AAPC). Data were examined by clinical trial characteristics, targeting strategies, and potential impact on treatment advancements.
resultsA total of 1091 trials from CDDI and 1947 from CTG were screened, yielding 365 studies eligible for detailed analysis. Phase I trials were the most common (n = 182; 49.9%), and biologic agents represented the majority of the investigational therapies (n = 251; 68.8%). Among intervention types, cell therapies were predominant (n = 171; 46.8%), with CAR-T products targeting BCMA (n = 107), CD19 (n = 16), and GPRC5D (n = 12) emerging as the most studied in recent years. Before the joinpoint, the number of active trials grew by 1.86% per year (95% CI: 1.67-2.06), corresponding to an average increase of 11.9 studies annually. After the joinpoint, growth accelerated to 3.69% per year (95% CI: 3.19-4.19), equivalent to 26.5 additional trials each year. Across the entire study period, the weighted average annual percentage change (AAPC) was 2.63%.
conclusionThe rise in MM clinical trials highlights a shift toward biologic therapies, particularly immunotherapies and gene therapies like CAR-T.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.