Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38167326›Full record

ArticleJournal of pharmaceutical health care and sciences2024

Five years of safety profile of bevacizumab: an analysis of real-world pharmacovigilance and randomized clinical trials.

Li Wang, Yibo Fei, Han Qu, Haiyang Zhang, Yuanyuan Wang, Zhenghua Wu, Guorong Fan

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of pharmaceutical health care and sciences, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Bevacizumab: The future of chronic subdural hematoma.Interventional neuroradiology : journal of peritherapeutic neuroradiology, surgical procedures and related neurosciences · 2026
    Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
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

7 authors.

Li Wang *School of Pharmacy, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, 200240, China.
Yibo Fei *Department of Pharmacy, Shanghai Tenth People's Hospital, Tongji University School of Medicine, Shanghai, 200072, China.
Han QuSchool of Pharmacy, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, 200240, China.
Haiyang ZhangSchool of Pharmacy, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, 200240, China.
Yuanyuan WangDepartment of Clinical Pharmacy, Shanghai General Hospital, Shanghai Jiaotong University, School of Medicine, Shanghai, 200080, China.
Zhenghua WuDepartment of Clinical Pharmacy, Shanghai General Hospital, Shanghai Jiaotong University, School of Medicine, Shanghai, 200080, China. zhenghua.wu@shgh.cn.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8639-9689
Guorong FanDepartment of Clinical Pharmacy, Shanghai General Hospital, Shanghai Jiaotong University, School of Medicine, Shanghai, 200080, China. fanguorong@sjtu.edu.cn.

Funding

National Natural Science Foundation of China 81793289Science and Technology Commission of Fengxian District, Shanghai Municipality 2020SJ277Shanghai Scientific and Technological Committee 22S21902000Wu Jieping Medical Foundation 320.6750.2021-2-75
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveBevacizumab is a monoclonal antibody against vascular endothelial growth factor. It has a wide range of clinical applications in various cancers and retinal diseases. The drugs entered the Chinese market by a large margin in 2017, and the user population changed to some extent. This study reevaluated the safety of bevacizumab through an analysis of the World Pharmacovigilance database (Food and Drug Administration Open Vigil 2.1) in conjunction with a comprehensive meta-analysis of RCTs.

methodsReal-world pharmacovigilance data originating from case reports were mined using Open Vigil and coded at the preferred term (PT) level using the Standardized MedDRA Query. Proportional reporting ratios (PRR) and reporting odds ratios (ROR) were used to detect safety signals. Eligible items were screened by searching PubMed, Wanfang, and Web of Science, and data were extracted for systematic review and meta-analysis using RevMan 5.4 software.

resultsAnalysis of the drug pharmacovigilance database revealed that the most significant PRRs were limb decortication syndrome (PRR = 2926), stomal varices (PRR = 549), anastomotic (PRR = 457) and ureteral fistula (PRR = 406). Most safety signals at the PT level emerged as various types of injuries, toxicities, operational complications, systemic diseases, various reactions at the administration site, hematological and lymphatic disorders, and gastrointestinal disorders. Adverse reactions such as nasal septal perforation (PRR = 47.502), necrotizing fasciitis (PRR = 20.261), and hypertensive encephalopathy (PRR = 18.288) listed as rare in drug specifications should not be ignored with a high signal in the real world. A total of 8 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were included in the meta-analysis, and the overall risk of adverse reactions following bevacizumab administration was relatively low, indicating a good safety profile (HR = 1.19, 95% CI:0.85 ~ 1.65, p = 0.32).

conclusionThe frequent adverse reactions of bevacizumab occurring in the real world are consistent with the data provided in RCTs and drug specifications. However, adverse reactions such as nasal septum perforation, necrotizing fasciitis, hypertensive encephalopathy and so on, listed as rare in drug specifications, may have a high signal of correlation in the real world, which all requires active monitoring and timely adjustment of bevacizumab posology during its clinical use.

Indexed as

BevacizumabFDA adverse event reporting systemMeta-analysisPharmacovigilanceSafety

Identifiers

PMID38167326
PMCPMC10763108

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.