ArticleCureus2026
Drug Utilization Study and Safety Pattern of Biologicals in a Tertiary Care Hospital at Eastern India.
Article in Cureus, 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background Biological agents have revolutionized cancer treatment by offering targeted therapeutic effects with improved selectivity over conventional chemotherapy. However, real-world data on their utilization and safety in Indian tertiary care settings remain limited. This study aimed to evaluate the drug utilization pattern and safety profile of biologics in cancer patients. Methods A prospective, observational study was conducted over 18 months (July 2022-December 2023) at a tertiary care oncology center in eastern India. A total of 373 prescriptions were analyzed, of which 100 included biological agents and were evaluated in detail. Patients aged 15-70 years with confirmed malignancy were included. Data on demographics, cancer characteristics, drug utilization, and adverse events (AEs) were collected. The primary outcome was the percentage utilization of biologics, while secondary outcomes included comparison of AE incidence between biologics and conventional therapy, and severity assessment using Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) version 5.0. Results Biologics were prescribed in 26.8% of total prescriptions. The majority of patients were aged 46-70 years, with a slight female predominance. Breast, lung, and colorectal cancers were the most common malignancies, with most patients presenting at Stage III. Bevacizumab (30/373, 8.04%) was the most frequently used biologic, followed by trastuzumab (27/373, 7.24%) and rituximab (16/373, 4.29%). AE analysis showed that gastrointestinal toxicities such as nausea and vomiting were significantly higher with conventional therapy (61/373, 22.34% vs. 12/100, 12.00%, p=0.03), and neuropathy was also more common (45/273, 16.48% vs. 7/100, 7.00%, p=0.02). In contrast, biologics were associated with significantly higher hematological toxicities, including anemia, neutropenia, thrombocytopenia, and lymphocytopenia (p<0.001), as well as pneumonitis (15/100, 15.00% vs. 11/273, 4.03%, p=0.0008). Most AEs were mild to moderate, with no fatal events reported. Conclusion Biologics represent an important component of cancer therapy with an acceptable safety profile. While they reduce gastrointestinal and neurological toxicities, they are associated with higher hematological AEs and pneumonitis, emphasizing the need for careful monitoring.
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.