Safety and efficacy of bevacizumab biosimilar in recurrent/ progressive glioblastoma

Evaluation of bevacizumab biosimilar on wound healing complications in patients with colorectal cancer undergoing endoscopic mucosal resection: A systematic review and meta-analysis in anorectal medicine

Complications related to wound healing pose substantial obstacle in the management of colorectal cancer (CRC), specifically in the field of anorectal medicine. Biosimilars of bevacizumab have emerged as crucial therapeutic agents in the management of these complications. With the particular emphasis on effects of Bevacizumab Biosimilar Plus on wound healing among patients diagnosed with CRC, this review underscores the potential of this anorectal medication to improve patient outcomes and was aimed to assess the safety and efficacy of Bevacizumab Biosimilar Plus in relation to complications associated with wound healing in patients with CRC. The assessment centers on its therapeutic potential and safety profile within the domain of anorectal medicine. In accordance with the PRISMA guidelines, a comprehensive literature search was performed, resulting in the identification of 19 pertinent studies out of an initial 918. Priority was given to assessing the safety and adverse effects of Bevacizumab Biosimilar Plus in conjunction with its effectiveness in wound healing. The extracted data comprised the following: study design, patient demographics, comprehensive treatment regimens, wound healing-specific outcomes and adverse effects. The evaluation of study quality was conducted utilizing the instruments provided by the Cochrane Collaboration and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS). Bevacizumab Biosimilar Plus demonstrates efficacy in the management of wound healing complications among patients with CRC, with a safety and efficacy profile similar to that of the original Bevacizumab, according to the analysis. Notably, several studies reported improved rates of wound healing in relation to the biosimilar. The safety profiles exhibited similarities to the anticipated anti-VEGF agent effects. In wound management, the biosimilar also demonstrated advantages in terms of prolonged efficacy. In addition, analyses of cost-effectiveness suggested that the use of biosimilars could result in cost reductions. Bevacizumab Biosimilar Plus exhibited potential as an anorectal medication for the effective management of wound healing complications in patients with CRC. This has substantial ramifications for improving the quality of patient care, encompassing the affordability and effectiveness of treatments.

Efficacy and Safety of Bevacizumab Biosimilars Compared With Reference Biologics in Advanced Non-small Cell Lung Cancer or Metastatic Colorectal Cancer Patients: A Network Meta-Analysis

Background: Bevacizumab biosimilars are slowly making their way into cancer treatment, but the data on their efficacy and safety in cancer patients are still poor. We systematically summarized the current evidence for the efficacy and safety of bevacizumab biosimilars in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) or metastatic colorectal cancer (CRC).

Methods: This review searched CNKI, VIP, PubMed, Medline (Ovid), Embase, and Cochrane Library (Ovid) for randomized controlled trials of bevacizumab biosimilars treated in adults with advanced NSCLC or metastatic CRC. A pairwise meta-analysis and a Bayesian network meta-analysis based on the random-effect model were performed to summarize the evidence. We rated the certainty of evidence according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation framework.

Results: Ten eligible trials with a total of 5526 patients were included. Seven trials (n = 4581) were for the NSCLC population, while three trials (n = 945) were for patients with CRC. According to the pairwise meta-analysis, the efficacy (objective response rate: risk ratio (RR) 0.98 [0.92–1.04], p = 0.45; progression-free survival: hazard ratio (HR) 1.01 [0.92–1.10], p = 0.85; and overall survival: HR 1.06 [0.94–1.19], p = 0.35) and safety (incidence of grade 3–5 adverse events: odds ratio (OR) 1.03 [0.91–1.16], p = 0.65) of bevacizumab biosimilars performed no significant difference with reference biologics in patients with NSCLC as well as metastatic CRC patients (objective response rate: RR 0.97 [0.87–1.09], p = 0.60; overall survival: HR 0.94 [0.70–1.25], p = 0.66; incidence of grade 3–5 adverse events: OR 0.78 [0.59–1.02], p = 0.73). Network estimates displayed 7 types of bevacizumab biosimilars in the medication regime of NSCLC patients who had no significant difference among each other in terms of efficacy and safety. The certainty of the evidence was assessed as low to moderate. Three types of biosimilars were found to be clinically equivalent to each other in the patients with CRC, which were evaluated with very low to moderate certainty.

Conclusion: In patients with advanced NSCLC or metastatic CRC, the efficacy and safety of bevacizumab biosimilars were found to be comparable with those of reference biologics and each other.

Mebendazole plus lomustine or temozolomide in patients with recurrent glioblastoma: A randomised open-label phase II trial

BACKGROUND

Recurrent glioblastoma (GBM) has dismal outcomes and limited treatment options. Mebendazole (MBZ) has activity in glioma both in-vivo and in-vitro, and is well tolerated in combination with lomustine (CCNU) and temozolomide (TMZ). In this study, we sought to determine whether the addition of MBZ to CCNU or TMZ would improve overall survival (OS) in recurrent GBM.

METHODS

In this phase II randomized open-label trial, adult patients with ECOG PS 0-3, with recurrent GBM who were not eligible for re-radiation, were randomized 1:1 to the CCNU-MBZ and TMZ-MBZ arms. CCNU was administered at 110 mg/m² every 6 weeks with MBZ 800 mg thrice daily and TMZ was administered at 200 mg/m² once daily on days 1-5 of a 28 days cycle with MBZ 1600 mg thrice daily. The primary endpoint was OS at 9 months. A 9-month OS of 55% or more in any arm was hypothesized to warrant further evaluation and a value below 35% was too low to warrant further investigation. OS was analyzed using intention to treat (ITT) and per-protocol (PP) analyses. Per-protocol analysis was used for safety analysis. Clinical Trials Registry-India number, CTRI/2018/01/011542.

FINDINGS

Participants were recruited from 14^th March 2019 to 18^th June 2021, 44 patients were randomised on each arm. At 17.4 months, 68 events for OS analysis had occurred, 33 in the TMZ-MBZ and 35 in the CCNU-MBZ arm. The 9-month OS was 36.6% (95% CI 22.3-51.0) and 45% (95% CI 29.6-59.2) in the TMZ-MBZ and CCNU-MBZ arms respectively, in the ITT population. ECOG PS was the only independent prognostic factor impacting OS (HR-0.48, 95% CI 0.27-0.85; P = 0.012). Grade 3-5 adverse events were seen in 8 (18.6%; n = 43) and 4 (9.5%; n = 42) patients in the TMZ-MBZ and CCNU-MBZ arms respectively. There were no treatment related deaths.

INTERPRETATION

The addition of MBZ to TMZ or CCNU failed to achieve the pre-set benchmark of 55% 9-month OS. This was probably due to 28.6% of patients having poor PS of 2-3.

FUNDING

Brain Tumor Foundation (BTF) of India, Indian Cooperative Oncology Network (ICON), and India Cancer Research Consortium (ICRC) under ICMR (Indian Council of Medical Research).