4.7 Article

Bevacizumab in Clinical Practice: Prescribing Appropriateness Relative to National Indications and Safety

期刊

ONCOLOGIST
卷 17, 期 1, 页码 117-124

出版社

ALPHAMED PRESS
DOI: 10.1634/theoncologist.2011-0184

关键词

Appropriateness; Bevacizumab; Metastatic colorectal cancer; Safety; Survival

类别

资金

  1. Regione Lombardia

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The aim of this study was to describe the clinical use of bevacizumab in Lombardy (9.5 million inhabitants), Italy, during 2006-2007 in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) to evaluate compliance with the Italian Medicine Agency (AIFA) indications, the incidence of adverse events, and the survival rate. We performed computerized record linkage among three different Lombardy health care databases: File F registry, Regional discharge database, and Registry Office records. Patients were classified into approved and off-label uses according to the AIFA indications. Treatment with bevacizumab was administered to 780 patients, of whom 81.7% (n = 637) had mCRC. Among these, 37.8% (n = 241) of patients received the drug in observance of AIFA indications. Overall, similar to 10% of patients had serious treatment-related toxicities (fistula, 3.5%; venous thromboembolism, 2.8%; hemorrhage, 1.9%; intestinal perforation and arterial thromboembolism, <1%). The 1-year survival rate was 74.3% and the 2-year survival rate was 39.2%. The median survival time was 20.5 months, and there were no meaningful differences between gender and age groups. There was a gap between the bevacizumab approved indication and clinical practice pattern: overall, less than one half of the patients received bevacizumab in observance with the regulatory indication. The main reason for nonadherence to the indication was use as a second-line or advanced line of therapy. The incidence of serious adverse events and the survival rates of mCRC patients were similar to those reported in clinical trials. The Oncologist 2012; 17: 117-124

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据