User:Luddish/sandbox

External Links to Specific Trials
The listing of specific trials that involve the drug, as is being done on this page, is misleading and seems to convey an impression that these are the "selected" trials. I would recommend a more general link to all avastin http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/results?term=&recr=Open&rslt=&type=&cond=&intr=bevacizumab&outc=&lead=&spons=&id=&state1=&cntry1=&state2=&cntry2=&state3=&cntry3=&locn=&gndr=&rcv_s=&rcv_e=&lup_s=&lup_e= trials in ClinicalTrials.gov. Quietvillager (talk) 16:26, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Bevacizumab Not the First Angiogenesis Inhibitor
Thalidomide is an angiogenesis inhibitor that has been available clinically in the US since 1998. Thalidomide was identified specifically for its angiogenesis inhibition by 1994. Due to it's association with birth defects in the 1950's, use was restricted when it received FDA approval in 1998, but has been available for off-label use in the US since then, and the off-label uses generally relate to it's angiogenetic inhibition. Thalidomide was specifically approved as an angiogenesis inhibitor in 2006. Thalidomide's actual range of uses intersects with bevacizumab's.

But before that, interferon-alpha was known to inhibit angiogenesis in the early 1980's, and was approved for treatment of life-threatening infant hemangiomas in 1989. Interferon-alpha has been clinically available since 1986. Interferon-alpha's range of uses also intersects that of bevacizumab's.

Genentech's product literature that makes this "first" claim is misleading, first requiring that they redefine the term angiogenesis to apply specifically to tumor development. Then, they use the term "designed for" to eliminate existing compounds that were first identified for other purposes. Otherwise, even Genentech's Pegasys (interferon-alpha) beat bevacizumab to the clinic for use as an angiogenesis inhibitor.

Contradiction
Does Bevacizumab prolong life or doesn't it? The "clinical use" section says The panel expressed concern that data from the clinical trial did not show any increase in quality of life or prolonging of life for patients whereas the "costs" section has Doctors and editorials have criticized the high cost, for a drug that doesn't cure cancer but only prolongs life --Commutator (talk) 13:52, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Bevacizumab has been shown to prolong survival in people with colorectal cancer and certain types of lung cancer. In people with breast cancer, it prolongs progression-free survival, but not overall survival. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 11:18, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Mechanism
It is now believed that Avastin does not block angiogenesis, but actually increases it. This then stabilises the tumour blood vessels, and allows other chemotherapy agents better access to the tumour site, increasing their efficacy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.110.239.180 (talk) 12:08, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

What is your reference on this? 128.104.69.45 (talk) 15:11, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Bevacizumab Chemical Formula
I am interested in the exact english version (name) la of Bevacizumab. So, if somebody knows it, I would appreciate his-her help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.134.99.82 (talk)

The "zumab" part means humanized monoclonal antibody. The actual antibody may not have another name except for tradenames like Avastin and a sequence.Rbcody (talk) 13:23, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Clinical Trials
I'd like some information on the clinical trials and success of Bevacizumab, or at least a link to some relevant scientific papers. Also, some information on the development of the drug would be useful. This is a much more interesting reference: http://www.wjgnet.com/1007-9327/13/5857.asp. It's a review on targeting angiogenesis as a treatment for cancer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sartchy (talk • contribs) 01:42, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Latest Information on the CATT Study of Avastin vs Lucentis for Wet AMD
I've tried to update the external link to the latest information from my web Journal on the CATT Study, but the revert bot won't accept it.

For those of you interested in the latest information on the CATT Study, please take a look at my web Journal:

CATT Study Update 6: Official Announcement of Trial Start from NEI

```Irv Arons —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iarons (talk • contribs) 22:58, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Which VEGF
Could we clarify if it binds only to VEGF-A (like Ranibizumab) or if it binds to more than one of VEGF ? Rod57 (talk) 02:35, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It's anti-VEGF-A. "VEGF" is still often used to refer to VEGF-A, so most sources just say bevacizumab is an "anti-VEGF antibody". I'll clarify this in the article and add some references. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 15:41, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I see you updated the drugbox. I've updated the intro to match (after checking ref 1). Rod57 (talk) 15:43, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Should clarify that bevacizumab blocks BINDING of VEGF-A to a particular VEGF receptor isotype, and identify the isotype. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.182.58.2 (talk) 22:21, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Corruption Affair
There is an ongoing corruption affair in Serbia with 8 people arrested for taking and giving bribes in collusion with several pharmaceutical firms to increase the use of cancer medication, prominently featuring Avastine.

Please add more info:

sources: english more info: serbian —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.61.43.56 (talk) 00:16, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

FDA rejects Avastin for Breast Cancer
I'm not sure where in the article to mention this but the breast cancer info needs updating. See: Here is the citation ready to add to the article: --Javaweb (talk) 17:26, 17 December 2010 (UTC)Javaweb Updated Avastin info from FDA: Avastin (bevacizumab) Information http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/DrugSafety/PostmarketDrugSafetyInformationforPatientsandProviders/ucm193900.htm

http://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Newsroom/PressAnnouncements/ucm237172.htm "FDA begins process to remove breast cancer indication from Avastin label Drug not shown to be safe and effective in breast cancer patients." In any case, the drug will still be available for the next few months while Genentech appeals the decision. This has no affect on its use in non-breast cancer treatment. --Javaweb (talk) 17:51, 17 December 2010 (UTC)Javaweb User_talk:Javaweb/Avastin has a suggested replacement for the Indications section. I would like some review before putting this in the article because it is important to get this right. Most of the changes are adding subheads for each of the cancers, and adding the new info on breast cancer.--Javaweb (talk) 20:26, 17 December 2010 (UTC)Javaweb

Is there a WikiProject for FDA idiocy? I think this is a prime example, along with things like the PPA fiasco, Meridia, etc. I'd like to see compilations of the number of people killed by the FDA bans or lesser actions or threats, compared to the minor risks of certain medications. Please let me know if anyone has taken this on. 71.203.125.108 (talk) 06:14, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

does avastin actually do anything good ?
as i understand the clinical data, for the first indication, avastin improves survival in colon cancer by a median of 5 months; in other cases, initial claims have not been backed up by subsequent trials. This raises a question: does avastin actually do anything at all ? If you take a step back, there are lots of drugs, and lots of clinical trials, so the probablility that one drug will eventually show some effect is high; the statisticians are suppposed to take care of this, but the history of clinical trials - again and again, drugs have smaller effects then thought - shows that for whatever reason, the stat people are not effective. so, it could be that avastin does absolutely nothing, except cause side effects and enrich genentech; —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.67.134.245 (talk) 19:18, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * One problem is, the FDA sets things up to exclude many good medications. Thomas Eleri pointed out that medications are evaluated for FDA approval in a different process from how they are actually employed clincally.  This leads to rejection of efficacious medications and inclusion of less effective ones, simply because inappropriate statistical techniques are employed. The FDA really needs to be wiped clean and reworked.71.203.125.108 (talk) 07:39, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Op-Ed on Avastin
This is an op-ed so maybe not a good ref but may have information for the article. --Javaweb (talk) 18:15, 25 May 2011 (UTC)Javaweb

Genentech to Appeal Breast Cancer Ruling
--Javaweb (talk) 08:46, 27 June 2011 (UTC)Javaweb --Javaweb (talk) 21:56, 29 June 2011 (UTC)Javaweb