Drug Database
BE

bevacizumab (BP 01 / Bevqolva / BP01)

✓ Approved

Aurobindo Pharma Limited · VEGFA · Monoclonal Antibodies

What is bevacizumab?

bevacizumab is a monoclonal antibodies developed by Aurobindo Pharma Limited. It is approved for therapeutic indications via injectable (others) or intravenous (iv).

Drug Profile

Brand NamesBP 01, Bevqolva, BP01
CompanyAurobindo Pharma Limited
Drug ClassMonoclonal Antibodies, Antibody
Molecular TargetVEGFA
RouteInjectable (Others), Intravenous (IV)
StatusApproved
Sources: ClinicalTrials.gov, Aurobindo Pharma Limited

Mechanism of Action

Molecular Targets

bevacizumab acts on 1 molecular target:

VEGFAvascular endothelial growth factor A (VPF, MVCD1)
Want deeper analysis?Noah AI can explain complex mechanisms and compare to similar drugs.

Therapeutic Indications

bevacizumab is developed for 9 unique indications across 2 therapeutic areas.

Therapeutic AreaConditionPhase
Neoplasms benign, malignant and unspecified (incl cysts and polyps)Non-small cell lung cancer stage IV✓ Approved
Neoplasms benign, malignant and unspecified (incl cysts and polyps)Non-small cell lung cancer metastatic✓ Approved
Neoplasms benign, malignant and unspecified (incl cysts and polyps)Ovarian cancer✓ Approved
Neoplasms benign, malignant and unspecified (incl cysts and polyps)Renal cancer✓ Approved
Neoplasms benign, malignant and unspecified (incl cysts and polyps)Colorectal cancer✓ Approved

+4 more indications available with a free account

Sign up free to view all indications →

Related Research Articles

PubMedCurrent health sciences journal2026-09-20

Pulmonary Function in Adults with Severe Eosinophilic Asthma Using Biologicals:A Case-Control Study.

Beserra Alessandro Dos Santos ADS, Borges Júlio Ribeiro JR, Ferreira Isabelle da Nobrega IDN, Santos Mel Portugal Cabral MPC et al.

The era of biologics has revolutionized the treatment of severe eosinophilic asthma (SEA). Although biologics appear to control SEA, pulmonary function is still poorly assessed with effective techniques. This study aimed to compare pulmonary function between adults living with severe asthma (alwSEA) with and without the use of biologics through a comprehensive approach to measuring pulmonary function, including assessments of pulmonary mechanics, static lung volumes, and small airways. This is a cross-sectional study in which 15 alwSEA using biologics (biological group-BG) and 17 alwSEA using conventional therapy (control group-CG) were evaluated. These individuals underwent spirometry, body plethysmography, and respiratory oscillometry. In addition, they underwent the Asthma Control Test and the Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire. The sample was predominantly female, with 14 women (93.3%) in the BG and 16 (94.1%) in the CG. The groups differed significantly in age, with the BG being younger than the CG [52 (47-61) vs. 60 (54-66) years, p=0.045]. The BG presented significantly higher values ​​of forced expiratory volume in the first second [1.77 (1.45-1.91) vs. 1.27 (1.18-1.47) L, p=0.005]. The CG presented a higher residual volume to total lung capacity ratio [141 (128-157) vs. 108 (89-117) % predicted, p<0.001]. Respiratory system resistance at 20 Hz was higher in the CG [170 (137-216.5) vs. 131.5 (110.8-179.2) % predicted, p=0.038]. In alwSEA, biologics appear to improve not only volumes and flows, but also air trapping. Furthermore, biologics appear to act on central airway resistance.

PMID 42763757
Read full article →
PubMedArchives of toxicology2026-09-19

Optimisation of in vitro assays for accurate risk assessment of T-cell responses to biologics with potential immune liabilities.

Farrell Liam L, MacDonald Lonnie L, Wells Georgia G, Grice Sophie S et al.

Biologics are increasingly used to treat disease, but their clinical efficacy is often hindered by anti-drug antibodies and immunological adverse reactions. Accurate prediction of immunogenicity to biologics at a preclinical development stage would improve safety and prevent financial loss to pharmaceutical companies. A stepwise approach to explore immunogenicity to biologics was developed by; (1) assessing the sensitivity of existing PBMC stimulation assays, (2) optimisation of a DC: T-cell co-culture assay, (3) definition of immune epitopes using rituximab MHC class II-binding peptides. Lymphocyte transformation tests and IFN-γ ELISpot assays were performed using healthy donor PBMC to assess the T-cell stimulatory capacity of a panel of biologics. DC: T-cell co-culture methods were optimised for timepoints, cell numbers and immune dysregulation and assessed using the panel of biologics. Sixteen 15-mer peptides derived from the variable region of rituximab were used to generate and characterise T-cell clones. Initial PBMC experiments showed low sensitivity, presenting frequent false negatives. DC: T-cell assays showed increased sensitivity to biologics, however, high background responses were observed in vehicle control cultures. Optimisation of assay conditions reduced the background counts and increased the dynamic range and sensitivity of the assay. CD4 + T-cell clones were responsive to two 15-mer rituximab peptides in proliferation and cytokine release assays. These data indicate that DC: T-cell co-cultures and cloning methods should be used alongside epitope prediction tools to assess T-cell responses to biologics with potential immune liabilities. Implementing the stepwise approach outlined could identify high risk molecules early in development and highlight "hotspot" regions of molecules for risk mitigation.

PMID 42762263
Read full article →
PubMedTherapeutic advances in respiratory disease2026-09-19

Blood eosinophils in COPD: are biologics for everyone?

Vanetti Marco M, Visca Dina D, Ardesi Francesco F, Taglioretti Antonia M AM et al.

Type 2 (T2) biologics represent a promising treatment option for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) patients with eosinophilic inflammation. To evaluate the prevalence of stable COPD patients who may be eligible for T2 biologics. Real-world, retrospective, monocentric study in COPD patients undergoing inpatient pulmonary rehabilitation. Clinical, functional, and inflammatory data were collected. Patients were considered eligible for T2 biologic therapy whether they were receiving optimized inhaled therapy and had a history of ⩾2 moderate and/or ⩾1 severe exacerbations in the previous year, together with a blood eosinophil count ⩾300 cells/μL. Among 441 patients, 21.5% had blood eosinophil counts ⩾300 cells/μL and 6.8% fulfilled the combined eligibility criteria. A high burden of respiratory and cardiometabolic comorbidities and increased cardiovascular risk was observed in the overall population. Only a subgroup of patients seems eligible for biologics, treatment escalation should be based on optimized standard care management and patient phenotyping.

PMID 42760892
Read full article →
PubMedJournal of controlled release : official journal of the Controlled Release Society2026-09-19

Beyond the needle: engineering and industrial insight on oral delivery devices for biologics.

Ji Mengxuan M, Lu Yulan Y, Arcovio Kasandra K, Wang Yuxuan Y et al.

The development of biologics has transformed disease treatment, yet their clinical use remains constrained by a reliance on parenteral administration. Oral delivery offers a more patient-friendly alternative, but its effectiveness is limited by a range of physiological and biochemical barriers. Recent advances in ingestible robotic devices provide a promising pathway for oral delivery of biologics by enabling controlled release and site-specific targeting. Yet despite this momentum, no device-enabled oral biologic has reached regulatory approval. This review surveys current robotic oral delivery technologies, classifying them according to their power and actuation strategies, mechanisms of mucus interaction or penetration, and target regions of the gastrointestinal system. For each category, we examine underlying design principles, along with key advantages and limitations. We also present an industrial perspective on development status and commercial potential, highlighting translational challenges related to manufacturing, regulatory approval, and clinical integration. This review investigates the underappreciated downstream consequences of early-stage engineering decisions on manufacturing scalability, regulatory classification, chronic biocompatibility, and cost of goods. Here, we evaluate translational viability by defining the engineering, pharmacokinetic, safety, and economic criteria that devices must simultaneously satisfy to advance beyond proof-of-concept.

PMID 42762839
Read full article →
PubMedJoint bone spine2026-09-19

Infection Risk Associated with Steroid-Sparing Therapies in GCA, PMR, and ANCA-Associated Vasculitis: A Systematic Review.

Sudireddy Divya D, Leung Brent B, Neogi Tuhina T, LaValley Michael M et al.

Giant cell arteritis (GCA), polymyalgia rheumatica (PMR), and ANCA-associated vasculitis (AAV) often require prolonged glucocorticoid therapy. Steroid-sparing biologic and small molecule therapies reduce glucocorticoid exposure, but may increase infection risk, particularly in older adults. We evaluated infection risk associated with these therapies with concomitant glucocorticoid treatment, versus glucocorticoid treatment alone, in vasculitis/PMR clinical trials. We searched PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, and ClinicalTrials.gov using terms related to GCA, PMR, AAV, biologics (tocilizumab, sarilumab), small molecule therapies (upadacitinib, avacopan), glucocorticoids, and infection outcomes. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing biologics or small molecules plus glucocorticoid (active intervention) versus glucocorticoid monotherapy (comparator) reporting infection outcomes. We calculated the relative risk (RR) of infection and difference in glucocorticoid dose between the comparator and active intervention groups. We included 10 RCTs (1,487 patients total, enrolling adults averaged ≥50 years): 4 tocilizumab, 3 avacopan, 2 sarilumab, and 1 upadacitinib. When the active intervention had much lower glucocorticoid dosing than the comparator, the RR for infection was either close to 1 or <1. When the active intervention glucocorticoid dose was comparable to the comparator, the RR for infection was >1. Steroid-sparing therapies reduced glucocorticoid exposure with varying magnitudes but were not consistently associated with lower infection risk. These findings underscore the heightened risk of infection when these novel therapies are used in combination with glucocorticoids when the glucocorticoid dose cannot be adequately tapered, particularly in older adults.

PMID 42762860
Read full article →
PubMedBioDrugs : clinical immunotherapeutics, biopharmaceuticals and gene therapy2026-09-19

From Reflection to Implementation: Tailored Clinical Development of a Pembrolizumab Biosimilar Candidate.

Capsius Björn B, Pesic Marija M, Niyazov Ravil R, Pippig Susanne S et al.

Regulatory science increasingly recognizes that comparative efficacy studies may provide limited additional certainty to biosimilar development when high-resolution analytical, functional, and pharmacokinetic data robustly demonstrate similarity to the reference product. Modern structural and functional assays, combined with sensitive pharmacokinetic studies are capable of detecting differences with greater sensitivity than clinical efficacy endpoints. Accordingly, recent European Medicines Agency, US Food and Drug Administration, Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, and Health Canada guidance suggest increasing alignment toward a "fit-for-purpose" pharmacokinetic-anchored clinical approach for biologics with well-characterizable structure and function. Pembrolizumab biosimilar development represents an early real‑world implementation of a streamlined clinical development approach. Its mechanism of action is well understood and driven by programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1) receptor blockade with minimal reliance on fragment crystallizable-mediated effector functions, and its analytical traceability enables a detailed structure-function characterization. For this molecule, comparative pharmacokinetics provides a sensitive clinical measure of similarity that may be assessed in a multiple-dose pharmacokinetic equivalence study conducted in a sensitive patient population receiving adjuvant treatment following tumor resection. The comparative pharmacokinetic study design also provides a scientifically justified framework to assess safety and immunogenicity. In the development program of the pembrolizumab biosimilar candidate FYB206, scientific reasoning is used to illustrate how tailored pharmacokinetic-centered programs can maintain scientific rigor while reducing unnecessary clinical burden. More broadly, this approach may be considered applicable to other biologics with a well-defined mechanism of action, robust analytical accessibility, and sensitive functional assays, enabling scientifically proportionate and efficient biosimilar development. As FYB206 has not yet received regulatory approval; considerations presented herein reflect a forward‑looking scientific perspective based on the totality of available evidence.

PMID 42762279
Read full article →

+9996 more articles available with a free account

Sign up free to view all articles →

Ask about bevacizumab