![Man ultramarathon runner in the mountains he trains at sunset](https://d2csxpduxe849s.cloudfront.net/media/E32629C6-9347-4F84-81FEAEF7BFA342B3/0B4B1380-42EB-4FD5-9D7E2DBC603E79F8/webimage-C4875379-1478-416F-B03DF68FE3D8DBB5.png)
94% of researchers rate our articles as excellent or good
Learn more about the work of our research integrity team to safeguard the quality of each article we publish.
Find out more
ORIGINAL RESEARCH article
Front. Pharmacol.
Sec. Experimental Pharmacology and Drug Discovery
Volume 16 - 2025 | doi: 10.3389/fphar.2025.1534802
This article is part of the Research Topic Advancing Glioma Treatment: Novel Drugs, Mechanisms of Resistance, and Therapeutic Strategies View all 6 articles
The final, formatted version of the article will be published soon.
You have multiple emails registered with Frontiers:
Please enter your email address:
If you already have an account, please login
You don't have a Frontiers account ? You can register here
Introduction: In gliomas, various oncogenic factors can lead to an imbalance between cell proliferation and apoptosis. Lomustine inhibits tumor cell growth by disrupting DNA replication and repair mechanisms. In contrast, temozolomide, an imidazole tetrazine compound, promotes cell apoptosis through DNA alkylation. The present study aimed to systematically analyze and compare the adverse drug reactions (ADRs) associated with lomustine and temozolomide, as reported in the World Health Organization (WHO) VigiAcess database.Methods: Utilizing a retrospective descriptive analysis design, this study focused on two commercially available anti-glioma drugs. ADR reports pertaining to these medications were collected from the WHO-VigiAccess database. The data collection process involved gathering detailed information on various parameters, including age groups, gender, and geographical distribution of patients involved in the ADR reports.Additionally, the study examined the disease systems and symptoms reported alongside the adverse reactions, as recorded in the annual ADR summaries generated by the WHO. By calculating the proportion of adverse events reported for each drug, this investigation provided a comparative analysis of both the similarities and differences in the adverse reactions observed across the two anti-glioma drugs.Results: At the time of the search, a total of 22,854 adverse events (AEs) associated with the two anti-glioma drugs were documented in the VigiAccess database.Lomustine exhibits a higher reporting rate concerning blood and lymphatic system disorders, gastrointestinal disorders, and hepatobiliary disorders. In contrast, Temozolomide has a higher reporting rate for general disorders and administration site conditions, nervous system disorders, and skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders.The top five types of AEs for anti-glioma drugs are as follows: general disorders and administration site conditions (8,825 cases, 38.61%), blood and lymphatic system disorders (7,369 cases, 32.24%), gastrointestinal disorders (5,614 cases, 24.56%), nervous system disorders (5,047 cases, 22.08%), and investigations (4,855 cases, 21.24%).The present comparative observational study indicates that these inhibitors are associated with both common and specific adverse reactions, as documented in ADR reports. Clinicians should formulate individualized treatment plans that consider the adverse reactions linked to various drugs and the specific conditions of each patient, thereby promoting the rational use of these costly medications.
Keywords: Glioma, adverse drug reactions, WHO-Vigiaccess, Lomustine, temozolomide
Received: 26 Nov 2024; Accepted: 17 Feb 2025.
Copyright: © 2025 Luo, Fan, Liang, He, Chen, Xu, Zhu and Zhang. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
* Correspondence:
Jing Zhu, School of Integrative Medicine, Nanjing University of Chinese Medicine, Nanjing, Jiangsu Province, China
Liwei Zhang, Department of Orthopedics, Taizhou Hospital of Zhejiang Province, Taizhou, China
Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
Research integrity at Frontiers
Learn more about the work of our research integrity team to safeguard the quality of each article we publish.