TICE strain Bacillus of Calmette-Guerin 12.5mg powder for reconstitution for instillation vials
Requires a prescription from a doctor or prescriber
Official documents, adverse reaction reporting, and safety monitoring
Report a side effect
Submit a Yellow Card report to the MHRA
Safety monitoring data
Yellow Card reports
The MHRA Yellow Card scheme collects reports of suspected side effects from healthcare professionals and patients. View the Drug Analysis Profile (iDAP) for real-world adverse reaction data.
View Drug Analysis Profile
Browse all Drug Analysis Profiles A–Z
Browse all iDAP reports
Interactive Drug Analysis Profiles for all medicines
Report a side effect
Submit a Yellow Card report to the MHRA
Data from the MHRA Yellow Card scheme. A reported reaction does not necessarily mean the medicine caused it. Contains public sector information licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
EudraVigilance
The European Medicines Agency (EMA) collects suspected adverse reaction reports from across the EU/EEA through the EudraVigilance system. Search for safety data on this medicine.
Search EudraVigilance database
Browse substances A–Z in the European adverse reaction database
About EudraVigilance
Learn about EU pharmacovigilance and safety monitoring
EudraVigilance data is published by the European Medicines Agency (EMA). A suspected adverse reaction is not necessarily caused by the medicine.
1 branded products available
MHRA licensed products
View all licensed products for TICE strain Bacillus of Calmette-Guerin on the MHRA register
OncoTICE 12.5mg powder for reconstitution for instillation vials
WHO defined daily dose (DDD)
1.8 mg
Not a recommended dose. The DDD is the assumed average maintenance dose per day for a drug used for its main indication in adults. It is a statistical measure used for research and comparison purposes only.
Source: WHO Collaborating Centre for Drug Statistics Methodology, distributed via the NHS dm+d supplementary mapping files (NHSBSA). Contains public sector information licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
Therapeutically similar medicines
Similarity is based on WHO Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical (ATC) classification and on a factual NHS dm+d therapeutic-grouping code prefix. Source data: NHS dm+d via TRUD (OGL v3.0), WHO ATC/DDD Index.
NHS prescribing volume and spending trends
Check stock at pharmacies and supply information
Pharmacy stock checkers
Search for this medicine at major UK pharmacy chains. These links open the retailer's own website — results depend on their current online catalogue.
Supply & safety information
Official UK regulator monitoring and safety alerts
Pharmacy links redirect to the retailer's own search and do not represent real-time stock levels. Shortage and safety information sourced from MHRA drug safety updates (gov.uk, Crown Copyright under OGL v3.0).
Codes for healthcare professionals and prescribing systems
These codes are used by healthcare IT systems and prescribers to identify this medicine.
NHS UK identifiers
Browse tools
SNOMED CT and dm+d codes from NHS TRUD (Technology Reference data Update Distribution), licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0. ATC codes from the WHO Collaborating Centre for Drug Statistics Methodology (whocc.no).
Active and completed clinical studies from ClinicalTrials.gov
Source: ClinicalTrials.gov, a database of the U.S. National Library of Medicine (NLM), National Institutes of Health (NIH). Data accessed via ClinicalTrials.gov API v2. Trial information is provided for research purposes and does not constitute medical advice.
Academic studies and reviews for this medicine's active substance
Showing the 50 most relevant studies.
Reviews & meta-analyses: 29 · Randomised trials: 12 · 1982–2026
Showing the 50 most relevant studies, sorted by most relevant.
Andreas Böhle, D. Jocham, P.R. Bock
The Journal of Urology, 2003
Natalie E. Nieuwenhuizen, Prasad S. Kulkarni, Umesh Shaligram, et al.
Frontiers in Immunology, 2017
J.A. Martínez‐Pin ̃eiro, N Flores, Santiago Isorna, et al.
British Journal of Urology, 2002
- Adjuvants, Immunologic
- Administration, Intravesical
- BCG Vaccine
Boehm BE, Cornell JE, Wang H, et al.
2017
- Mycobacterium bovis
- BCG Vaccine
- Adjuvants, Immunologic
P. D. J. Vegt, J. Alfred Witjes, Wim P.J. Witjes, et al.
The Journal of Urology, 1995
Na Zeng, Mengyao Xu, Jian‐Xuan Sun, et al.
Frontiers in Oncology, 2023
Oh C, Bourlotos G, O'Callaghan M, et al.
2025
- BCG Vaccine
- Adjuvants, Immunologic
- Urinary Bladder Neoplasms
BackgroundMost patients with localized bladder cancer are initially managed with endoscopic resection. For high-grade nonmuscle invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC), intravesical Bacillus Calmette-Guerin (BCG) therapy is the gold standard adjuvant treatment. However, 30%-40% of patients fail BCG treatment with lack of response or disease relapse. An understudied area of treatment failure is BCG intolerance, where patients drop out of treatment due to adverse effects.ObjectivesTo examine the incidence and underlying reasons for BCG intolerance among adult patients with NMIBC.MethodsWe conducted a search on Embase, MEDLINE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for studies from January 1, 1974 to January 10, 2023, retrieving 3340 articles. Two authors independently conducted screening and data extraction with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guidelines. Inclusion criteria include English-language studies reporting dropout rates and reasons for discontinuation of BCG therapy in NMIBC patients.ResultsBCG dropout rates reported among the 28 included studies varied widely from 0% to 52% (estimated summary proportion 12.8%, 95% CI 9%-17%). There was significant heterogeneity in study design. Subgroup analyses show a dose-dependent effect on dropout rates (3.3% vs. 20%, X2 = 83.6, p = -16). Dropout rates vary with BCG strains: the Connaught strain had the highest at 21.1%, while the Pasteur strain had 2%. Clinical outcomes for BCG intolerance are not widely reported.ConclusionsDropout rates due to BCG intolerance average 12.8%. As cessation of treatment could lead to an increased risk in progression or recurrence of disease, strategies to mitigate BCG intolerance would be valuable.
Abstract licence: CC BY-NC-ND
McElree IM, Steinberg RL, Mott SL, et al.
2023
- BCG Vaccine
- Non-Muscle Invasive Bladder Neoplasms
- Docetaxel
ImportanceDue to the ongoing bacillus Calmette-Guérin (BCG) shortage, sequential intravesical gemcitabine and docetaxel has been increasingly used as first-line therapy for high-risk non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC). However, data directly comparing these 2 therapies are lacking.ObjectiveTo compare the outcomes of patients with high-risk NMIBC treated with gemcitabine and docetaxel vs BCG.Design, setting, and participantsThis retrospective cohort study was conducted from January 1, 2011, to December 31, 2021. The median (IQR) duration of follow-up was 23 (12-33) months for patients receiving gemcitabine and docetaxel and 49 (27-79) months for patients receiving BCG. All patients were treated at the University of Iowa tertiary care center. A total of 312 patients with high-risk treatment-naive NMIBC were included; 174 patients were treated with BCG therapy and 138 were treated with gemcitabine and docetaxel therapy.ExposuresAfter undergoing complete transurethral resection of bladder tumor, patients received either sequential intravesical gemcitabine, 1 g, and docetaxel, 37.5 mg, or 1 vial of BCG. Induction treatments were administered once per week for 6 weeks. Maintenance regimens were initiated if the patient was disease free at the first follow-up visit.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome was high-grade recurrence-free survival (RFS). Survival probabilities were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Cox regression models were used to evaluate the association of covariates with outcomes. Adverse events were reported using the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, version 5.ResultsAmong 312 patients, the median (IQR) age was 73 (66-79) years; 255 patients (81.7%) were male and 292 (93.6%) were White. Baseline clinicopathological characteristics such as sex, smoking status, and pretreatment tumor pathology were similar between treatment groups. High-grade RFS estimates were 76% (95% CI, 69%-82%) at 6 months, 71% (95% CI, 64%-78%) at 12 months, and 69% (95% CI, 62%-76%) at 24 months in the BCG group and 92% (95% CI, 86%-95%) at 6 months, 85% (95% CI, 78%-91%) at 12 months, and 81% (95% CI, 72%-87%) at 24 months in the gemcitabine and docetaxel group. Multivariable Cox regression analyses controlled for age, sex, treatment year, and presence of carcinoma in situ revealed that treatment with gemcitabine and docetaxel was associated with better high-grade RFS (hazard ratio, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.33-0.97; P = .04) and RFS (hazard ratio, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.34-0.92; P = .02) than treatment with BCG. Induction therapy for BCG was associated with greater treatment discontinuation than induction therapy for gemcitabine and docetaxel (9.2% vs 2.9%; P = .02).Conclusions and relevanceIn this cohort study, gemcitabine and docetaxel therapy was associated with less high-grade disease recurrence and treatment discontinuation than BCG therapy. These findings suggest that, while awaiting results from an ongoing randomized clinical trial during the current BCG shortage, use of gemcitabine and docetaxel can be considered for recommendation in updated practice guidelines.
Abstract licence: CC BY
Wadi Azuri, Jorge Jaunarena, Juan Jorge Camean, et al.
Bladder Cancer, 2023
Garras Y, Alsaadi D, Kinnear N, et al.
2026
Sources: aggregated from Europe PMC (EMBL-EBI), OpenAlex, Crossref, PubMed and other open scholarly databases. Retracted articles are excluded. Study information is provided for research purposes and does not constitute medical advice.
Scientific data (pharmacology, interactions, ADME) is not yet available for this medicine. Clinical sections are sourced from the NHS dm+d database.