Comparative clinical trial of granisetron and ondansetron in the prophylaxis of cisplatin-induced emesis. The Granisetron Study Group

Gastroparesis: Myths, Misconceptions, and Management

Gastroparesis (GP), a historically vexing disorder characterized by symptoms of nausea, vomiting, abdominal pain, early satiety, and/or bloating, in the setting of an objective delay in gastric emptying, is often difficult to treat and carries a tremendous burden on the quality of patients' lives, as well as the healthcare system in general. Though the etiology of GP has been fairly well defined, much work has been done recently to better understand the pathophysiology of GP, as well as to identify novel effective and safe treatment options. As our understanding of GP has evolved, many myths and misconceptions still abound in this rapidly changing field. The goal of this review is to identify myths and misconceptions regarding the etiology, pathophysiology, diagnosis, and treatment of GP, in the context of the latest research findings which have shaped our current understanding of GP. Recognition and dispelling of such myths and misconceptions is critical to moving the field forward and ultimately advancing the clinical management of what will hopefully become a better understood and more manageable disorder in the future.

Synthesis of 1H-Indazoles via Silver(I)-Mediated Intramolecular Oxidative C-H Bond Amination

We described a silver(I)-mediated intramolecular oxidative C-H amination that enables the construction of assorted 1H-indazoles that are widely applicable in medicinal chemistry. The developed amination was found to be efficient for the synthesis of a variety of 3-substituted indazoles that are otherwise difficult to be synthesized by other means of C-H aminations. Preliminary mechanistic studies suggested that the current amination proceeds via single electron transfer (SET) mediated by Ag(I) oxidant.

Symptomatic Management of Gastroparesis

Gastroparesis is a chronic and debilitating neuromuscular disorder of the upper gastrointestinal tract. Symptoms of gastroparesis include nausea, vomiting, epigastric pain, early satiety, and weight loss. Treating gastroparesis can be difficult. Dietary changes may improve symptoms in patients with mild disease. A variety of medications can be used to treat symptoms of nausea and vomiting, although most have not been subjected to randomized controlled trials and only one is approved by the Food and Drug Administration (metoclopramide). Pain management is essential, as nearly 90% of patients report symptoms of epigastric pain. This article reviews treatment options for symptoms of gastroparesis.

Treatment of Breakthrough and Refractory Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting

Despite significant progress in the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) with the introduction of new antiemetic agents, 30-50% of patients receiving moderately or highly emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC or HEC) and guideline directed prophylactic antiemetics develop breakthrough CINV. International guidelines recommend the treatment of breakthrough CINV with an agent from a drug class that was not used in the prophylactic antiemetic regimen and recommend using the breakthrough medication continuously rather than using it on an as needed basis. There have been very few studies on the treatment of breakthrough CINV. A recent double-blind, randomized, phase III study suggested that olanzapine may be an effective agent for the treatment of breakthrough CINV. Refractory CINV occurs when patients develop CINV during subsequent cycles of chemotherapy when antiemetic prophylaxis has not been successful in controlling CINV in earlier cycles. Patients who develop refractory CINV should be considered for a change in their prophylactic antiemetic regimen. If significant anxiety exists, a benzodiazepine may be added to the prophylactic regimen. If a refractory patient is receiving HEC, olanzapine may be added to the prophylactic regimen. If the patient is receiving MEC, olanzapine or an NK-1 receptor antagonist may be added to the prophylactic regimen.

A Randomized Double-Blind, Double-Dummy, Multicenter Trial of Azasetron versus Ondansetron to Evaluate Efficacy and Safety in the Prevention of Delayed Nausea and Vomiting Induced by Chemotherapy

Purpose

This study was conducted to evaluate the efficacy and safety of azasetron compared to ondansetron in the prevention of delayed chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting.

Materials and Methods

This study was a multi-center, prospective, randomized, double-dummy, double-blind and parallel-group trial involving 12 institutions in Korea between May 2005 and December 2005. A total of 265 patients with moderately and highly emetogenic chemotherapy were included and randomly assigned to either the azasetron or ondansetron group. All patients received azasetron (10 mg intravenously) and dexamethasone (20 mg intravenously) on day 1 and dexamethasone (4 mg orally every 12 hours) on days 2-4. The azasetron group received azasetron (10 mg orally) with placebo of ondansetron (orally every 12 hours), and the ondansetron group received ondansetron (8 mg orally every 12 hours) with placebo of azasetron (orally) on days 2-6.

Results

Over days 2-6, the effective ratio of complete response in the azasetron and ondansetron groups was 45% and 54.5%, respectively (95% confidence interval, -21.4 to 2.5%). Thus, the non-inferiority of azasetron compared with ondansetron in delayed chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting was not proven in the present study. All treatments were well tolerated and no unexpected drug-related adverse events were reported. The most common adverse events related to the treatment were constipation and hiccups, and there were no differences in the overall incidence of adverse events.

Conclusion

In the present study, azasetron showed inferiority in the control of delayed chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting compared with ondansetron whereas safety profiles were similar between the two groups.

WITHDRAWN: Serotonin receptor antagonists for highly emetogenic chemotherapy in adults

This review is now out of date although it is correct as of the date of publication. The latest version of this review (available in ‘Other versions’ tab on The Cochrane Library) may still be useful to readers.

The editorial group responsible for this previously published document have withdrawn it from publication.

Recent advances in pharmacotherapy of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting

Nausea and vomiting remain among the most feared side effects of chemotherapy for cancer patients. Significant progress has been made in the last 15 years in developing more effective and better-tolerated measures to minimize chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV). During the 1990s, the selective 5-hydroxytryptamine receptor antagonists were first introduced for the treatment of CINV, and resulted in more effective and better tolerated treatment of CINV. Despite recent progress, however, a significant number of patients still develop CINV, particularly during the 2-5-day period (delayed emesis) following chemotherapy. There is evidence that this may be an underappreciated problem on the part of some caregivers. Recently, two new antiemetics, aprepitant, the first member of the neurokinin-1 antagonists, and palonosetron, a second-generation 5-hydroxytryptamine receptor antagonist, received regulatory approval in the U.S. Both represent useful additions to the therapeutic armamentarium for the management of CINV.

The use of olanzapine versus metoclopramide for the treatment of breakthrough chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy

PURPOSE

Olanzapine has been shown to be a safe and effective agent for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV). Olanzapine may also be an effective rescue medication for patients who develop breakthrough CINV despite having received guideline-directed CINV prophylaxis.

METHODS

A double-blind, randomized phase III trial was performed for the treatment of breakthrough CINV in chemotherapy-naive patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy (cisplatin, ≥ 70 mg/m2 or doxorubicin, ≥ 50 mg/m2 and cyclophosphamide, ≥ 600 mg/m2), comparing olanzapine to metoclopramide. Patients who developed breakthrough emesis or nausea despite prophylactic dexamethasone (12 mg IV), palonosetron (0.25 mg IV), and fosaprepitant (150 mg IV) pre-chemotherapy and dexamethasone (8 mg p.o. daily, days 2-4) post-chemotherapy were randomized to receive olanzapine, 10 mg orally daily for 3 days or metoclopramide, 10 mg orally TID for 3 days. Patients were monitored for emesis and nausea for 72 h after taking olanzapine or metoclopramide. Two hundred seventy-six patients (median age 62 years, range 38-79; 43% women; Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) PS 0,1) consented to the protocol. One hundred twelve patients developed breakthrough CINV and 108 were evaluable.

RESULTS

During the 72-h observation period, 39 out of 56 (70%) patients receiving olanzapine had no emesis compared to 16 out of 52 (31%) patients with no emesis for patients receiving metoclopramide (p < 0.01). Patients without nausea (0, scale 0-10, M.D. Anderson Symptom Inventory) during the 72-h observation period were those who took olanzapine, 68% (38 of 56), and metoclopramide, 23% (12 of 52) (p < 0.01). There were no grade 3 or 4 toxicities.

CONCLUSIONS

Olanzapine was significantly better than metoclopramide in the control of breakthrough emesis and nausea in patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy.

Inhibiting substance p pathway for prevention of chemotherapy-induced emesis: preclinical data, clinical trials of neurokinin-1 receptor antagonists

Neurokinin-1 (NK-1) receptor antagonists are a new class of antiemetic agents that have activity in controlling cisplatin-induced acute and delayed emesis. Preclinical data in animal models show that the NK-1 receptor antagonists have broad antiemetic activity. The NK-1 receptor antagonists have activity in controlling emesis induced by peripherally acting and centrally acting emetogens, suggesting a mechanism of action at multiple sites. The effects at central and peripheral sites to control acute and delayed emesis cannot be determined at this time based on available studies. When added to a standard regimen of a 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 (5- HT3) receptor antagonist and dexamethasone, the NK-1 receptor antagonists improve control of acute emesis. The NK-1 receptor antagonists improve delayed emesis compared with placebo, and when used in combination with dexamethasone, compared with dexamethasone alone. Acute and delayed nausea may also be improved by the NK-1 receptor antagonists when they are used in combination with a 5-HT3 receptor antagonist and dexamethasone prechemotherapy or with daily dosing for 5 days after chemotherapy. The current data suggest that the mechanism of action of the NK-1 receptor antagonists appears to be different from that of the 5-HT3 receptor antagonists. Future studies may consider using NK-1 receptor antagonists with moderately emetogenic chemotherapy as well as bone marrow transplantation.

Vomiting, diarrhea, constipation, and gastroenteritis

Diseases that cause vomiting, diarrhea, constipation, and gastroenteritis are major problems for populations worldwide. Patients, particularly infants, elderly, and immunocompromised individuals, may present at any point in a wide spectrum of disease states, underscoring the need for the clinician to treat these ailments aggressively. Several promising new treatment modalities, from oral rehydration solutions to antiemetic therapies, have been introduced over the past decade. Future directions include the use of probiotic agents and better tolerated rehydration solutions. Gastrointestinal disease will continue to be a focus worldwide in the search for better ways to cure illnesses associated with vomiting and diarrhea.

Consensus recommendations for the prevention of vomiting and nausea following high-emetic-risk chemotherapy

In this update of our 2005 document, we used an evidence-based approach whenever possible to formulate recommendations, emphasizing the results of controlled trials concerning the best use of antiemetic agents for the prevention of emesis and nausea following anticancer chemotherapies of high emetic risk. A three-drug combination of a 5-hydroxytryptamine type 3 receptor (5-HT(3)) receptor antagonist, dexamethasone, and aprepitant beginning before chemotherapy and continuing for up to 4 days remains the standard of care. We address issues of dose, schedule, and route of administration of five selective 5-HT(3) receptor antagonists. We conclude that, for each of these five drugs, there is a plateau in therapeutic efficacy above which further dose escalation does not improve outcome. In trials designed to prove the equivalence of palonosetron to ondansetron and granisetron, palonosetron proved superior in emesis prevention, while adverse effects were comparable. Furthermore, for all classes of antiemetic agents, a single dose is as effective as multiple doses or a continuous infusion. The oral route is as efficacious as the intravenous route of administration.

Differences in efficacy and safety of pharmaceutical treatments between men and women: an umbrella review

Being male or female is an important determinant of risks for certain diseases, patterns of illness and life expectancy. Although differences in risks for and prognoses of several diseases have been well documented, sex-based differences in responses to pharmaceutical treatments and accompanying risks of adverse events are less clear. The objective of this umbrella review was to determine whether clinically relevant differences in efficacy and safety of commonly prescribed medications exist between men and women. We retrieved all available systematic reviews of the Oregon Drug Effectiveness Review Project published before January 2010. Two persons independently reviewed each report to identify relevant studies. We dually abstracted data from the original publications into standardized forms. We synthesized the available evidence for each drug class and rated its quality applying the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach. Findings, based on 59 studies and data of more than 250,000 patients suggested that for the majority of drugs no substantial differences in efficacy and safety exist between men and women. Some clinically important exceptions, however, were apparent: women experienced substantially lower response rates with newer antiemetics than men (45% vs. 58%; relative risk 1.49, 95% confidence interval 1.35-1.64); men had higher rates of sexual dysfunction than women while on paroxetine for major depressive disorder; women discontinued lovastatin more frequently than men because of adverse events. Overall, for the majority of drugs sex does not appear to be a factor that has to be taken into consideration when choosing a drug treatment. The available body of evidence, however, was limited in quality and quantity, confining the range and certainty of our conclusions.

Serotonin receptor antagonists for highly emetogenic chemotherapy in adults

BACKGROUND

Serotonin receptor antagonists (5-HT(3) RAs) are used to control chemotherapy-induced emesis. Although they have the same general mechanism of action (blockade of serotonin receptors), they have different chemical structures and may have different effects.

OBJECTIVES

To compare efficacy of different serotonin receptor antagonists (5-HT(3) RAs) in the control of acute and delayed emesis induced by highly emetogenic chemotherapy.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched CENTRAL, the Specialised Register of the Cochrane PaPaS Group, PubMed, EMBASE, and LILACS databases. Our most recent search was in March 2009.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised trials comparing 5-HT(3) RAs in an adult cancer population.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We extracted information from the included studies on the control of acute and delayed nausea and vomiting, either as a single or a combined outcome. Where appropriate, we combined the results of similar trials. We carried out sensitivity and subgroup analyses to test the robustness of our findings.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 16 randomised trials (7808 participants). Nine of the trials compared granisetron versus ondansetron. No other drug comparison was studied in more than one trial. The meta-analyses of the granisetron versus ondansetron trials found similar results for the two drugs on acute vomiting (eight trials, 4256 participants, odds ratio (OR) 0.89; 95% CI 0.78 to 1.02), acute nausea (seven trials, 4160 participants, OR 0.97; 95% CI 0.85 to 1.10), delayed vomiting (three trials, 1119 participants, OR 1.00; 95% CI 0.74 to 1.34) and delayed nausea (two trials, 1024 participants, OR 0.96; 95% CI 0.75 to 1.24). Granisetron and ondansetron showed similar effects on headache and diarrhoea, with the possible exception of less constipation associated with ondansetron.One study of 1114 participants comparing palonosetron plus dexamethasone versus granisetron plus dexamethasone showed superiority of palonosetron in controlling delayed vomiting (OR 1.45; 95% CI 1.14 to 1.85) and delayed nausea (OR 1.63; 95% CI 1.27 to 2.10). Complete response for delayed nausea and vomiting was also in favour of the combination palonosetron and dexamethasone (OR 1.63; 95% CI 1.29 to 2.07).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Ondansetron and granisetron appear to be equivalent drugs for the prevention of acute and delayed emesis following the use of highly emetogenic chemotherapy.According to one single trial the combination of palonosetron and dexamethasone was superior to granisetron and dexamethasone in controlling delayed emesis. However, more evidence is needed before palonosetron could become the candidate 5-HT(3) RA for the control of delayed emesis induced by highly emetogenic chemotherapy.

Palonosetron for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting: approval and efficacy

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is associated with a significant deterioration in quality of life. The emetogenicity of the chemotherapeutic agents, repeated chemotherapy cycles, and patient characteristics (female gender, younger age, low alcohol consumption, history of motion sickness) are the major risk factors for CINV. This review provides a detailed description of palonosetron, a second-generation 5-hydroxytryptamine 3 (5-HT(3)) receptor antagonist. The chemistry and pharmacology of palonosetron are described, as well as the initial and recent clinical trials. Palonosetron has a longer half-life and a higher binding affinity than the first-generation 5-HT(3) receptor antagonists. Palonosetron has been approved for the prevention of acute CINV in patients receiving either moderately or highly emetogenic chemotherapy and for the prevention of delayed CINV in patients receiving moderately emetogenic chemotherapy. In recent studies, compared to the first-generation 5-HT(3) receptor antagonists, palonosetron in combination with dexamethasone demonstrated better control of delayed CINV in patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy. There were no clinically relevant adverse reactions reported in the palonosetron clinical trials which were different from the common reactions reported for the 5-HT(3) receptor antagonist class. Due to its efficacy in controlling both acute and delayed CINV, palonosetron may be very effective in the clinical setting of multiple-day chemotherapy and bone marrow transplantation.

[Management of chemotherapy-induced emesis: what is the standard after 20 years of clinical research]

BACKGROUND

The knowledge of the importance, the physiopathological mechanisms, and the management of the chemotherapy-induced emesis has increased exponentially during the last 20 years. High-dosage metoclopramide (MCP) therapy has been introduced in the eighties and serotonine type-3 receptor antagonists (5-HT(3) antagonists) have been used since the late eighties and early nineties. Due to both classes of substances the results of the antiemetic therapies have improved drastically. After 20 years of intensive clinical research it seems to be appropriate to come to an intermediate conclusion.

METHOD

With the aid of an overview and a new analysis of the literature published on this topic so far, the current state of research is shown (including the fields in which further improvement will be necessary), and suggestions are made, wherever it seemed possible, to attain the "gold standard" in antiemetic therapy.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS

In connection with all highly or very highly emetogenic chemotherapies, an antiemetic prophylaxis should be initiated on the day of therapy, especially when using platinum or most of the cyclophosphamide-based regimes for cancer treatment. The recommended prophylaxis consists of a combination of 5-HT(3) antagonists with a corticosteroid. To combat the so-called delayed emesis on the days following therapy, all patients should undergo an oral corticoid therapy, possibly in combination with MCP (especially platinum-therapy patients), less frequently with 5-HT(3) antagonists. With these means of prophylaxis emesis can be prevented/avoided completely in most patients, and nausea can at least be reduced. It is sufficient to administer a single dose of 5-HT(3) antagonists prior to chemotherapy. For ondansetron and granisetron, the best documented substances within this class of drugs, 8 mg (ondansteron) and 3 mg (granisetron) are considered standard dosages. Among the corticoids, most data have been accumulated for dexamethasone. A standard dose of 10 to 20 mg can be administered prior to chemotherapy. Right after and especially on the days following chemotherapy higher dosages seem to be indicated.

PROSPECT

Further therapy improvements, especially concerning emesis and nausea on the days following chemotherapy, are necessary and are currently object of clinical research.

Does granisetron eliminate the gag reflex? A crossover, double-blind, placebo-controlled pilot study

Although gagging is a frequent problem that, when severe, can jeopardize the dental procedure, no single protocol is used to alleviate this phenomenon. Selective 5-HT3 antagonists, such as granisetron, may attenuate gagging. In this study, granisetron and placebo were administered intravenously, in a crossover, double-blind manner, to 25 healthy volunteers in 2 different sessions. Gagging levels were recorded before and after administration, as were BP, pulse, and O2 saturation. Recorded results were analyzed with the use of tests for nonparametric values (P = .05). A significant increase in the depth of swab insertion was noted after administration of both placebo and drug. The increase in drug effectiveness correlated with decreased body weight. The true efficacy of granisetron in gagger patients with this treatment protocol has yet to be fully established, although it has been theorized that an increased dosage of granisetron may have a better effect.

Randomized controlled study comparing two doses of intravenous granisetron (1 and 3 mg) for acute chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in cancer patients: a non-inferiority trial

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to assess the non-inferiority of 1 mg to 3 mg granisetron (GRN) injection for the treatment of acute chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) and to evaluate the tolerability of GRN given at 1 mg in Japanese cancer patients.

METHODS

Patients with cancer receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy were enrolled in this single-blind randomized controlled study. Patients were randomly assigned to receive GRN at a single dose of 1 or 3 mg. The primary endpoint was the rate of complete protection from emetic events (no vomiting, no retching and no need for rescue medication) during the first 24 h following the initiation of chemotherapy.

RESULTS

There were 89 patients in the 1 mg group and 90 patients in the 3 mg group. Complete protection was achieved in 70 patients (78.7%) in the 1 mg group and 73 (81.1%) patients in the 3 mg group. The one-sided test did not reveal non-inferiority of either dose of GRN to the other at a 5% significance level.

CONCLUSIONS

Our data failed to show the non-inferiority of 1 mg of GRN to 3 mg of GRN administered as a single dose. However, the rate of complete protection from nausea and vomiting was similar in the two groups. Given the recommended dosage in the guidelines and the economic need for reduction of medical care expenses in Japan, prophylactic administration of GRN at 1 mg may be an appropriate, alternative treatment for acute CINV in cancer patients.

Antiemetic control: toward a new standard of care for emetogenic chemotherapy

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is associated with a significant deterioration in quality of life. The emetogenicity of the chemotherapeutic agents, repeated chemotherapy cycles, and patient risk factors significantly influence CINV. 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 (5-HT(3)) receptor antagonists plus dexamethasone have significantly improved the control of acute CINV, but delayed CINV remains a significant clinical problem. Two new agents, palonosetron and aprepitant, have been approved for the prevention of both acute and delayed CINV. Palonosetron is a second-generation 5-HT(3) receptor antagonist with a longer half-life and a higher binding affinity than first-generation 5-HT(3) receptor antagonists. Aprepitant is the first agent available in the new drug class of neurokinin-1 (NK-1) receptor antagonists. Casopitant is another NK-1 receptor antagonist that is under review by the FDA after recent completion of Phase III clinical trials. The introduction of these new agents has generated revised antiemetic guidelines for the prevention of CINV. Future studies may consider the use of palonosetron, aprepitant and casopitant with other antiemetic agents (olanzapine, gabapentin, cannabinoids) in moderately and highly emetogenic chemotherapy, as well as in the clinical settings of multiple-day chemotherapy and bone marrow transplantation.

Red chili induces rectal hypersensitivity in healthy humans: possible role of 5HT-3 receptors on capsaicin-sensitive visceral nociceptive pathways

BACKGROUND

Red chili has been reported to modulate visceral hypersensitivity, probably by the action of its active ingredient, capsaicin. The role of 5HT-3 receptors on capsaicin-sensitive visceral nociceptive pathways is unknown.

AIM

To test the hypothesis that capsaicin-containing red chili induces rectal hypersensitivity in healthy humans and 5HT-3 receptors participate in this effect.

METHODS

Eighteen healthy volunteers, each underwent three rectal barostat studies under three conditions: (i) oral placebo; (ii) oral chili (5 g daily x 3 days); and (iii) oral chili with 1-mg intravenous (i.v.) granisetron, in randomized, double-blinded, cross-over fashions. Rectal sensation was evaluated by using a 5-point Likert scale.

RESULTS

Chili ingestion significantly decreased rectal threshold for first, moderate and severe urgency (18 +/- 0.9, 24 +/- 1.2, and 38 +/- 1.5 mmHg, respectively) compared with placebo (22 +/- 0.9, 31 +/- 1.3, and 45 +/- 1.4 mmHg, respectively, P < 0.01). The threshold for first, moderate and severe urgency after chili with i.v. granisetron was 20 +/- 0.9, 28 +/- 1.2 and 44 +/- 1.3 mmHg, respectively. This is a significant increase compared with chili ingestion without granisetron (P < 0.05). After placebo ingestion, i.v. granisetron produced no effect on rectal sensation compared with i.v. placebo in 10 healthy volunteers (P > 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Low-dose granisetron, a 5HT-3 receptor antagonist, partially reversed chili-induced rectal hypersensitivity but had no effect on rectal perception induced only by mechanical balloon distention. This study suggests that 5HT-3 receptors may be involved in chili-induced rectal hypersensitivity and potentially participate in the capsaicin-sensitive nociceptive pathways of the human gut.

A double-blind, crossover, randomized dose-comparison trial of granisetron for the prevention of acute and delayed nausea and emesis in children receiving moderately emetogenic carboplatin-based chemotherapy

BACKGROUND

Granisetron is a safe and effective prophylaxis for nausea and vomiting associated with moderate to highly emetogenic chemotherapy. Few trials have been conducted to determine the optimal effective dose of granisetron in children with cancer. The objective of this report was to compare two doses of granisetron in patients with optic pathway tumors receiving moderately emetogenic doses of carboplatin.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

In this double-blind, crossover, randomized study, antiemetic efficacy and tolerability of two dose levels (10 and 40 microg/kg) of granisetron in the prevention of acute and delayed nausea/emesis were compared in children and young adults. A total of 18 patients (13 boys) aged 1-23 years (median 7.7 years) treated with a moderately emetogenic dose of carboplatin were randomly assigned to receive either 10 or 40 microg/kg of slow granisetron intravenous (i.v.) infusions at alternating cycles of chemotherapy in a blinded fashion until the end of the study period or until their chemotherapy regimen ended. In this way, the patients acted as their own controls.

RESULTS

Patients in the granisetron 10 and 40 microg/kg groups received 104 and 121 cycles of chemotherapy, respectively. There was no significant difference in antiemetic efficacy in terms of nausea and emesis between the dose groups in the first 5 days of chemotherapy. The treatment was well tolerated.

CONCLUSION

We conclude that granisetron 10 and 40 microg/kg have comparable efficacy in controlling carboplatin-induced acute and delayed nausea/emesis and is well tolerated in children and young adults.

Palonosetron: a second-generation 5-hydroxytryptamine receptor antagonist

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is associated with a significant deterioration in quality of life. The emetogenicity of the chemotherapeutic agents, repeated chemotherapy cycles and patient risk factors (female gender, younger age, alcohol consumption, history of motion sickness) are the major risk factors for CINV. The use of 5-hydroxytryptamine (5-HT)3 receptor antagonists plus dexamethasone has significantly improved the control of acute CINV, but delayed nausea and vomiting remains a clinical problem. A new agent, palonosetron, has recently been approved for the prevention of acute CINV in patients receiving either moderately or highly emetogenic chemotherapy and for the prevention of delayed CINV in patients receiving moderately emetogenic chemotherapy. Palonosetron is a 5-HT3 receptor antagonist with a longer half-life and a higher binding affinity than first-generation 5-HT3 receptor antagonists. In a single dosing study, palonosetron was highly effective in controlling CINV compared with a single dose of dolasetron or ondansetron in patients receiving moderately emetogenic chemotherapy. Palonosetron in combination with dexamethasone demonstrated control of CINV in patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy. Palonosetron appeared to be as effective in subsequent courses of chemotherapy compared with the initial course of chemotherapy. There were no clinically relevant differences seen among palonosetron, ondansetron or dolasetron in laboratory, electrocardiographic or vital-sign changes, and adverse reactions reported in the clinical trials were the most common reactions reported for the 5-HT3 receptor antagonist class. Recent studies using palonosetron-based anti-emetic combinations in moderately and highly emetogenic chemotherapy, as well as in the clinical setting of multiple-day chemotherapy, have been reported. Future studies may consider the use of palonosetron with current and other new agents and in other clinical settings, such as bone marrow transplantation and radiation therapy.

A meta-analysis comparing the efficacy of four 5-HT3-receptor antagonists for acute chemotherapy-induced emesis

GOALS OF WORK

Comparing antiemetic efficacy of different 5-HT(3)-receptor antagonists (5-HT(3)RAs) is difficult due to inter-study variability. Therefore, a meta-analysis was performed to comparatively evaluate dolasetron, granisetron, ondansetron and tropisetron for acute chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Comparisons between 5-HT(3)RAs were based on 44 randomized studies (including 12,343 patients) identified by MEDLINE, CANCERLIT or EMBASE searches and subcategorized by chemotherapy type (cisplatin- or non-cisplatin-based).

MAIN RESULTS

When all studies were combined, granisetron was equivalent to ondansetron (n = 27), and showed an advantage vs tropisetron (p = 0.018; n = 12). Ondansetron vs tropisetron (n = 11) and ondansetron vs dolasetron (n = 3) revealed equivalence in each comparison. An advantage for 3 mg granisetron vs 8 mg ondansetron was found in non-cisplatin-based studies (p = 0.015; n = 6). Overall equivalence was seen between ondansetron, 24 or 32 mg, and granisetron, 2 or 3 mg, for all studies (n = 13). There was a possible advantage for higher (24 or 32 mg) vs lower (8 mg) ondansetron dose regimens with cisplatin-based trials (n = 6). No differences were seen between 3 and 1 mg granisetron doses (n = 6).

CONCLUSIONS

Efficacy of 5-HT(3)RAs for preventing CINV following cisplatin- and non-cisplatin-based chemotherapy is comparable, with the exception of granisetron vs tropisetron. Some differences were noted in dosing subanalyses.

Gastrointestinal toxicity of chemotherapeutic agents

Chemotherapy-induced toxicities commonly occur in sites within the gastrointestinal (GI) tract and account for dose-limiting effects. These toxicities are major contributing factors to dose reduction, delays, and cessation of cancer treatment. Through intensive therapies including surgery, combination chemotherapy, hormonal therapy, and targeted therapy, an increasing number of patients with cancer are experiencing improved survival and long-term disease-free survival, as well as palliation of disease-related symptoms. Thus, GI toxicities should be predicted and appropriate interventions initiated to prevent them when possible and provide effective supportive measures and comprehensive follow-up care. This review will discuss the etiology, incidence, prevention, and treatment of GI toxicities of cancer chemotherapy.

Emerging drugs for chemotherapy-induced emesis

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is associated with a significant deterioration in quality of life. The emetogenicity of the chemotherapeutic agents, repeated chemotherapy cycles and patient risk factors (female gender, younger age, no alcohol consumption, history of motion sickness) are the major risk factors for CINV. The use of 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 (5-HT3) receptor antagonists plus dexamethasone has significantly improved the control of acute CINV, but delayed nausea and vomiting remains a significant clinical problem. Two new agents, palonosetron and aprepitant, have recently been approved for the prevention of both acute and delayed CINV. Palonosetron is a 5-HT3 receptor antagonist with a longer half-life and a higher binding affinity than first-generation 5-HT3 receptor antagonists. Aprepitant is the first agent available in the new drug class of neurokinin-1 receptor (NK-1) antagonists. There are a number of 5-HT3 receptor antagonists and NK-1 receptor antagonists currently in Phase II and III clinical trials. Revised antiemetic guidelines for the prevention of CINV are reviewed. Future studies may consider the use of palonosetron and aprepitant with current and other new agents (olanzapine, gabapentin) in moderately and highly emetogenic chemotherapy, as well as in the clinical settings of multiple-day chemotherapy and bone marrow transplantation.

Prevención y control de las náuseas y los vómitos inducidos por quimioterapia

Nausea and vomiting are considered one of the most distressing side-effects of chemotherapy. Complete control of acute and delayed emesis improves quality of life and increases adherence to treatment. The frequency of nausea and vomiting depends primarily on the emetogenic potential of the chemotherapeutic agents used. With the standard antiemetic therapy (5HT-3 receptor antagonists in combination with dexamethasone) approximately 13% of patients receiving chemotherapy have vomiting in the acute phase and almost 50% in the delayed phase. A new group of antiemetic drugs, the neurokinin-1 receptor antagonists, in combination with standard therapy significantly improves emesis protection in the acute and in the delayed phase, although control of nausea is not so effective. Nowadays chemotherapy-induced emesis still occurs. Recent developments in antiemetic therapy and responsibility to achieve the best control of nausea and vomiting in patients receiving chemotherapy justified a review of this problem, which is frequently underestimated by physicians and nurses.

5-hydroxytryptamine type-3 receptor antagonists for chemotherapy-induced and radiotherapy-induced nausea and emesis: can we safely reduce the dose of administered agents?

BACKGROUND

Nausea and emesis as a consequence of chemotherapy or radiotherapy can have an adverse effect on patients' quality of life during cancer treatment and may last for > 5 days after administration. Guidelines suggest that, used at appropriate doses, the 5-hydroxytryptamine type-3 (5-HT3) receptor antagonists--which are considered the antiemetic "gold standard" when they are administered in combination with corticosteroids--demonstrate equivalent efficacy and safety. However, due to financial considerations, these agents often are used at lower doses than recommended.

METHODS

A literature review of relevant publications pertaining to the control of chemotherapy-induced nausea and emesis and dosing issues of the 5-HT3 receptor antagonists was undertaken to provide a comprehensive review of dosing issues relevant to the 5-HT3 receptor antagonists.

RESULTS

The issue of "down dosing" was particularly pertinent because of the nature of the 5-HT3 receptor antagonist dose-response curve: A steep dose-response profile within a narrow dose range suggests that antiemetic control will be lost suddenly after dose deescalation. However, the array of predisposing and confounding patient factors indicates that it is unlikely that a loss of antiemetic control will be apparent across a population; rather, individuals will experience loss of control as the dose is reduced below threshold. Of the 4 5-HT3 receptor antagonists currently licensed in the United States (granisetron, ondansetron, dolasetron, and palonosetron), ondansetron is used sometimes at lower than optimal doses, and there is evidence to suggest that even the approved oral dose of dolasetron may be suboptimal.

CONCLUSIONS

Suboptimal dosing not only will be detrimental to patients' quality of life but, ultimately, will prove counterproductive in terms of hospital resources, and it will add to the already significant socioeconomic burden associated with cancer therapy. Therefore, the dose of antiemetic agent administered should be sufficiently high to ensure good emesis control across the whole patient population.

Granisetron vs ondansetron for prevention of nausea and vomiting in hematopoietic stem cell transplant patients: results of a prospective, double-blind, randomized trial

The serotonin type-3 (5-HT3) antagonists represent a significant advance in the prevention of acute nausea and vomiting (N/V) from highly emetogenic chemotherapy. We sought to determine if any differences in efficacy or adverse effects exist between two such agents, ondansetron and granisetron, during conditioning therapy for hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT). Patients were randomized to receive either ondansetron 0.15 mg/kg intravenously every 8 h or granisetron 10 microg/kg intravenously daily. Additionally, all patients received scheduled dexamethasone and lorazepam. Prophylaxis was continued until 24 h after completion of chemotherapy. Nausea and distress were measured subjectively with visual analog scales and emetic episodes were quantified. Of the 110 randomized patients, 96 were evaluable for efficacy and safety. No significant differences in efficacy were observed between the ondansetron- and granisetron-treated patients, evaluated by comparing the degree of nausea and distress, number of emetic episodes and overall control of emesis. The adverse effects were also comparable and no patients were removed from study because of severe toxicities. This trial demonstrates that ondansetron and granisetron are equally effective at preventing acute N/V associated with conditioning therapy frequently used for HSCT. The agent of choice should be based on drug acquisition cost or preference.

Consensus proposals for the prevention of acute and delayed vomiting and nausea following high-emetic-risk chemotherapy

This paper uses an evidence-based approach whenever possible to formulate recommendations, emphasizing the results of controlled trials concerning the best use of antiemetic agents. We address issues of dose, schedule, and route of administration of five selective 5-HT(3) antagonists. We conclude that for each of these five drugs, there is a plateau in therapeutic efficacy above which further dose escalation does not improve outcome. Furthermore, for all classes of antiemetic agents, a single dose is as effective as multiple doses or a continuous infusion. The oral route is as efficacious as the intravenous route of administration, even with chemotherapy of high emetic risk. Selective antagonists of the type 3 serotonin receptor (5-HT(3)) in combination with dexamethasone and aprepitant are the standard of care for the prevention of emesis following chemotherapy of high emetic risk.

Granisetron: An Update on its Clinical Use in the Management of Nausea and Vomiting

Nausea and vomiting are typical side effects of cytotoxic therapy and some surgical procedures. These symptoms can represent a major therapeutic challenge and, if inadequately controlled by antiemetic treatment, will result in increased mortality, morbidity, and health care costs. However, the management of nausea and vomiting has improved greatly in recent years following the introduction of the 5-HT3-receptor antagonists, known as 'setrons.' In light of recent developments in antiemetic care, including the approval of the first neurokinin-1-receptor antagonist aprepitant (Emend; Merck and Company, Inc.; West Point, PA) and a new 5-HT3 receptor antagonist palonosetron (Aloxi; MGI Pharma; Minneapolis, MN), this article provides an update on the clinical experience gained with the 5-HT3-receptor antagonist granisetron (Kytril; Roche Laboratories, Inc.; Nutley, NJ) for the management of chemotherapy-induced, radiation-induced, and postoperative nausea and vomiting, and also reviews its use in special patient populations. Granisetron is a potent and highly selective 5-HT3-receptor antagonist that has little or no affinity for other receptors, a characteristic that is thought to underlie the favorable side-effect and safety profiles of this agent. Extensive clinical trial data have shown granisetron to be an effective and well-tolerated agent for the treatment of nausea and vomiting in the oncology and surgical settings. Granisetron has also been shown to be effective and well tolerated in special populations, such as patients refractory to antiemetic treatment, patients with hepatic or renal impairment, and children. Data also suggest that its safety profile and minimal potential for drug-drug interactions would make it an antiemetic agent of choice for elderly cancer patients.

Role of Neurokinin-1 Receptor Antagonists in Chemotherapy-Induced Emesis: Summary of Clinical Trials

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is associated with a significant deterioration in quality of life, and although the use of 5-hydroxytryptamine3 (5-HT3) receptor antagonists plus dexamethasone has significantly improved the control of acute CINV, delayed nausea and vomiting remain a significant clinical problem. Aprepitant is the first agent available in the new drug class of neurokinin-1 receptor antagonists. When added to a standard regimen of a 5-HT3 receptor antagonist and dexamethasone in patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy, it improves the complete response rate of acute CINV. Aprepitant also improves the complete response of delayed CINV when used in combination with dexamethasone compared to dexamethasone alone. The use of aprepitant in patients receiving moderately emetogenic chemotherapy will await the review and analysis of recently completed phase III trials. The control of nausea is improved in some studies with the use of aprepitant when it is combined with a 5HT3 receptor antagonist and dexamethasone, but nausea control remains suboptimal. The current data suggest that the mechanism of action of the NK-1s appears to be different from the 5-HT3 receptor antagonists. Future studies may explore the use of aprepitant and other NK-1s in moderately and highly emetogenic chemotherapy, as well in the clinical settings of multiple-day chemotherapy and bone marrow transplantation.

The effect of repeat dosing with cimetidine on the pharmacokinetics of intravenous granisetron in healthy volunteers

The primary route of elimination of granisetron is by oxidative hepatic metabolism, thus its pharmacokinetic profile may be altered by co-administration of other drugs that inhibit or induce hepatic drug metabolizing enzymes. This open-label study investigated the effect of inhibition of cimetidine, a potent inhibitor of CYP1A2, CYP2D6 and CYP3A4, on the pharmacokinetic profile of intravenous granisetron in healthy male volunteers. Subjects (n = 12; 18-60 years) received granisetron (40 microg kg(-1)) infused over 3 min, six days before and on the eighth day of dosing with cimetidine (200 mg, four times a day). Blood samples were taken for pharmacokinetic analysis at intervals over 48 h following the administration of each dose of granisetron. Clinical chemistry, haematology and urinalysis were performed before, and 24 h after, each infusion. Electrocardiogram (ECG), resting blood pressure (BP) and pulse were monitored. There were no significant changes in the ECG, lead II trace or ECG time intervals, pulse or blood pressure on each study day. Minor falls in pulse rate and BP (likely to be related to recumbent posture) were seen during both granisetron dosing days, lasting 2 h after each infusion. No significant changes were apparent in the clinical chemistry, haematology or urinalysis measurements following granisetron dosing. No pharmacokinetic parameters measured after cimetidine administration were significantly different from those taken before. Adverse events were mild-to-moderate in severity and were similar to those reported in other studies with granisetron. The pharmacokinetics of granisetron, when administered as a single dose, appeared to be unaltered by cimetidine, an inhibitor of multiple hepatic enzymes (CYP1A2, CYP2D6 and CYP3A4). Granisetron was equally well tolerated before and after repeated dosing with cimetidine.

Palonosetron improves prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting following moderately emetogenic chemotherapy: results of a double-blind randomized phase III trial comparing single doses of palonosetron with ondansetron

BACKGROUND

Although all first-generation 5-HT(3) receptor antagonists demonstrate efficacy in preventing acute chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV), effective prevention of delayed CINV has not yet been achieved. This study compared the efficacy and tolerability of palonosetron, a novel, second-generation 5-HT(3) receptor antagonist, with ondansetron.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

In this multicenter, randomized, double-blind, stratified, phase III study, 570 adult cancer patients were randomized to receive a single i.v. dose of palonosetron 0.25 mg, palonosetron 0.75 mg or ondansetron 32 mg, each administered 30 min before initiation of moderately emetogenic chemotherapy. The primary end point was the proportion of patients with no emetic episodes and no rescue medication [complete response (CR)] during the 24 h after chemotherapy administration (acute period). Secondary end points included efficacy in treatment of delayed CINV (</=5 days post-chemotherapy) and overall tolerability.

RESULTS

563 patients were evaluable for efficacy. CR rates were significantly higher (P <0.01) for palonosetron 0.25 mg than ondansetron during the acute (0-24 h) (81.0% versus 68.6%, respectively), delayed (24-120 h) (74.1% versus 55.1%) and overall (0-120 h) (69.3% versus 50.3%) periods. CR rates achieved with palonosetron 0.75 mg were numerically higher but not statistically different from ondansetron during all three time intervals. Both treatments were well tolerated.

CONCLUSIONS

A single i.v. dose of palonosetron 0.25 mg was significantly superior to i.v. ondansetron 32 mg in the prevention of acute and delayed CINV.

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting: the importance of acute antiemetic control

Nausea and vomiting are two of the most feared side effects of cancer chemotherapy and radiotherapy. Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting can be broadly categorized as acute (occurring within 24 hours of therapy), delayed (persisting for 6-7 days after therapy), or anticipatory (occurring prior to chemotherapy administration). Breakthrough and refractory nausea and vomiting describe the symptoms of uncontrolled emesis. Evidence suggests that good control of nausea and vomiting during the acute period correlates with the control of delayed emesis. Conversely, protection failure during the first 24 hours has a high predictive value for delayed emesis in the same cycle. The 5-HT(3)-receptor antagonists, regarded as the 'gold standard' in antiemetic therapy, are the first-line treatment for moderately and highly emetogenic chemotherapy and radiotherapy regimens in adults and children. Evidence suggests that the 5-HT(3)-receptor antagonists administered in combination with corticosteroids afford the best protection from symptoms of acute emesis and, by extrapolation, the most effective prevention of delayed emesis. Antiemetic therapeutic guidelines stress that the goal of therapy is to prevent cytostatic-induced nausea and vomiting. Therefore, the prophylactic use of the most effective antiemetic regimen-taking into consideration the emetogenicity of the chemotherapy and individual patient characteristics-must be adhered to in order to prevent acute, delayed, and anticipatory nausea and vomiting.

Electrocardiographic and cardiovascular effects of the 5-hydroxytryptamine3 receptor antagonists

OBJECTIVE

To review the electrocardiographic (ECG) and cardiovascular effects of 5-hydroxytryptamine(3) (5-HT(3)) receptor antagonists preclinically, in healthy volunteers, and in patients undergoing chemotherapy or surgery.

DATA SOURCES

A MEDLINE search was performed of clinical trials and preclinical data published between 1963 and December 2002 assessing the ECG and cardiovascular effects of 5-HT(3) receptor antagonists, supplemented with reviews and secondary sources.

STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION

All of the articles identified were evaluated and all information deemed relevant was included in this review.

DATA SYNTHESIS

There are no clinically relevant differences in efficacy and safety among the available 5-HT(3) receptor antagonists for prevention and treatment of chemotherapy-induced and postoperative nausea and vomiting. As a class, they have well-defined electrophysiologic activity. Changes in ECG parameters (PR, QRS, QT, QTc, JT intervals) are small, reversible, clinically insignificant, and independent of the patient population studied, and patients are asymptomatic during these changes. ECG changes are most prominent 1-2 hours after a dose of dolasetron, ondansetron, and granisetron and return to baseline within 24 hours. Clinically important adverse cardiovascular events associated with these changes are rare. No serious cardiac events (including torsade de pointes) arising from ECG interval changes have been attributed to 5-HT(3) receptor antagonist use.

CONCLUSIONS

Clinical data demonstrate that ECG interval changes are a class effect of the 5-HT(3) receptor antagonists. Theoretical concern regarding cardiovascular adverse events with these agents is not supported by clinical experience. The significant benefits of these agents outweigh the theoretical small risk of meaningful cardiovascular events.

Ramosetron for the prevention of cisplatin-induced acute emesis: a prospective randomized comparison with granisetron

Control of nausea and vomiting is very important in determining patient compliance with cisplatin chemotherapy. A multicentre, randomized, single-blind study was conducted to compare the tolerability and efficacy of ramosetron with those of granisetron over 24 h following cisplatin administration to cancer patients. In eight study centres, a total of 194 adult patients were randomly assigned to receive either intravenous ramosetron 0.3 mg or intravenous granisetron 3.0 mg. The anti-emetic effect of ramosetron determined from the no-vomiting rate lasted longer, but there was no significant difference in the number of acute vomiting episodes or the severity of nausea between the two groups. In the tolerability evaluation, there were no statistically significant differences between the two groups, except for a higher incidence of dull headache in the granisetron group. Ramosetron and granisetron appear to have equivalent efficacy and tolerability profiles, but the effects of ramosetron on the prevention of acute vomiting in patients undergoing cisplatin chemotherapy were longer lasting.

Effective cross-over to granisetron after failure to ondansetron, a randomized double blind study in patients failing ondansetron plus dexamethasone during the first 24 hours following highly emetogenic chemotherapy

In view of the similarity in chemical structure of the available 5HT(3)-receptor antagonists it is assumed, whilst these agents all act at the same receptor, that failure to one agent would predict subsequent failure to all 5HT(3)-receptor antagonists. We conducted a randomized double blind trial of granisetron 3 mg plus dexamethasone 10 mg versus continued treatment with ondansetron 8 mg plus dexamethasone 10 mg in patients with protection failure on ondansetron 8 mg plus dexamethasone 10 mg during the first 24 hours following highly emetogenic chemotherapy. Of 40 eligible patients, 21 received ondansetron + dexamethasone and 19 received granisetron + dexamethasone. We found a significant benefit from crossing-over to granisetron after failure on ondansetron. Of the 19 patients who crossed over to granisetron, 9 patients obtained complete protection, whereas this was observed in 1 of the 21 patients continuing ondansetron, P = 0.005. These results indicate that there is no complete cross-resistance between 5HT(3)-receptor antagonists, and that patients who have acute protection failure on one 5HT(3)-receptor antagonist should be offered cross-over to another 5HT(3)-receptor antagonist.

Cancer-related fatigue: prevalence of proposed diagnostic criteria in a United States sample of cancer survivors

PURPOSE

To evaluate the proposed cancer-related fatigue (CRF) diagnostic criteria in a sample of cancer survivors. More accurate prevalence estimates of CRF may result in improved diagnosis and management of one of the most common symptoms associated with cancer and its treatment.

METHODS

Three hundred seventy-nine individuals who had been treated with chemotherapy, either alone or in combination with radiation therapy, were surveyed. Patients were asked background questions about their current condition, their medical history, and the frequency of fatigue during their chemotherapy. Additionally, patients who reported experiencing fatigue at least a few days each month during treatment were asked a series of questions about the impact of fatigue on their daily functioning.

RESULTS

One hundred forty-one (37%) individuals reported at least 2 weeks of fatigue in the previous month. Of the respondents who had received their last treatment more than 5 years ago, 33% still reported at least a 2-week period of fatigue in the month before the interview. Evaluation of the proposed criteria revealed that 17% of respondents met at least two criteria for CRF.

CONCLUSION

The prevalence of diagnosable CRF in the individuals in this sample, most of whom had completed treatment more than 1 year ago, was 17%-lower than expected based on previous reports that have used less-strict criteria. In a sizable number of people, CRF persists well beyond active treatment and should be a focus of intervention. Although they will require replication in other samples and clinical validation, these formal diagnostic criteria can be a step toward common language and a better understanding of the severity range and persistence of CRF.

Efficacy of intravenous granisetron to control nausea and vomiting during multiple cycles of cisplatin-based chemotherapy

The safety and efficacy of granisetron (10 micrograms/kg and 40 micrograms/kg) were evaluated during a second (n = 393) and third (n = 200) cycle of chemotherapy in this multicenter, double-blind, randomized, parallel-group study. Granisetron was administered as a single intravenous dose before the start of cisplatin chemotherapy (> or = 60 mg/m2). Total control (no vomiting, no retching, no nausea, and no use of antiemetic rescue medication) after the first 24 hr following chemotherapy was achieved in 40% and 49% of patients in Cycles 2 and 3, respectively, for the 10 micrograms/kg group, and in 42% and 38% of patients in Cycles 2 and 3, respectively, for the 40 micrograms/kg group. Both dose levels of granisetron were well tolerated. The results demonstrate comparable efficacy between the 10 micrograms/kg and 40 micrograms/kg doses of granisetron in preventing nausea and vomiting during repeat cycles of high-dose cisplatin-based chemotherapy. The results of this study show that granisetron 10 micrograms/kg is safe and well tolerated, and remains effective with repeat cycle use.

Evaluation of outcomes in converting from intravenous ondansetron to oral granisetron: an observational study

OBJECTIVE

To describe a systematic evaluation of the outcomes associated with revising institutional guidelines for the prevention of acute chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) to promote cost-effective use of the serotonin (5-HT3) antagonists.

METHODS

The 5-HT3 antagonist of choice in the antiemetic guidelines was revised from intravenous ondansetron to oral granisetron in August 1995. Patient assessments were conducted immediately prior to (Period 1) and after (Period 2) guideline revision using validated questionnaires. The effectiveness of the two 5-HT3 antagonists were compared and reported to the prescribing oncologists. Outcomes were assessed one year after guideline revision (Period 3) using identical methods.

RESULTS

No difference was found in the rate of total control (no emesis, no nausea) between patients receiving oral granisetron (60%) and intravenous ondansetron (56%) (p = 0.408, Period 1 vs. 2). Nausea severity, the number of emesis episodes, and use of rescue antiemetics were also equivalent. Prescriber compliance with using the 5-HT3 antagonist of choice and dose increased from 48% to 61% following adoption of oral granisetron. By Period 3, compliance increased to 78%, and satisfactory control of acute CINV was again documented. The costs for prevention of acute CINV decreased from $107 in Period 1 (intravenous ondansetron only) to $65 in Period 3 (oral granisetron).

CONCLUSIONS

Outcomes associated with use of oral granisetron and intravenous ondansetron were equivalent in this patient population. Guideline revision and outcome documentation by the oncology pharmacists resulted in increased compliance with institution guidelines and a 40% cost savings.

Stratified administration of serotonin 5-HT3 receptor antagonists (setrons) for chemotherapy-induced emesis. Economic implications

The serotonin 5-HT3 receptor antagonists or 'setrons' have become the standard of care for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced emesis (CIE) and are first-line therapy for acute CIE in healthcare organisations worldwide. However, their superior efficacy versus standard antiemetics comes at a significant cost. Currently, 3 agents are available in the US: ondansetron, granisetron and dolasetron. The most important treatment-related factor contributing to CIE is the emetogenicity of chemotherapy. The ability to customise, or stratify, the setron dose to match the emetogenic challenge of the chemotherapy administered has potential benefits, both clinically and economically. In adults, there is an appreciable amount of clinical literature addressing stratified administration; however, the amount of 'hard' economic data is rather limited. Intuitively, if clinical outcomes are equivalent, then stratified administration should be associated with economic benefits, as it generally promotes the use of doses lower than those recommended by the manufacturer. The literature strongly substantiates this for ondansetron, but is not as favourable for granisetron or dolasetron. As the rationale and justification for dose stratification is contained in the clinical literature, the authors have reviewed the pertinent literature supporting the clinical and economic benefits of dose stratification in both adult and paediatric patients. The authors also provide a discussion of various additional strategies that can be employed to ensure the appropriate and cost-effective use of setrons in real-world practice settings. These strategies include the use of lower doses than recommended by manufacturers, use for acute versus delayed phase emesis, enhancing the antiemetic efficacy by the addition of a corticosteroid, use of oral versus injectable formulations (when appropriate) and the implementation and use of local, national and international drug use guidelines.

Granisetron is equivalent to ondansetron for prophylaxis of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting: results of a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

The introduction of serotonin antagonists as antiemetics for prophylaxis of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting represented a major step toward better patient tolerance and adherence to this type of treatment. Several published trials compared different serotonin antagonists without demonstrating clear superiority of any one of them. Because most of these trials compared ondansetron with granisetron, the authors conducted a meta-analysis to determine if the current data available show any therapeutic difference between them.

METHODS

MEDLINE and CANCERLIT databases were searched from 1990 to May 1999, and pertinent article references also were surveyed, without restriction to English language. The authors included all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that had more than 25 patients per arm and compared ondansetron to granisetron for prophylaxis of acute (A) (< 24 hours) and delayed (D) (> 24 hours) nausea (N) and vomiting (V) induced by highly (H) or moderately (M) emetogenic chemotherapy. Only the first chemotherapy cycle was considered for studies that involved a crossover design.

RESULTS

Fourteen studies with 6467 evaluable patients among the 21 studies retrieved were selected for this meta-analysis. In none of the eight scenarios studied (AHV, AHN, AMV, AMN, DHV, DHN, DMV, and DMN) could the authors detect any significant differences in the antiemetic efficacy of any of these medications.

CONCLUSIONS

The authors conclude that both granisetron and ondansetron have similar antiemetic efficacy for prophylaxis of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting. Because the number of comparative studies that addressed the delayed nausea and vomiting scenarios is low, further RCTs are still needed to confirm these results.

Randomized, multicenter comparison of oral granisetron and oral ondansetron for emetogenic chemotherapy

STUDY OBJECTIVES

To compare the antiemetic effectiveness and safety of oral granisetron plus dexamethasone with those of oral ondansetron plus dexamethasone administered before emetogenic chemotherapy.

DESIGN

Randomized, prospective, multicenter, open-label study.

SETTINGS

University-teaching hospital and veterans health care system.

PATIENTS

Sixty-one chemotherapy-naïve patients scheduled to receive emetogenic antineoplastic agents.

INTERVENTION

A single-dose oral granisetron 1 mg and dexamethasone 12 mg or single-dose oral ondansetron 16 mg and dexamethasone 12 mg was administered before chemotherapy.

MEASUREMENTS AND RESULTS

Twenty-four hours after administration patients were contacted to assess nausea, emesis, and adverse events. There were no statistical differences in frequency of nausea or emesis between groups. Seventy-six percent and 82% of patients receiving ondansetron and granisetron, respectively, experienced no emesis 24 hours after chemotherapy. Complete protection from nausea occurred in 58% and 46% of patients receiving the drugs, respectively. Adverse events were similar between groups.

CONCLUSION

Oral granisetron 1 mg and ondansetron 16 mg plus dexamethasone are safe and effective in preventing nausea and vomiting related to emetogenic chemotherapy.