The Effect of Granisetron, Ondansetron, and Meperidine in Preventing Postoperative Shivering: Controlled Clinical Trial.

BACKGROUND: Recently, use of HT35 receptor antagonists to prevent postoperative shivering has attracted a great deal of attention. This study was conducted with the aim of investigating the effectiveness of granisetron as an HT35 antagonist when compared with ondansetron and meperidine in preventing postoperative shivering. MATERIAL AND METHODS: In this triple blind random clinical trial study, 90 patients 18-50 years of age with ASA Class I and II undergoing general anesthesia were randomly assigned into one of the three drug groups: O (4-mg ondansetron), G (40 µg/kg of granisetron), and P (25 mg meperidine), immediately before induction of anesthesia. After anesthesia induction, at the end of the surgery, after the entrance and after leaving the recovery state, central temperature, peripheral temperature, heart rate, systolic blood pressure, diastolic blood pressure, and shivering were measured and documented. Two-tailed P < 0.05 was considered significant. RESULTS: In the meperidine, ondansetron, and granisetron groups, 4 (13.3%), 3 (10%), and 10 (33.3%) of patients experienced shivering during recovery, where the difference between the ondansetron and granisetron groups was significant (p-value=0.02). The variations in the mean arterial pressure during the investigation stages only in the ondansetron group were not significant (p>0.05). At the beginning of recovery, the reduction of peripheral temperature significantly was lower in the ondansetron group (p<0.05), while reduction of the central temperature was significantly (p<0.05) higher in the granisetron group. By the end of the recovery, the variations in the peripheral temperature across the three groups were consistent with the changes at the beginning of recovery, but variations of the central temperature across the three groups was not significantly diverse. CONCLUSION: Granisetron was not found to be much effective in preventing postoperative shivering. Ondansetron and meperidine were equally effective in preventing postoperative shivering. Ondansetron also causes less hemodynamic changes compared to other drugs, while granisetron is more effective in terms of preventing nausea and vomiting.

Effects of ketamine, granisetron and dexmedetomidine on postoperative shivering and hemodynamic changes after general anesthesia: a double-blind randomized clinical trial.

Postoperative shivering is one of the most common complications of surgeries. The current research compared the effects of ketamine, granisetron, and dexmedetomidine on reducing postoperative shivering after general anesthesia. This double-blind clinical trial enrolled 148 patients (39.08 ± 5.99 years old) who had been admitted to Vali-Asr Hospital of Arak, Iran in 2019-2021. The study drugs, including dexmedetomidine, ketamine, granisetron and normal saline, were administered in corresponding groups 30 minutes before the end of surgery. The results showed that dexmedetomidine reduced mean arterial pressure and heart rate in patients. The lowest incidence of shivering was observed in the dexmedetomidine group and it increased the duration of recovery. Overall, dexmedetomidine is recommended to reduce postoperative shivering after general anesthesia, but the increase in duration of recovery should be considered.

Electropress Needle Stimulation for the Prevention of Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting in Patients Undergoing Laparoscopic Sleeve Gastrectomy: A Prospective, Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Being overweight or obese is becoming increasingly prevalent worldwide and seriously endangers human health. Laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) has been successfully used for the treatment of severe obesity, but the incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is high. However, traditional antiemetics have limited effects on PONV. Electropress needle therapy, which can be enhanced with electrical stimulation, is a promising therapy for the prevention and treatment of PONV. However, whether the electropress needle is effective for PONV in patients with LSG remains uncertain. METHODS: This was a prospective, randomized controlled trial. A total of 106 patients who planned to undergo elective LSG between October 2021 and July 2022 were randomly allocated to receive electropress needle stimulation combined with dexamethasone and granisetron (group A) or dexamethasone plus granisetron (group B). The primary outcome was the incidence of PONV 48 h after surgery. The secondary outcomes were PONV severity score, time to first flatus, length of hospital stay, visual analogue scale (VAS) score, and postoperative remedial medication use. RESULTS: Compared with dexamethasone plus granisetron, electropress needle stimulation combined with dexamethasone and granisetron significantly decreased the incidence and severity of PONV (P<0.001). Patients in Group A consumed less antiemetics postoperatively (P<0.05) and had a much shorter length of postoperative hospital stay (P<0.05). There was no difference in the time to first flatus between the two groups (P > 0.05). CONCLUSION: Electropress needle acupoint stimulation can reduce the incidence and severity of PONV in patients undergoing LSG.

The effect of intravenous granisetron on prophylactic ephedrine for preventing hypotension after general anaesthesia induction in elderly patients: a randomized controlled trial.

Serotonin 3 receptor antagonists, a commonly used drug for preventing postoperative nausea and vomiting, have recently been reported to decrease the incidence of hypotension and the need for vasoactive drugs after spinal anaesthesia in obstetric surgery. However, it remains unknown whether they could also prevent hypotension after induction of general anaesthesia. In the current study, we aimed to investigate the effect of intravenous granisetron on prophylactic ephedrine for preventing hypotension after general anaesthesia induction in elderly patients. Sixty elderly patients were randomly assigned to receive granisetron or saline control 30 min before induction of general anaesthesia. The first patient in each group received a prophylactic dose of ephedrine (0.15 mg kg-1) to prevent hypotension. The prophylactic dose for each patient was increased or decreased by 0.05 mg/kg based on the efficacy results of the previous patient. The up-down sequential allocation analysis and probit regression was used to calculate the effective dose for 50% of patients (ED50) with prophylactic ephedrine. In the up-down sequential allocation analysis, the ED50 of ephedrine was significantly lower in group granisetron (0.08 mg kg-1 [95% CI, 0.06-0.11 mg kg-1]) when compared with group control (0.14 mg kg-1 [95% CI, 0.13-0.16 mg kg-1]) (P < 0.001). The conclusion was further supported by probit regression analysis (0.09 mg kg-1 [95% CI, 0.05-0.12 mg kg-1] in group granisetron and 0.14 mg kg-1 [95% CI, 0.12-0.16 mg kg-1] in group control). Intravenous granisetron reduced the requirement of prophylactic ephedrine in preventing hypotension after general anaesthesia induction in elderly patients.

Comparative Efficacy of Granisetron and Droperidol After Orthognathic Surgery for Prophylaxis of Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting: A Retrospective Study.

BACKGROUND: In the fall of 2021, granisetron was approved for postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) management in Japan. However, the comparative efficacy of droperidol and granisetron in the field of orthognathic surgery has not been determined. PURPOSE: We compare the efficacy of droperidol and granisetron for PONV prophylaxis following orthognathic surgery. STUDY DESIGN, SETTING, SAMPLE: We performed a retrospective cohort study of patients who underwent orthognathic surgery at a single institution from September 2020 to December 2022. Patients who had undergone Le Fort I osteotomy with sagittal split ramus osteotomy or isolated sagittal split ramus osteotomy were included. Patients were divided into three groups; the isolated droperidol (D), isolated granisetron (G), and droperidol with granisetron (DG) groups. General anesthesia was performed using total intravenous anesthesia for all patients; however, droperidol and granisetron were administered at the anesthesiologist's discretion. PREDICTOR VARIABLE: PONV prophylactic therapy included isolated droperidol, isolated granisetron, and droperidol with granisetron administration. OUTCOME VARIABLES: Postoperative nausea (PON) and postoperative vomiting (POV) were determined through medical examination within 48 hours following surgery. Secondary outcomes included complications due to droperidol and/or granisetron administration. COVARIATES: Age, sex, body mass index, Apfel's score, duration of surgery, duration of anesthesia, intraoperative blood loss, and type of surgery. ANALYSES: Statistical analysis was conducted using Fisher exact test, Mann-Whitney U test with Bonferroni correction for univariate comparison, and modified Poisson regression for comparison of PON and POV prophylactic efficacy for multivariate analyses. P values <.05 were considered statistically significant. RESULTS: Our study included 218 participants. There were no significant differences in covariates between groups D (n = 111), G (n = 52), and DG (n = 55). No significant difference in PON incidence was observed between groups. However, POV incidence was significantly lower in group DG than group D (relative risk, 0.21; 95% confidence interval, 0.05 to 0.86; P = .03). No significant difference in complication incidence was observed between groups. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Granisetron was as effective as droperidol for PONV management, while droperidol combined with granisetron was more effective than isolated droperidol for POV management. As compared to the use of each drug separately, their combination was considered safe, with no increase in complication rates.

The efficacy and safety of metoclopramide in relieving acute migraine attacks compared with other anti-migraine drugs: a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: Many drugs are prescribed in relieving acute migraine attacks, we aim to compare metoclopramide with other antimigraine drugs. METHODS: We searched online databases like PubMed, Cochrane Library, Scopus, and Web of Science till June 2022 for RCTs that compared metoclopramide alone with placebo or active drugs. The main outcomes were the mean change in headache score and complete headache relief. The secondary outcomes were the rescue medications need, side effects, nausea and recurrence rate. We qualitatively reviewed the outcomes. Then, we performed the network meta-analyses (NMAs) when it was possible. which were done by the Frequentist method using the MetaInsight online software. RESULTS: Sixteen studies were included with a total of 1934 patients: 826 received metoclopramide, 302 received placebo, and 806 received other active drugs. Metoclopramide was effective in reducing headache outcomes even for 24 h. The intravenous route was the most chosen route in the included studies and showed significant positive results regarding headache outcomes; however, the best route whether intramuscular, intravenous, or suppository was not compared in the previous studies. Also, both 10 and 20 mg doses of metoclopramide were effective in improving headache outcomes; however, there was no direct comparison between both doses and the 10 mg dose was the most frequently used dosage. In NMA of headache change after 30 min or 1 h, metoclopramide effect came after granisetron, ketorolac, chlorpromazine, and Dexketoprofen trometamol. Only granisetron's effect was significantly higher than metoclopramide's effect which was only significantly higher than placebo and sumatriptan. In headache-free symptoms, only prochlorperazine was non-significantly higher than metoclopramide which was higher than other medications and showed significantly higher effects only with placebo. In rescue medication, metoclopramide's effect was only non-significantly lower than prochlorperazine and chlorpromazine while its effect was higher than other drugs and showed higher significant effects only than placebo and valproate. In the recurrence rate, studies showed no significant difference between metoclopramide and other drugs. Metoclopramide significantly decreased nausea more than the placebo. Regarding side effects, metoclopramide showed a lower incidence of mild side effects than pethidine and chlorpromazine and showed a higher incidence of mild side effects than placebo, dexamethasone, and ketorolac. The reported extrapyramidal symptoms with metoclopramide were dystonia or akathisia. CONCLUSION: A dose of 10 mg IV Metoclopramide was effective in relieving migraine attacks with minimal side effects. Compared to other active drugs, it only showed a lower significant effect compared with granisetron regarding headache change while it showed significantly higher effects only with placebo in both rescue medication needs and headache-free symptoms and valproate in only rescue medication need. Also, it significantly decreased headache scores more than placebo and sumatriptan. However, more studies are needed to support our results.

Pharmacological augmentation of serotonin reuptake inhibitors in patients with obsessive-compulsive disorder: A network meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES: The augmentation of serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SRIs) can be achieved by add-on therapy with different pharmacological agents in obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) for a better clinical outcome. This network meta-analysis (NMA) was conducted to evaluate and compare the effects of available augmentation agents for SRIs in OCD. METHOD: The data was extracted from 59 relevant clinical trials after a literature search on MEDLINE/PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane databases and clinical trial registries. PRISMA guidelines were followed in data extraction, analysis and reporting. Random effects Bayesian NMA was done to pool the effects across the interventions for the change in Yale-Brown Obsessive-Compulsive Scale (YBOCS) scoring from baseline to the end of the study. Network graph was built, consistency model was run, node splitting analysis was performed, treatments were ranked as per SUCRA score and meta-regression was done for refractoriness to SRIs and duration of augmentation therapy as the predictor variables. RESULTS: The drugs showing significant reduction in YBOCS scoring were pregabalin (MD:-8.1;95% CrI: -16, -0.43), memantine (MD:-6.2;95% CrI: -9.9, -2.3), lamotrigine (MD:-6;95% CrI: -12, -0.47), ondansetron (MD:-5.7;95% CrI: -11, -0.67), granisetron (MD:-5.6;95% CrI: -11, -0.44), aripiprazole (MD:-5.4;95% CrI:-9.1, -1.6), risperidone (MD:-3.3;95% CrI: -6.4, -0.20) and topiramate (MD:-5.3;95% CrI: -9.6, -0.97). The node-split analysis showed that direct and indirect pooled effect sizes for all comparisons were comparable. Meta-regression showed a statistically non-significant association between YBOCS score reduction with the duration of augmentation therapy, but significant with SRI-refractory status. Finally, the results were sorted based on certainty of evidence. CONCLUSION: Memantine was found to be most effective augmentation agent for SRIs in OCD, followed by lamotrigine, ondansetron and granisetron with moderate certainty of evidence. The augmentation agents showed better symptom reduction in patients with SRI-refractory OCD in comparison to non-refractory OCD. PROSPERO REGISTRATION: CRD42022360110.

Effects of ondansetron, metoclopramide and granisetron on perioperative nausea and vomiting in patients undergone bariatric surgery: a randomized clinical trial.

INTRODUCTION: Post-operative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is a common problem after sleeve gastrectomy. In recent years, following the increase in the number of such operations, special attention has been paid to preventing PONV. Additionally, several prophylaxis methods have been developed, including enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) and preventive antiemetics. Nevertheless, PONV has not been completely eliminated, and the clinicians are trying to reduce the incidence of PONV yet. METHODS: After successful ERAS implementation, patients were divided into five groups, including control and experimental groups. Metoclopramide (MA), ondansetron (OA), granisetron (GA), and a combination of metoclopramide and ondansetron (MO) were used as antiemetics for each group. The frequency of PONV during the first and second days of admission was recorded using a subjective PONV scale. RESULTS: A total of 130 patients were enrolled in this study. The MO group showed a lower incidence of PONV (46.1%) compared to the control group (53.8%) and other groups. Furthermore, the MO group did not require rescue antiemetics, however, one-third of control cases used rescue antiemetics (0 vs. 34%). CONCLUSION: Using the combination of metoclopramide and ondansetron is recommended as the antiemetic regimen for the reduction of PONV after sleeve gastrectomy. This combination is more helpful when implemented alongside ERAS protocols.

Role Of Granisetron In Minimising Use Of Meperidine As A Rescue Drug For Post Spinal Shivering.

BACKGROUND: Shivering is one of the most common adverse outcomes associated with the administration of spinal anaesthesia, which, when clinically relevant, leads to numerous detrimental effects on the human body. Hence, its management becomes imperative. Meperidine, an opioid analgesic, is the drug of choice for this condition. However, the use of meperidine is controversial, as it carries the devastating adverse effect of respiratory depression. We explored the role of granisetron, a 5HT3 antagonist and a commonly used antiemetic premedication, in minimising the incidence of post-spinal shivering and decreasing the use of meperidine as a rescue drug. METHODS: Overall, 160 parturient patients, between the ages 18-50, undergoing uncomplicated, elective caesarean section, were enrolled in the study, and randomized into two groups with 80 participants each: Group A received 3ml of normal saline, and Group B was administered 3 mg granisetron,15 minutes before spinal anaesthesia institution. Incidence of clinically relevant shivering (score of 3 or more) was noted, and it was recorded whether meperidine was used or not. RESULTS: 67.5% of participants in Group A, and 32.5% of patients in Group B, experienced clinically relevant shivering, with 62.5% of patients in Group A and 28.75% in Group B warranting the use of meperidine. There was a statistically significant difference between the two groups in terms of incidence of clinically relevant shivering, and meperidine consumption (p-value <0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Premedication with 3 mg granisetron effectively attenuates the occurrence of post-spinal shivering and, hence, lowers the requirement of meperidine as rescue medication.

Granisetron-mediated augmentation of sertraline therapeutic effect in obsessive-compulsive disorder: a double-blind placebo-controlled, randomized clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Medications currently recommended for the treatment of Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder (OCD) usually relieve the severity of symptoms by as much as 20-30%, and satisfactory treatment is obtained in 40-60% of patients with OCD. Nevertheless, the remaining symptoms continue to impair the patients' function. Therefore, it is necessary to investigate possible strategies to improve the mitigation of symptoms. In this study, the main objective was to examine and investigate the effectiveness of granisetron, which is a serotonin 5-hydroxytryptamine receptor type 3 (5-HT3) antagonist, as an adjunct therapy to selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, for the purpose of ameliorating OCD symptoms. METHODS: fifty-eight patients diagnosed with OCD, based on Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5) criteria, who had a Yale-Brown obsessive-compulsive scale (Y-BOCS) score of more than 21 were recruited in a double-blinded, parallel-group, placebo-controlled, clinical trial of 10 weeks to receive either granisetron (1 mg twice daily) and sertraline (100 mg daily initially followed by 200 mg daily after week 4) or placebo and sertraline. The primary outcome was OCD symptoms measured by the Y-BOCS. RESULTS: Y-BOCS total score significantly dropped in both groups (28.9 to 17.7 for granisetron plus sertraline and 27.5 to 19.3 for placebo plus sertraline group with a slightly greater drop for granisetron plus sertraline group), while the granisetron plus sertraline group experienced a significantly greater reduction in obsession scores (Greenhouse-Geisser F(2.32,97.57) = 4.52,p-value = 0.01). Moreover, in comparison with the placebo plus sertraline group, the proportion of the patients showing complete response was considerably higher among the granisetron plus sertraline group (P-value < 0.01). No major adverse effects were observed in any of the groups. CONCLUSION: The results suggest that granisetron augmentation of sertraline may increase the rate of response in patients with moderate to severe non-refractory OCD. Further studies are suggested in this regard.

Comparison of the Antiemetic Effect of Aprepitant/granisetron and Palonosetron Combined with Dexamethasone in Gynecological Cancer Patients Treated with Paclitaxel and Carboplatin Combination Regimen.

A triple antiemetic therapy combining aprepitant (APR) with conventional double antiemetic therapy, including 5-hydroxytryptamine 3 receptor antagonist (5-HT3-RA) and dexamethasone (DEX), is recommended for preventing chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting induced by a carboplatin (CBDCA) regimen. However, consensus on the additive effects of APR for gynecological patients on a combined regimen of paclitaxel and CBDCA (TC regimen) has yet to be reached. This retrospective study investigated the antiemetic effects of palonosetron and DEX (PD therapy) and granisetron and DEX with APR (GDA therapy) in patients with gynecologic cancer and who underwent their first TC regimen cycle between April 2017 and March 2020 at the Gunma University Hospital Outpatient Chemotherapy Center. The results showed that the complete response rate of the 92 patients who underwent PD therapy (PD group) and the 46 patients who underwent GDA therapy (GDA group) were both 80.4% (p = 1.000), and the complete control rates of the PD and GDA groups were 78.3% and 80.4%, respectively (p = 0.828), resulting in no significant difference. Furthermore, we observed no significant difference between the PD and GDA groups in the incidence of grade ≥2 nausea, vomiting, and anorexia (nausea: 7.6% vs. 0%, p = 0.095; vomiting: 4.3% vs. 0%, p = 0.301; and anorexia: 9.8% vs. 2.2%, p = 0.164). Concerning adverse events, compared to the PD group, the GDA group showed significantly higher incidence of grade ≥2 malaise (7.6% vs. 19.6%, p = 0.039). Given the lack of difference in the antiemetic effects of PD and GDA therapies, antiemetic therapy should be selected carefully for individual patients by accounting for the incidence of adverse reactions and interactions with APR.

The effect of 1-mg versus 3-mg granisetron on shivering and nausea in cesarean section: a randomized, controlled, triple-blind, clinical trial.

INTRODUCTION: Intra- and postoperative nausea, vomiting and shivering are mentioned as the most common problem following spinal anesthesia. The aim of this study is to compare two different doses of granisetron to control the shivering, nausea, and vomiting caused by spinal anesthesia in women undergoing cesarean section (C/S). METHOD: This study is a randomized, triple-blind clinical trial. The participants received 1-mg or 3-mg granisetron. Women who underwent elective C/S were enrolled. Inclusion criteria were ASA (American Society of Anesthesiologists) physical status grade I or II and age range of 18-40 years. Primary outcome was changes in the score of shivering, and nausea and vomiting. Secondary outcomes were Apgar score, mean arterial pressure, systolic blood pressure, diastolic blood pressure, temperature and heart rate. RESULTS: According to binary logistic regression, the incidence of shivering (6.9% vs. 1.5%; p-value = 0.049), and nausea and vomiting (19.2% vs. 9.2%; p-value = 0.024) was significantly higher in patients received 1-mg granisetron in comparison with 3-mg granisetron. Multinomial logistic regression showed that the occurrence of shivering, and nausea and vomiting were not associated with the dose of granisetron. There was no significant difference between the age and Apgar score of 1 (p = 0.908) and 5 (p = 0.843) minute(s) between the two groups. CONCLUSION: This study showed that although 3-mg of granisetron reduces the incidence of intra- and postoperative shivering, nausea and vomiting after spinal anesthesia in comparison with 1-mg of granisetron, the difference was not statistically significant.

Granisetron attenuates liver injury and inflammation in a rat model of cecal ligation and puncture-induced sepsis.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Sepsis induced liver injury is recognized as a serious complication in intensive care units, it is deeply associated with oxidative stress, inflammation and subsequent pyroptosis. Hepatic pyroptosis known to aggravate sepsis-induced liver injury. Previous studies proved that granisetron has anti-inflammatory and antioxidant properties. Accordingly, this study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of granisetron on sepsis-induced liver damage using a cecal ligation and puncture (CLP) model in rats. MAIN METHODS: Male albino rats were randomly divided into four groups: a sham control group, a granisetron control group, a CLP-induced sepsis group and a granisetron-treated CLP group. Markers of oxidative stress, inflammation, pyroptosis-related proteins and liver function were measured in addition to the histopathological study. KEY FINDINGS: Granisetron pretreatment significantly decreased mortality and improved liver function, as indicated by decreased ALT, AST, and total bilirubin and increased albumin content. Moreover, granisetron increased GPx activity and downregulated hepatic MDA. Furthermore, granisetron administration significantly reduced TNF-α, IL-6, HMGB1 and NF-κB. It also decreased the expression of receptor for advanced glycation end and TLR4 in the liver tissue. Interestingly, granisetron inhibited pyroptosis as it reduced NLRP3, IL-1ß and caspase-1. Granisetron was shown to increase Nrf2 and HO-1. In addition, granisetron treatment repaired, to some extent, the abnormal architecture of hepatic tissue. SIGNIFICANCE: Our results suggested that granisetron is a potential therapeutic agent for sepsis-associated liver injury, possibly acting by inhibiting oxidative stress, inflammation and subsequent pyroptosis.

Effectiveness of palonosetron versus granisetron in preventing chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) commonly occurs after chemotherapy, adversely affecting patients' quality of life. Recently, studies have shown inconsistent antiemetic effects of two common 5-hydroxytryptamine 3 receptor antagonists, namely, palonosetron and granisetron. Therefore, we conducted a meta-analysis to evaluate the effectiveness of palonosetron versus granisetron in preventing CINV. METHODS: Relevant studies were obtained from PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases. The primary outcome was the complete response (CR) rate. Secondary outcomes were headache and constipation events. RESULTS: In total, 12 randomized controlled trials and five retrospective studies were reviewed. Palonosetron was consistently statistically superior to granisetron in all phases in terms of the CR rate (acute phases: odds ratio [OR] = 1.28, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.06-1.54; delayed phases: OR = 1.38, 95% CI = 1.13-1.69; and overall phases: OR = 1.37, 95% CI = 1.17-1.60). Moreover, a non-significant difference was found between the two groups in terms of the headache event, but the occurrence of the constipation event was lower in the granisetron group than in the palonosetron group. CONCLUSION: Palonosetron showed a higher protective efficacy in all phases of CINV prevention, especially in delayed phases, and no relatively severe adverse effects were observed.

Evaluation of clinical outcomes and efficacy of palonosetron and granisetron in combination with dexamethasone in Egyptian patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy.

BACKGROUND: Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is considered one of the most serious adverse events affecting chemotherapy-receiving cancer patients. It dramatically affects their food intake, nutritional status and more importantly their quality of life. We can observe CINV in highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) such as adriamycin-cyclophosphamide combination (AC) in breast cancer patients and cisplatin-based regimens in other cancer types. This study aimed to evaluate the antiemetic efficacy of palonosetron (PALO) over granisetron (GRA) in combination with dexamethasone for multiple highly emetogenic chemotherapy drugs (HEC), especially in chemotherapy regimens in Egyptian breast cancer patients and cisplatin-based regimens in other diseases. PATIENTS AND METHODS: An open-label randomized trial was carried out, including 115 patients receiving at least four cycles of highly emetogenic chemotherapy regimens. All patients received dexamethasone in combination with the 5-HT3 receptor antagonist. We recorded patients' clinical and biochemical characteristics and withdraw blood samples to monitor serum substance P and serotonin in correlation with chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV). We use the MASCC antiemetic tool in the acute phase (0-24 hr) and delayed phase (24-120 h) to evaluate patient outcomes in both stages after each chemotherapy cycle. RESULTS: In (PALO) group, only 7.84% of patients showed acute vomiting, and 11.76% showed acute nausea, whereas 43.75% of patients showed acute vomiting and 89.06% showed acute nausea in (GRA) group (P < 0.0001). For delayed CINV, 23.53% of patients showed delayed vomiting, and 47.06% showed delayed nausea in the (PALO) group, while 82.81% of patients showed delayed emesis, and 92.19% showed delayed nausea in (GRA) group (P < 0.0001). The study showed that PALO is a cost-effective choice when compared to GRA in CINV prevention as 45.10% of patients in (PALO) required additional rescue medications (Domperidone 10 mg orally three times per day plus Trimebutine 200 mg orally three times per week both for 5 days), while 95.24% in the (GRA) group used the same medications. Adverse events of both antiemetic drugs (PALO and GRA) include headaches and constipation and QTc prolongation reports, mostly mild to moderate, with relatively low rates among the two groups. CONCLUSION: Palonosetron, combined with dexamethasone, is more effective than granisetron and dexamethasone combination against both acute and delayed emesis induced by highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) cisplatin-based protocols and the combination of cyclophosphamide and anthracyclines (AC). Medical team members should make more efforts, especially clinical pharmacy personnel, to monitor medications' effectiveness and help the medical team achieve a suitable and reliable care plan.

A phase III study of transdermal granisetron versus oral ondansetron for women with gynecologic cancers receiving pelvic chemoradiation.

PURPOSE: To compare rates of complete response (no emesis, retching, or rescue antiemetics) in the late phase (days 4-7 post-chemotherapy) of cycle 1 between transdermal granisetron and oral ondansetron in cervical, endometrial, or vaginal cancer survivors undergoing chemoradiation at The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center and LBJ Hospital in Houston, TX. METHODS: In this non-blinded parallel design trial, eligible patients received a granisetron patch replaced every 7 days or 8 mg of ondansetron thrice daily continued for 72 h after chemotherapy completion. Data were collected on medication compliance, episodes of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV), use of rescue antiemetics, and effects of CINV on quality of life. RESULTS: Seventy-five survivors receiving chemoradiation for cervical (n = 61), endometrial (n = 12), or vaginal (n = 2) cancer were electronically randomized to transdermal granisetron (n = 41) or oral ondansetron (n = 34). In the late phase of cycle 1, the rate of complete response was 49.8% (95% CI, 35.2-64.3%) for transdermal granisetron and 39.7% (95% CI, 24.4-56.1%) for oral ondansetron. The posterior probability that transdermal granisetron achieved a higher success rate in controlling late-onset CINV compared with oral ondansetron was 82%. During the acute phase (day 1 post-chemotherapy) of cycles 2 and 3, transdermal granisetron patients used more rescue antiemetics than oral ondansetron patients (p = 0.006 and p = 0.003, respectively). Otherwise, no between-group differences in CINV events were observed. Medication compliance and the effect of CINV on quality of life were similar between groups. CONCLUSION: Transdermal granisetron was 82% more like to control CINV than oral ondansetron in the late phase of cycle 1 and performed similarly to oral ondansetron in all other cycles. Transdermal granisetron should be considered an option as prophylactic antiemetic therapy for gynecologic cancer survivors undergoing chemoradiation.

Granisetron transdermal system and dexamethasone for the prevention of nausea and vomiting in multiple myeloma patients receiving chemo-mobilization: An observational real-world study of effectiveness and safety.

PURPOSE: Cyclophosphamide (CY) in a dose of 2-4 g/m2 is widely used for hemopoietic progenitor stem cells mobilization. CY administration is associated with several adverse effects, including chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV). This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of granisetron transdermal system (GTDS) plus dexamethasone in the management of CINV in MM patients undergoing chemo-mobilization with CY. METHODS: In this single-center, prospective, observational, real world study, GTDS plus dexamethasone was administered to MM patients receiving chemo-mobilization based on CY 2 g/m2 plus G-CSF in an outpatient setting. The rate of complete response was evaluated as the main outcome. Other outcomes were rate of complete control of CINV, incidence of nausea/vomiting of any grade and safety. RESULTS: A total of 88 patients were enrolled. A complete response was achieved in 45.5 % of patients; among them, 39.77 % attained complete control of CINV. Nausea and vomiting never occurred in 34.1 % and 45.5 % of patients, respectively. No episodes of grade 3-4 nausea and/or vomiting were documented. GTDS was safe and well tolerated. CONCLUSION: In real world, GTDS provided an innovative, effective, and well-tolerated control of CINV in MM patients after chemo-mobilization with CY. The study found out effectiveness of a non-invasive delivery system of antiemetic.

Tropisetron But Not Granisetron Ameliorates Spatial Memory Impairment Induced by Chronic Cerebral Hypoperfusion.

Tropisetron and Granisetorn are 5-HT3 antagonists with antiemetic effects. Tropisetron also has a partial agonistic effect on alpha-7 nicotinic acetylcholine receptors (α7 nAChRs). On the other hand, chronic cerebral hypoperfusion (CCH) attenuates cerebral blood flow and impairs cognitive functions. The goal of this study was to investigate the effect of Tropisetron and Granisetron on CCH-induced spatial memory impairment in rats. Forty-eight male Wistar rats were used in this study. 2-VO surgery was done to induce CCH and Radial Eight Arm Maz apparatus was used to evaluate spatial memory (working and reference memory). Tropisetron was injected intraperitoneally at the doses of 1 and 5 mg/kg, and Granisetron was injected intraperitoneally at the dose of 3 mg/kg. Dorsal hippocampal (CA1) neurons count, Interleukin 6 (IL-6) serum level, and serotonin-reuptake transporter (SERT) gene expression were also evaluated. The results showed, CCH impaired working and reference memory, increased IL-6 serum level, and decreased CA1 neurons and SERT expression. Tropisetron at the dose of 5 mg/kg restored all the effects of CCH. However, Granisetron did not restore CCH-induced memory impairment. Furthermore, Granisetron had no effect on IL-6. While, it increased SERT expression and CA1 neurons. In conclusion, Tropisetron but not Granisetron, ameliorated spatial memory impairment induced by CCH. We suggested conducting more detailed studies investigating the role of serotonergic system (5-HT3 receptors and serotonin transporters) and also α7 nAChRs in the effects of Tropisetron.

Adherence to ASCO for Prophylaxis of Acute Chemotherapy- Induced Nausea and Vomiting in Iran.

INTRODUCTION: Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is one of the scariest chemotherapy-induced adverse effects. We evaluated the adherence to the 2017 American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), the latest guideline recommendations, for the management of acute CINV at our institute. METHODS: During a 6-months cross-sectional study on outpatient's cancer patients, we collected data from the prescription documents during temporary hospitalization and compared the results with ASCO guideline recommendations. RESULTS: The most prescribed prophylactic regimens for the management of CINV were combination of aprepitant, granisetron, and dexamethasone and metoclopramide (51.8%). Regarding prescription compatibility in our center with ASCO guideline recommnedations, selection of different regimens for prophylaxis of acute CINV in our institute was compliant in 0 %, 22%, 4%, and 40% of high, moderate, low, and minimal emetogenic potential of chemotherapy regimen groupss, respectively. CONCLUSION: Although our hospital is a referral and university-affiliated center, adherence to the ASCO guideline recommendations for prophylaxis of CINV was poor.

A double-blind, randomized, multicenter phase 3 study of palonosetron vs granisetron combined with dexamethasone and fosaprepitant to prevent chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in patients with breast cancer receiving anthracycline and cyclophosphamide.

PURPOSE: To investigate whether palonosetron is better than granisetron in preventing chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in a three-drug combination with dexamethasone and fosaprepitant (Fos) in patients with breast cancer who are placed on anthracycline and cyclophosphamide (AC-based regimen). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Chemo-naive women with primary breast cancer were randomly administered either palonosetron 0.75 mg (day 1) or granisetron 1 mg (day 1) combined with dexamethasone (12 mg at day 1, 8 mg at day 2 and day 3) and Fos 150 mg (day 1) before receiving AC-based regimen in a double-blind study. The primary endpoint was the complete response (CR) rate of emesis in cycle 1 in the delayed phase. This was defined as neither vomiting nor rescue drug usage for emesis at >24-120 hours after chemotherapy. Secondary endpoints were the CR in the acute/overall phase (0-24/0-120 hours, respectively, after chemotherapy), no nausea and vomiting, Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE), and safety. RESULTS: From December 2012 to October 2014, 326 patients were treated and evaluated (164/162 evaluable patients in granisetron/palonosetron arm, respectively). The CR during the delayed phase was 60.4% in the granisetron regimen and 62.3% in the palonosetron regimen. The CR during acute phase (73.2% vs 75.9%, respectively) and the CR during overall phase (54.9% in both regimens) were very identical. A significantly higher number of patients in the palonosetron arm were free from nausea during the delayed phase (28% vs 40.1%; P = .029). Adverse events were also identical, although infusion site reactions (ISR) were higher (20.3%-23.3%) than preceding studies in both regimens. CONCLUSION: In combination with dexamethasone and Fos, this study suggests that palonosetron is not better than granisetron in chemo-naive patients with primary breast cancer receiving AC-based regimen. Administration of Fos in peripheral veins after AC-based regimen increased ISR.