Prolonged administration of the granisetron transdermal delivery system reduces capecitabine plus oxaliplatin regimen induced nausea and vomiting.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the safety and efficacy of the granisetron transdermal delivery system (GTDS) combined with Dexamethasone for preventing chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in patients receiving Capecitabine plus Oxaliplatin (CapeOX) therapy. DESIGN: Open-label, prospective, multi-center phase II trial. SETTING: Three institutions. PARTICIPANTS: Fifty-four patients scheduled to receive CapeOX chemotherapy. INTERVENTIONS: Participants received GTDS (3.1 mg applied to the upper arm 48 h before chemotherapy, replaced on day 5, and discarded on day 12) and Dexamethasone. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary endpoint was the complete control rate of CINV. Secondary endpoints included the duration of delayed complete control, complete control rate in the acute phase, safety, and quality of life. RESULTS: The complete control rate for delayed CINV over the entire period (25-480 h) was 72.7% (95% CI 0.57-0.88). The duration of delayed complete control was 17.2 ± 4.5 days, with 51.5% of patients experiencing no nausea during the delayed phase. The complete control rate in the acute phase was 81.8% (95% CI 0.69-0.95). No serious adverse events related to the antiemetic regimen were reported. CONCLUSION: Prolonged administration of GTDS is safe and effective for preventing CINV in patients with gastrointestinal malignancies treated with CapeOX. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov registry (NCT05325190); registered on October 10, 2021.

Transcutaneous Pericardium 6 Acupoint Electrical Stimulation Provides Comparable Antiemetic Effect to Granisetron When Combined With Dexamethasone in Patients Undergoing Breast Cancer Surgery.

INTRODUCTION: Perioperative transcutaneous pericardium 6 (P6) electrical stimulation is effective for prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV). The patients undergoing breast cancer surgery have a high PONV prevalence; however, the effectiveness of P6 stimulation in this surgical population has not been investigated. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 198 patients undergoing mastectomy under general anesthesia were enrolled. They were randomly assigned to the one of three treatments: P6 stimulation + dexamethasone (group PD, n = 66), granisetron + dexamethasone (group GD, n = 66), and dexamethasone alone (group DM, n = 66). The primary endpoint was the incidence of postoperative vomiting (POV) within postoperative 48h. The secondary endpoints included the use of rescue antiemetic, severity of POV, and the incidence of postoperative nausea and other adverse events. RESULTS: The incidence of POV in group PD (9.1%) was similar to group GD (10.6%, P = 0.770), but significantly lower than that in the group DM (28.8%, P = 0.004) within postoperative 48 h. And, the incidence of postoperative nausea was similar between group PD and group GD but lower than that in group DM. The use of rescue antiemetics had no statistical differences among the three groups. The median (interquartile range) scores of POV severity were higher in group GD [6.0 (5.0, 7.0)] than in group DM [4.0 (3.0, 6.0), P = 0.012] within postoperative 48 h, but similar to group PD [5.5 (4.0, 6.3), P = 0.208]. CONCLUSIONS: Combined with dexamethasone, P6 stimulation has similar effectiveness for PONV prophylaxis with 5- hydroxytryptamine 3 antagonist granisetron but lower cost of antiemetic use. Moreover, both groups had a lower incidence of PONV and higher satisfaction than dexamethasone alone in patients undergoing breast cancer surgery.

The use of granisetron on bupivacaine induced sciatic nerve block in rats.

PURPOSE: The effects of the 5-hydroxytryptamine (5-HT3) receptor antagonists on regional anaesthesia are complex and unclear. The present study was designed to test the hypothesis that granisetron, a selective 5-HT3 receptor antagonist, would decrease the duration of motor block, sensory block, and proprioception in a dose-dependent fashion in a rat model of bupivacaine-induced sciatic nerve blockade. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty-eight male Wistar Albino rats that received unilateral sciatic nerve blocks were randomly divided into five experimental groups. Group B received a perineural of 0.3 ml of bupivacaine alone; Group BG800 received perineural 0.3 ml of bupivacaine and 800 µg of granisetron 10 min later; Group BG1200 received perineural 0.3 ml of bupivacaine and 1200 µg of granisetron 10 min later; Group BG1200IP received a perineural 0.3 ml of bupivacaine and an intraperitoneal injection of 1200 µg of granisetron 10 min later; and Group S was sham operated. A blinded investigator assessed motor, sensory and proprioception function every 10 min until the return of normal function. RESULTS: The medians for recovery times in Group B, Group BG800, Group BG1200, and Group BG1200IP were 105, 64, 85, and 120 min for motor function, respectively; 80, 64, 84, and 104 min for sensory function; 80, 63, 85, and 108 min were calculated for the proprioception function. The time to the return of normal motor, sensory, and proprioception function was not statistically significantly different between the groups (p > 0.05). Motor block did not develop in any of the rats in Group S. CONCLUSIONS: Local and systemic application of granisetron was not significantly decrease the duration of bupivacaine induced motor, sensory, and proprioception block of sciatic nerve in rat.

Comparison of granisetron and palonosetron in triplet anti-emetic prophylaxis in non-small cell lung cancer patients receiving cisplatin-based highly emetogenic chemotherapy.

INTRODUCTION: We compared the efficacy of first-generation granisetron and second-generation palonosetron in triplet anti-emetic prophylaxis in patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) receiving cisplatin-based high emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC). METHODS: This prospective, multicenter, non-randomized, observational study was conducted between June 2018 and December 2021. Patients diagnosed with NSCLC who received triplet anti-emetic prophylactic treatment with aprepitant and dexamethasone plus granisetron or palonosetron before the first cycle of chemotherapy were included in the study. At the end of the first week after chemotherapy, the emesis scale was applied to the patients during the outpatient control. The primary endpoint was complete response (CR) and total control (TC). RESULTS: One hundred twenty-one patients were included in the study. Sixty-one patients were in the granisetron group and 60 patients were in the palonosetron group. CR was higher with granisetron in the acute phase (70.5% vs. 58.3%, p = 0.16; respectively) and higher with palonosetron in the delayed phase (61.7% vs. 55.7%, p = 0.5; respectively), although not statistically significant. The TC rates were also not significantly different between the groups (54.1% vs.57.6%, p = 0.69). CONCLUSIONS: There was no significant difference between granisetron and palonosetron in both acute and delayed control of emesis in NSCLC patients receiving cisplatin-based HEC.

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 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.

Granisetron versus Ondansetron: Comparison of 5HT3 antagonists in preventing spinal anaesthesia induced hemodynamic instability in obstetric patients.

Objectives: To evaluate and compare the Ondansetron and Granisetron in preventing spinal anaesthesia induced hemodynamic instability in obstetric patients. Methods: The comparative analytical study was conducted at Combined Military Hospital, Rawalpindi, from September to October, 2021. One hundred and twenty pregnant women undergoing cesarean section, were enrolled in the study via non probability convenience sampling, and divided into three groups containing 40 participants each based on the type of antiemetic premedication they received, if any: Group N were those not requiring antiemetic premedication, Group O consisted of those given ondansetron 4mg, and Group G had those receiving 3mg granisetron, 15 minutes prior to administration of spinal anaesthesia. Systolic blood pressures and heart rates were recorded before and at multiple intervals after spinal anaesthesia was administered. Episodes of hypotension and bradycardia were recorded. Requirement of phenylephrine and atropine as rescue drugs was recorded for each participant. Results: There was a statistically significant difference in incidence of hypotension among the three groups (p value <0.001), with both drugs being superior to the control group (p value <0.001 for both), and 3mg granisetron being superior to 4mg ondansetron (p value <0.001). As for incidence of bradycardia, ondansetron and granisetron were superior to control group (p value 0.03 and <0.001 respectively), but there was no significant difference between the two drug groups (p value 0.094). Conclusion: High dose granisetron (3mg) is superior to low dose ondansetron (4mg) in preventing hemodynamic fluctuations induced by spinal anaesthesia.

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.

Palonosetron versus Granisetron in Combination with Aprepitant and Dexamethasone for the Prevention of Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting after Moderately Emetogenic Chemotherapy: A Single-Institutional Retrospective Cohort Study.

The triplet antiemetic regimen is administered to prevent chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) after moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC). However, the superiority of palonosetron over first-generation 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 receptor antagonists in triplet antiemetic therapy remains unclear. In this study, we evaluated the efficacy of palonosetron (PALO) and granisetron (GRA) in triplet antiemetic therapy for CINV. This study included 267 patients who received MEC at our hospital between April 2017 and September 2020. Patients were pretreated with antiemetic therapy comprising PALO or GRA and dexamethasone on day 1 and aprepitant on days 1-3. We evaluated the rate of complete response (CR) (i.e., no vomiting and no use of rescue medication) in the acute phase (0-24 h), delayed phase (24-120 h), and overall phase (0-120 h) after first-cycle chemotherapy. Furthermore, multivariate analysis was conducted to identify risk factors for non-CR. The rate of CR in the overall and delayed phases was significantly higher in the PALO group (91.9 and 91.9%, respectively) than in the GRA group (74.1 and 75.5%, respectively). In the acute phase, the incidence was not different between the GRA and PALO groups (96.5 and 99.2%, respectively). Multivariate analysis revealed that female sex and the use of GRA were risk factors for non-CR. Subgroup analysis revealed the superiority of PALO over GRA in female patients, but not in male patients. In conclusion, PALO was more effective than GRA in triplet antiemetic therapy in preventing CINV during MEC, especially for female patients.

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.

Unscheduled hydrations: redefining complete response in chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting studies.

Breakthrough chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is nausea and/or vomiting occurring within 5 days of chemotherapy administration despite using guideline-directed prophylactic antiemetic agents. It is highly prevalent (30-40%), usually requiring immediate treatment or "rescue" medication. If breakthrough CINV occurs, antiemetic guidelines recommend using an antiemetic agent from a different class not used in prophylaxis, along with intravenous hydration and/or dexamethasone. Data supporting these guideline recommendations are limited. Importantly, costs associated with breakthrough CINV can be substantial (i.e., unscheduled hydrations). Two retrospective analyses evaluating guideline-adherent CINV prophylaxis suggest that the initial antiemetic selection may decrease breakthrough CINV. Here we review optimal CINV prophylactic strategies and introduce unscheduled hydration as a potential important surrogate for breakthrough CINV aligning with cost-effective cancer care.

Transdermal versus oral granisetron in controlling chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting: a meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: To compare the efficacy of transdermal granisetron versus oral granisetron in controlling chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in patients with cancer METHODS: Data sources were CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Clinicaltrials.gov , and Google Scholar. Inclusion criteria included randomized controlled trials comparing transdermal versus oral granisetron in patients with CINV. For data extraction, two authors independently analyzed the methodological quality and extracted data. A random effects model was used to estimate the risk ratio (RR) or odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence interval (CI). RESULTS: Three studies (1086 patients) were included. Oral granisetron is superior (OR 0.77; 95% CI 0.60 to 0.99) to its transdermal form in achieving complete control of CINV in patients receiving chemotherapy. As for the risk of constipation (RR 1.32; 95% CI 0.73 to 2.40) and QTc prolongation (RR 0.17; 95% CI 0.02 to 1.40) as adverse effects, no statistically significant difference was observed between the two routes. CONCLUSION: Oral granisetron is better in achieving complete control of CINV in patients receiving chemotherapy. As for the risk of constipation and QTc prolongation as adverse effects, there was no statistically significant difference between the two routes.

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.

Comparison of two different intravenous serotonin antagonists used for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting prophylaxis in patients treated with moderately emetogenic risk regimens: A retrospective analysis from a large academic medical center.

INTRODUCTION: Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) can be a serious and debilitating adverse effect that is highly feared by cancer patients. For patients receiving moderately emetogenic chemotherapy regimens at our institution in the ambulatory infusion center, palonosetron was selected as the preferred serotonin (5-HT3) antagonist for CINV prophylaxis per the 2016 NCCN Guidelines, when a neurokinin1 antagonist was not included in the prophylactic regimen. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of dexamethasone and palonosetron versus granisetron for the prevention of CINV in patients receiving moderately emetogenic chemotherapy regimens. METHODS: This study is an Institutional Review Board-approved, single-center retrospective review of electronic health records including patients who received moderately emetogenic chemotherapy regimens with CINV prophylaxis with dexamethasone and either palonosetron or granisetron. RESULTS: A total of 268 eligible patients were included in the study. Eighty-eight patients received palonosetron and 180 patients received granisetron as their 5-HT3 receptor antagonist between October 31, 2014 and October 31, 2016. There were no statistically significant differences between the two antiemetic groups for the primary outcome of presence of any change in day 1 intravenous prophylactic antiemetics. Nine (10.23%) palonosetron patients and 15 (8.33%) granisetron patients required a change in their day 1 intravenous prophylactic antiemetics (P = 0.610). CONCLUSIONS: Despite palonosetron's better efficacy, longer half-life, and higher binding affinity, the results of this retrospective review demonstrates that the choice of serotonin antagonist, palonosetron or granisetron, did not result in a change in day 1 intravenous prophylactic antiemetics or antiemetic outpatient medications for patients undergoing moderately emetogenic chemotherapy regimens.

Granisetron protects polymicrobial sepsis-induced acute lung injury in mice.

Sepsis is a serious condition with a high mortality rate worldwide. Granisetron is an anti-nausea drug for patients undergoing chemotherapy. Here we aimed to identify the novel effect of granisetron on sepsis-induced acute lung injury (ALI). Our results showed that mice treated with granisetron displayed less severe lung damage than controls. Granisetron administration reduced pulmonary neutrophil recruitment after CLP. Moreover, the expressions of Cxcl1 and Cxcl2 were diminished in the presence of granisetron in THP-1 macrophages after lipopolysaccharide exposure. Additionally, granisetron could inhibit the activation of p38 MAPK and NLRP3 inflammasome both in vivo and in vitro. Collectively, granisetron protects against sepsis-induced ALI by suppressing macrophage Cxcl1/Cxcl2 expression and neutrophil recruitment in the lung.

Hydration requirements in patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy.

AIM: Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting diminishes quality of life and increases healthcare resource use. This retrospective medical records analysis evaluated hydration requirements with emetogenic chemotherapy. PATIENTS & METHODS: Cancer patients received moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC) or highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC), and antiemetics palonosetron or granisetron extended-release subcutaneous (GERSC), neurokinin 1 receptor antagonist and dexamethasone. Unscheduled hydration event rates were determined. RESULTS: For 186 patients (92 palonosetron, 94 GERSC) overall, mean hydration rate was significantly higher with palonosetron (0.6 vs 0.2; p = 0.0005). Proportion of patients with ≥1 hydration event was significantly higher with palonosetron overall (54 vs 33%; p = 0.0033) and in cycles 2-4 and the HEC subgroup. CONCLUSION: GERSC within a three-drug antiemetic regimen may reduce unscheduled hydration requirements with MEC or HEC.

Risk factors associated with chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in the triplet antiemetic regimen including palonosetron or granisetron for cisplatin-based chemotherapy: analysis of a randomized, double-blind controlled trial.

PURPOSE: The triplet antiemetic regimen is recommended for cisplatin-based highly emetogenic chemotherapy, in the current guidelines for antiemetic prophylaxis. Although risk factors related to chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) have been identified by several prior studies, there are only few studies evaluating risk factors associated with the prophylactic triplet antiemetic therapy, particularly in palonosetron use. The present study aimed to reveal the risk factors related to CINV development in patients receiving cisplatin and to compare CINV risk factors between palonosetron and granisetron use. METHODS: In total, 825 patients in a phase III trial receiving palonosetron with graniestron were evaluated. Multivariate logistic regression models were used to predict risk factors associated with CINV development. Additionally, risk factors associated with CINV development were separately evaluated in each treatment group. RESULTS: Multivariate analysis of the entire study group revealed that sex, age, cisplatin dose, and granisetron use were significant and independent factors affecting CINV development in the overall phase. Similarly, sex and age were risk factors for CINV in both treatment groups. Kaplan-Meier curves classified by each treatment group showed no significant difference between the groups among patients without any risk factors for CINV (P = 0.353). Conversely, complete response rates for patients with at least one risk factor were higher in patients receiving palonosetron (P = 0.049). CONCLUSIONS: This analysis revealed the importance of previously reported CINV risk factors when using triplet antiemetics. Palonosetron might be preferred for patients with at least one risk factor.

Prophylactic granisetron for post-spinal anesthesia shivering in cesarean section: A randomized controlled clinical study.

BACKGROUND: The serotonergic system is known to be involved in control of post-anesthetic shivering. Our hypothesis was that prophylactic granisetrone (serotonin antagonist) might reduce incidence of post-spinal anesthesia shivering in cesarean section. METHODS: Parturient scheduled for elective cesarean delivery under spinal anesthesia were allocated to receive 0.9% saline (Group I, n = 71), 1 mg granisetron (Group II, n = 69), or 0.7 mg granisetron (Group III, n = 72) before the spinal block. Assessment parameters included; hemodynamics, tympanic membrane temperature, neonatal Apgar score, shivering score, patient satisfaction scores about shivering prophylaxis and adverse effects. RESULTS: Clinically significant shivering was recorded in 55/71 patients (77.5%) in group I, 11/69 (15.9%) in group II and 21/72 (29.2%) in group III (P = 0.000). The intensity of shivering was significantly lower in patients who received granisetron 1 mg compared with granisetron 0.7 mg or saline (P = 0.000). Patients who received prophylactic granisetron 1 mg reported lower mean intraoperative arterial pressure and heart rate values and consumed higher doses of iv ephedrine compared with 0.7 mg granisetron or saline placebo (P < 0.05). Pruritus significantly decreased from (22.5%) in control group to (0%) in granisetron groups (P = 0.000). Nausea was reported in 8 vs 10 and four in group I, II and III, respectively (P < 0.03). Sixteen vs eight and six patients vomited in group I, II, and III, respectively (P < 0.03). Higher patient satisfaction scores were recorded in group II (9.83 ± 0.29, P < 0.03) and III (9.14 ± 1.04, P < 0.04), compared with control group (8.23 ± 1.14). CONCLUSION: Prophylactic granisetron effectively reduced incidence and severity of perioperative shivering in a dose dependent manner, compared to placebo controls.

Comparison of IV granisetron and IV palonosetron on hemodynamics and sensory and motor block after spinal anesthesia with hyperbaric bupivacaine in patients undergoing abdominal hysterectomy.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The present study evaluated the effects of two 5-HT3 serotonin receptor antagonists; granisetron and palonosetron on hemodynamics, sensory, and motor blockade induced by intrathecal bupivacaine in patients undergoing abdominal hysterectomy. MATERIAL AND METHODS: In total, 126 female patients (ASA I and II physical status) undergoing abdominal hysterectomy under spinal anesthesia with intrathecal bupivacaine were randomly divided into three groups out of which 40 patients in each group were evaluated for final outcome. Group G received intravenous 1 mg granisetron, group P received intravenous palonosetron 0.075 mg, and group C received intravenous normal saline. Study drug was given 5 min before the spinal anesthesia. Systolic, diastolic and mean arterial blood pressure, heart rate, sensory and motor blockade were assessed. RESULTS: The systolic blood pressure, diastolic blood pressure, mean arterial pressure, and heart rate showed no significant differences among the three groups. Time to reach peak sensory block and modified Bromage 3 motor block, time to two segmental regression of sensory block, and motor regression to modified Bromage score of 0 were not statistically different among the three groups. Although statistically significant early regression of sensory block to segment S1 was seen in group G as compared to group P and group C, it was of no clinical significance. The incidence of nausea and vomiting was significantly lower in group G and P. CONCLUSION: Intravenous administration of granisetron and palonosetron before intrathecal bupivacaine does not attenuate the hemodynamic changes in patients undergoing abdominal hysterectomy. Further, both 5-HT3 receptors antagonists do not have clinically significant effects on the spinal blockade produced by hyperbaric bupivacaine.