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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Efficacy and safety of 5 mg olanzapine combined with aprepitant, granisetron and dexamethasone to prevent carboplatin-induced nausea and vomiting in patients with gynecologic cancer: A multi-institution phase II study.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to investigate the efficacy and safety of prophylactic administration of 5 mg olanzapine (OLZ) combined with neurokinin 1 receptor antagonist (NK1RA), 5-hydroxytryptamine type-3 receptor antagonist (5-HT3RA), and dexamethasone (DEX) to prevent nausea and vomiting in carboplatin (CBDCA) combination therapy for patients with gynecological cancer. METHODS: We conducted a single-arm, multi-institution, phase II study. Gynecological cancer patients scheduled to receive AUC ≥4 mg/mL/min CBDCA were enrolled. All patients received 5 mg OLZ (once daily after supper on days 1-4) combined with NK1RA, 5-HT3RA, and DEX. The primary end point was complete response (CR; no emesis and rescue therapy) during overall phase (120 h after the start of carboplatin administration). RESULTS: Between May 2018 and June 2019, 60 patients were enrolled from 3 institutions in Japan. A total of 57 patients who met the criteria were included in the efficacy and safety analysis. The CR rate for the overall phase was 78.9%. Acute (0-24 h) and delayed phases (24-120 h) were 96.5% and 80.7%, respectively. Somnolence was observed in 73.7% patients. However, somnolence of grade 2 or higher was observed in only 3.5% of cases. There were no grade 3 or 4 toxicities associated with OLZ. CONCLUSIONS: Preventive use of OLZ combined with standard triplet therapy had promising activity with manageable safety, suggesting that this combination could be an effective standard treatment option for patients with AUC ≥4 mg/mL/min CBDCA combination therapy.

Cost-effectiveness of a fixed combination of netupitant and palonosetron (NEPA) relative to aprepitant plus granisetron (APR + GRAN) for prophylaxis of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV): a trial-based analysis.

PURPOSE: To assess, from a United States (US) perspective, the cost-effectiveness of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) prophylaxis using a single dose of netupitant and palonosetron in a fixed combination (NEPA) versus aprepitant plus granisetron (APR + GRAN), each in combination with dexamethasone, in chemotherapy-naïve patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC). METHODS: We analyzed patient-level outcomes over a 5-day post-HEC period from a randomized, double-blind, phase 3 clinical trial of NEPA (n = 412) versus APR + GRAN (n = 416). Costs and CINV-related utilities were assigned to each subject using published sources. Parameter uncertainty was addressed via multivariate probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSA). RESULTS: Compared to APR + GRAN, NEPA resulted in a gain of 0.09 quality-adjusted life-days (QALDs) (4.04 vs 3.95; 95% CI -0.06 to 0.25) and a significant total per-patient cost reduction of $309 ($943 vs $1252; 95% CI $4-$626), due principally to $258 in lower medical costs of CINV-related events ($409 vs $668; 95% CI -$46 to $572) and $45 in lower study drug costs ($531 vs $577). In the PSA, NEPA resulted in lower costs and higher QALD in 86.5% of cases and cost ≤ $25,000 per quality-adjusted life-year gained in 97.8% of cases. CONCLUSIONS: This first-ever economic analysis using patient-level data from a phase 3 trial comparing neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist (NK1 RA) antiemetic regimens suggests that NEPA is highly cost-effective (and in fact cost-saving) versus an aprepitant-based regimen in post-HEC CINV prevention. Actual savings may be higher, as we focused only on the first chemotherapy cycle and omitted the impact of CINV-related chemotherapy discontinuation.

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.

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.

Impact of adjuvant lorazepam with granisetron on chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in pediatric patients with acute lymphoblastic leukemia.

PURPOSE: Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) affects quality of life for patients with cancer undergoing chemotherapy. We aimed to assess the effect of lorazepam with granisetron on CINV in children with acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL). METHODS: We reviewed the records of 71 consecutive patients with newly diagnosed ALL who received chemotherapy including vincristine, anthracycline, and systemic steroids between January 2011 and December 2016 in our hospital. The number of chemotherapy cycles reviewed was 164. All patients received granisetron as CINV prophylaxis. RESULTS: Nausea was observed in 51/71 patients (72%) and 93/164 cycles (57%). Vomiting was observed in 47/71 patients (66%) and 79/164 cycles (48%). Age and gender distribution were not significantly different between patients who received lorazepam at the initiation of the chemotherapy cycle (LZP group, n = 30) and those who did not receive lorazepam (non-LZP group, n = 134). There were no significant differences in the incidence of CIN and CIV between the LZP group and non-LZP group (CIN, 67% vs. 57%, P = 0.31; CIV, 53% vs. 47%, P = 0.98). In multivariate logistic regression, female gender and older age (> 5 years) were significant risk factors for CIV (female, odds ratio (OR) 2.5, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.3-5.0, P = 0.007; older age, OR 2.5, CI 1.3-4.8, P = 0.008). CONCLUSIONS: We found no beneficial effect of providing lorazepam as adjuvant antiemetic for prevention of CINV in children with ALL.

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.

[Effect of intravenous granisetron combined and acupuncture point injection at PC6(Neiguan) with 0.9% sodium chlorideon postoperative nausea and vomiting after gynecological laparoscopy].

Objective: To observe the effects of intravenous granisetron and acupuncture point injection at PC6(Neiguan) with 0.9% sodium chloride on postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) after gynecological laparoscopic surgery. Methods: Qualified cases were collected according to prospective randomized controlled clinical trial design. 94 cases patients undergoing gynecological laparoscopic surgery without postoperative intravenous analgesia were selected from February 2017 to November 2018 in Beijing Aerospace General Hospital and The Affiliated Hangzhou Hospital of Nanjing Medical University. The patients were randomly divided into three groups: bilateral PC6 sham injection of 0.9% sodium chloride+ intravenous granisetron(group A, n=31); bilateral acupuncture point injection at PC6 of 0.9% sodium chloride+ intravenous 0.9% sodium chloride(group B, n=33); bilateral acupuncture point injection at PC6 of 0.9% sodium chloride+ intravenous granisetron(group C, n=30). The indexes including age, body mass index(BMI), type of surgery, surgery time, anesthesia time, liquid intake and output volume, the time from the completion of the operation to the removal of the tracheal catheter, the time from the completion to follow the instruction, respiratory depression, restlessness, arrhythmias and other adverse reactions during anesthesia recovery were recorded. Evaluated the nausea and vomiting according to the visual analogue scales (nausea visual analog scale, NVAS) 12 hours after the operation. Not only the dose and the related frequency of antiemetic drugs for rescue, but also the time of the first anal exsufflation and the pain 24 hours after the operation were recorded. Detected the concentration of motilin (MTL), when the operation started/awake after extubation/12 hours after the operation Results: The incidence of nausea and vomiting 12 hours after the operation in group A, B and C was 35.5%, 33.3%, 10.0%. The difference was statistically significant (χ(2)=0.654, P<0.05). The motilin after 12 hours of operation in group A, B and C was (564±76),(559±84),(472±69) ng/L. The difference was statistically significant (F=14.033, P<0.05). The incidence of nausea and vomiting and the motilin after 12 hours of operation in group C were lower than group A and B. The time for the first anal exsufflation in group A, B and C was (19±8),(19±7),(14±8)h.The difference was statistically significant (F=4.523, P<0.05). The time for the first anal exsufflation in group C was earlier than group A and B. Conclusion: Either intravenous granisetron or acupuncture point injection at PC6 of 0.9% sodium chloride can effectively reduce the incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting after gynecological laparoscopic surgery. Intravenous granisetron combined with acupuncture point injection at PC6 of 0.9% sodium chloride has better effect and promotes the first anal exsufflation time, which is conducive to the rapid postoperative recovery of patients.

Hydration requirements with emetogenic chemotherapy: granisetron extended-release subcutaneous versus palonosetron.

AIM: This retrospective analysis evaluated chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV)-related hydration needs with palonosetron or granisetron extended-release subcutaneous (GERSC), approved in 2016 for CINV prevention. MATERIALS & METHODS: At a community practice, CINV-related hydration per chemotherapy cycle was determined following highly (HEC) or moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC) and a guideline-recommended antiemetic regimen: NK-1 receptor antagonist, dexamethasone and either palonosetron only, GERSC only, or palonosetron switched to GERSC. RESULTS: Palonosetron-only patients (n = 93) had a significantly higher mean (standard deviation) hydration rate (0.9 [1.1]) than GERSC-only patients (n = 91; 0.3 [0.6]; p < 0.0001). Switched patients' (n = 48) hydration rates were significantly higher in the HEC subgroup with palonosetron (0.7 [1.2]) versus GERSC (0.5 [1.0]; p = 0.028). CONCLUSION: GERSC in a three-drug antiemetic regimen may reduce hydration needs following HEC or MEC. [Formula: see text].