Effects of granisetron and its combination with dexamethasone on cisplatin-induced delayed emesis in the ferret

1. Granisetron and its combination with dexamethasone for the treatment of delayed emesis following cisplatin (CDDP) administration were investigated using ferrets. 2. CDDP-induced emesis was significantly inhibited in both the granisetron group and the combined granisetron and dexamethasone group during the acute and delayed phase in terms of total emesis, latency to first emesis and duration of emesis. 3. Food and water consumption in the combined group of ferrets was significantly increased as compared with the CDDP control group. 4. 5-Hydroxytryptamine (5-HT) level was increased in the ileum and the 5-hydroxyindole acetic acid (5-HIAA) level was increased in the area postrema of ferrets after 3 days of CDDP administration. It is suggested that the antiemetic activity of granisetron and/or dexamethasone is not related to 5-HT levels in delayed emesis. 5. Both granisetron and its combination with dexamethasone are effective in CDDP-induced emesis, but combination treatment is more effective than granisetron alone for the duration of emesis in the delayed phase.     

A randomized cross-over study of high-dose metoclopramide plus dexamethasone versus granisetron plus dexamethasone in patients receiving chemotherapy with high-dose cisplatin

We carried out a randomized, single-blind, cross-over trial to compare the antiemetic effect, for both acute and delayed emesis, of granisetron plus dexamethasone (GRN+Dx) with that of high-dose metoclopramide plus dexamethasone (HDMP+Dx). Fifty-four patients with primary or metastatic lung cancer, given single-dose cisplatin (> 80 mg/m2) chemotherapy more than twice, were enrolled in this study. They were treated with both HDMP+Dx and GRN+Dx in two consecutive chemotherapy courses. On day 1, patients experienced a mean of 2.5 (SD = 4.3) and 0.1 (SD = 0.4) episodes of vomiting in the HDMP+Dx and the GRN+Dx groups, respectively (P = 0.0008). Complete response rate on day 1 was 45 and 90% in the HDMP+Dx and the GRN+Dx groups, respectively (P = 0.0001). Patients treated with GRN+Dx had a tendency to suffer more episodes of vomiting than the HDMP+Dx group on days 2-5, but it was not statistically significant. Twenty-four patients (57%) preferred the GRN+Dx treatment and 14 patients (33%), HDMP+Dx. In the HDMP+Dx group, nine patients (21%) had an extrapyramidal reaction, and 5 patients (12%) had constipation that lasted for at least two days. In contrast, no patients had extrapyramidal reactions, and 18 patients (43%) had constipation in the GRN+Dx group (P < 0.01). GRN+Dx was more effective than HDMP+Dx only in preventing the acute emesis induced by cisplatin. An effective treatment for delayed emesis is still needed.     

Effectiveness and tolerance of Navoban (5HT3-receptor antagonist tropisetron) in prevention of cytostatic drug-induced nausea and vomiting in patients with breast carcinomas and gynecological malignancies

Efficacy and safety of the antiemetic agent Navoban (5HT3-receptor-antagonist Tropisetron) on cytostatic-induced emesis of breast cancers and gynecological cancers was tested in 28 female patients receiving a total of 127 chemotherapy courses containing high (cisplatin), moderate high (cyclophosphamid) or moderate (for example 5 FU) emetogenic cytostatic drugs. We studied antiemetic response rates of Navoban (5 mg/d) during the first 24 hours after administration of the chemotherapy as well as response rates of the "delayed nausea and emesis" (days 2-9 after chemotherapy). A complete response was observed in 103 chemotherapy courses (= 81.1%) during the first 24 hours after chemotherapy and in 93 courses (= 73.2%) for the "delayed emesis". Treatment failures (more than 5 vomiting episodes) during the first 24 hours were present in four courses and for the "delayed emesis" in 11 courses. The side effects of Navoban such as constipation, headache or tiredness were minimum. Therefore no patient refused to receive the necessary chemotherapy. Navoban is, with its single dose application, an effective therapeutic drug for the prevention of nausea and emesis in patients receiving a chemotherapy.     

Comparison of crossing-over between 30-minute drip infusion vs 30-second injection of granisetron for nausea and vomitting with cisplatin

Recently, Granisetron (KYT) was proved to have a strong effect for cisplatin (CDDP)-induced emesis. We compared the effect of KYT for CDDP-induced emesis between two different administration schedules. Forty micrograms/kg of KYT was administered either by 30-minute drip infusion with 100 ml of saline (Group A) or 30-second injection with 10 ml of saline (Group B). We investigated the therapeutic effect of KYT in both group A and Group B by the crossing-over method. After the patients who had a malignant tumor and were going to receive CDDP (over 50 mg/m2) in two courses were selected, KYT was administered by the method of Group A or Group B in a double-blind comparison. The clinical efficacy was at least "effective" in 70% (7/10) of Group A and Group B. The study treatment was considered "useful" in 80% (8/10) of Group A, 90% (9/10) of Group B, and "safe" in 100% of Group A and B. There was no difference between two groups in this respect. The results showed that the slow intravenous injection of KYT also has an excellent antiemetic effect on CDDP-induced emesis and a high degree of safety.     

Outcome of lithium prophylaxis: a prospective follow-up of affective disorder patients assigned to high and low serum lithium levels

Recently, the availability of 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 antagonists has provided better protection from chemotherapy-induced emesis. These drugs, in combination with dexamethasone, are more expensive but more cost-effective than the alternative antiemetic regimens in the prevention of acute emesis induced by high single dose and low and repeated doses of cisplatin and, probably, of acute emesis induced by moderately emetogenic chemotherapy. In the prevention of emesis induced by oral cyclophosphamide-methotrexate-fluorouracil and in the prevention of delayed emesis induced by cisplatin and moderately emetogenic chemotherapy, the most cost-effective choices are represented, respectively, by a combination of intravenous dexamethasone on day 1 and 8 plus 14-day oral metoclopramide (a combination of oral dexamethasone plus metoclopramide and oral dexamethasone alone). In all cases, the 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 antagonists should be used only in patients in whom the most cost-effective antiemetic regimens either fail or are not tolerated.     

Oral ondansetron for the control of cisplatin-induced delayed emesis: a large, multicenter, double-blind, randomized comparative trial of ondansetron versus placebo

PURPOSE: To investigate the efficacy and safety of oral ondansetron in the control of cisplatin-induced delayed emesis in patients who do not require rescue antiemetic therapy for acute emesis. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Five hundred thirty-eight chemotherapy-naive patients who received cisplatin chemotherapy (> or = 70 mg/m2), and who were not rescued for acute emesis, were eligible to be randomized to receive one of the three oral regimens to control delayed emesis. Group I received placebo on days 2 to 6; group II received ondansetron 8 mg twice daily on days 2 and 3 and placebo on days 4 to 6; group III received ondansetron 8 mg twice daily on days 2 to 6. All patients received intravenous ondansetron (0.15 mg/kg every 4 hours for three doses) for the control of acute emesis on day 1. The number of emetic episodes on days 2 and 3 combined (days 2/3, when incidence and severity of delayed emesis were expected to be greatest) was considered the primary measure of efficacy. RESULTS: Patients who received odansetron had significantly fewer emetic episodes on days 2/3, 4, and 5 than those who received placebo (P < or = .002 on each day). Additionally, significantly more patients who received ondansetron had a complete plus major response (C+MR; < or = two two emetic episodes) than those who received placebo on days 2/3 (56% v 37%, P = .001), 4 (94% v 85%, P = .005), and 5 (98% v 88%, P = .006). Patients who received ondansetron had significantly less nausea on day 2/3 when day-1 nausea was used as the baseline score (P = .025). Patients who received ondansetron also had significantly less nausea on day 4 (P = .042) and the results approached significance on day 5 (P = .066). CONCLUSION: Oral ondansetron had a significant effect in the control of cisplatin-induced delayed emesis and nausea in patients who had not required rescue antiemetics during the acute emesis period. The control of delayed nausea and vomiting was most notable in the immediate 2 days following cisplatin administration, with the clinical difference narrowing between the two treatment arms on subsequent days.     

Comparison of the efficacy and safety of tropisetron, metoclopramide, and chlorpromazine in the treatment of emesis associated with far advanced cancer

BACKGROUND: A single institution, prospective, randomized trial was performed in terminal cancer patients to compare tropisetron (TRO), metoclopramide (MET), and chlorpromazine (CHL) in the management of nausea and emesis. Patients had far advanced cancer, were far removed from chemotherapy or radiotherapy, and their nausea and emesis was not due to bowel obstruction, drug intake, or cranial, electrolytic, or metabolic causes. The effects of antiemetic treatments were evaluated from Days 1-15. METHODS: Two hundred and eighty patients were randomized to receive 1) MET+ dexamethasone (DEX) (10 mg*4 and 2 mg*1, respectively, orally), 2) TRO (5 mg*1, orally), 3) TRO + MET (5 mg*1 and 10 mg*2, respectively, orally), 4) TRO + MET + DEX (5 mg*1, 10 mg*2, and 2 mg*1, respectively, orally), 5) CHL + DEX (25 mg*2 and 2 mg*1, respectively, orally), 6) TRO + CHL (5 mg*1 and 12.5 mg*2, respectively, orally), or 7) TRO + CHL + DEX (5 mg*1, 12.5 mg*2, and 2 mg*1, respectively, orally). Total control was defined as no nausea or emesis. RESULTS: By the end of the 15th day, total control of emesis was obtained in 23.6% (9 of 38) of MET + DEX patients, 78.9% (30 of 38) of TRO patients, 84.2% (32 of 38) of TRO + MET patients, 92.3% (36 of 39) of TRO + MET + DEX patients, 33.3 (13 of 39) of CHL + DEX patients, 84.6% (33 of 39) of TRO + CHL patients, and 92.5% (37 of 40) of TRO + CHL + DEX patients. Total control of nausea was achieved in 18.4% (7 of 38) of MET + DEX patients, 65.7% (25 of 38) of TRO patients, 73.6% (28 of 38) of TRO + MET patients, 87.1% (34 of 39) of TRO + MET + DEX patients, 17.9% (7 of 39) of CHL + DEX patients, 74.3% (29 of 39) of TRO + CHL patients, and 85% (34 of 40) of TRO + CHL + DEX patients. When comparing MET + DEX versus TRO; MET + DEX versus TRO + MET; MET + DEX versus TRO + MET + DEX; MET + DEX versus TRO + CHL; MET + DEX versus TRO + CHL + DEX; CHL + DEX versus TRO; CHL + DEX versus TRO + MET; CHL + DEX versus TRO + MET + DEX; CHL + DEX versus TRO + CHL; and CHL + DEX versus TRO + CHL + DEX, significant differences were noted. All antiemetic drugs were well tolerated with no severe side effects observed in any treatment arm. CONCLUSIONS: These data suggest that 5-HT3 receptor antagonists such as tropisetron clinically are more effective in the control of emesis of patients with far advanced cancer than previously used agents. This study raises important issues when attempting to decide which antiemetic therapy to choose for an individual patient with far advanced disease.     

Generating a normalized geometric liver model using warping

This review discusses the development and use of 5-hydroxytryptamine3 (5-HT3) antagonists, especially granisetron, for the treatment of chemotherapy-induced emesis. Following recent evidence suggesting that high-dose chemotherapy is more effective in increasing tumor response rate and median survival time, more effective antiemetic control is essential. Granisetron, a new 5-HT3, is approximately 400 times more potent than metoclopramide and, unlike metoclopramide, does not produce extrapyramidal side effects. Granisetron has been shown to be effective as a single prophylactic dose, over 5 days and in patients receiving repeated cycles of chemotherapy. Patients with nausea and vomiting within the first 24 h after chemotherapy are more likely to experience delayed symptoms; however, episodes of breakthrough nausea and vomiting can be controlled by intervention with one, and in some cases more, doses of granisetron. The development of granisetron represents an important advance in the control of chemotherapy induced emesis.     

Effect of concurrent use of ondansetron hydrochloride and dexamethasone against nausea and vomiting in lung cancer patients receiving cisplatin

We examined the efficacy of concurrent use of ondansetron hydrochloride and dexamethasone, and the effective dose of dexamethasone against nausea and vomiting in lung cancer patients receiving chemotherapy including single high dose cisplatin. The study was carried out on total of 44 courses of chemotherapy in either initial onset or recurrence of lung cancer. The patients were given 4 mg of ondansetron injection on the day of cisplatin injection (Day 1), and 4 mg/day of ondansetron tablet for Days 2 to 4. These patients were randomly allocated into 2 groups, i.e., those who, on Day 2, concomitantly received 10 mg of dexamethasone (D10 Group, 22 courses) or 20 mg (D20 Group, 22 courses), for comparing the antiemetic effects in a different concomitant dose of dexamethasone. An efficacy rate of 70% or more was achieved in each group for acute emesis on Day 1. The efficacy rate was 80% or above for emesis on Day 2 when dexamethasone was concurrently administered, and Days 3 and 4 in both groups. No significant difference was observed between the groups. A higher complete suppression rate against nausea was seen in D20 Group even though the difference from D10 Group was not significant. Furthermore, food intake rate on Day 2 was significantly better in D20 Group. However, in the cases that were graded effective or markedly effective for acute emesis on Day 1, the efficacy rate was also high in both groups through Days 2-4. It was notable that the efficacy rate of Days 2-4 was 100% in D2 Group. The high efficacy rate was shown in male patients regardless of which dose of dexamethasone was used. However, control of emesis was unfavorable in female patients on Day 1 and was still unfavorable even though dexamethasone was combined from Day 2. We considered from the above results that 10 mg/day of concurrent dexamethasone is sufficient in suppression of delayed emesis on Day 2. However, in order to improve nausea or food intake, or to suppress emesis in patients who are highly likely to show unfavorable control for Day 2 and onward, 20 mg/day should also be effective.     

Modern aspects of antiemetic therapy

We summarized the current knowledge about chemotherapy and radiotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting. Nausea and vomiting are among the most frequent side effects in the treatment of malignancies, and they are very unpleasant for the patient. We reviewed basic aetiological and physiological mechanisms (except that of delayed emesis, which is not enough explored), particularly the role of serotonin in acute chemotherapy and radiotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting. An oncologist cannot make many changes in the treatment of malignancies and patient-related prognostic factors, but he (she) can make changes in the treatment of nausea and vomiting in order to improve the quality of life of patients with malignancies. We also listed some of the most widely used antiemetic drugs with their most important pharmacological properties. Important progress in the control of nausea and vomiting was obtained by the use of selective antagonists of 5-HT3-receptors such as ondansetron, granisetron, tropisetron and dolasetron. Usually ondasetron and granisetron were used. Their clinical activity is similar but better results were obtained with the combination of 5-HT3-antagonists and corticosteroids (complete response was approximately 90%) than by their individual use (complete response was approximately 50%). The problem of delayed emesis has not yet been solved, and best results were obtained with the combination of metoclopramide and corticosteroids. For the control of nausea and vomiting caused by radiotherapy, orally given ondansetron is effective.     

Control of emesis by intravenous granisetron in breast cancer patients treated with 5-FU, epirubicin and cyclophosphamide

Granisetron, a potent and selective 5-hydroxytryptamine receptor (5-HT3) antagonist was reported to be an effective antiemetic agent both in animal studies and in patients given highly emetogenic chemotherapy. A sample of 43 patients with breast cancer was accrued from September to November 1992 in a phase II study to assess the efficacy of granisetron in patients receiving FEC (5-FU, epirubicin, cyclophosphamide). Each patient received 3 mg intravenous granisetron as a single dose just prior to chemotherapy. Oral metoclopromide was prescribed to each patient as a rescue anti-emetic. The emetic episodes and degree of nausea were evaluated on a daily basis. Good control of emesis (0-2 episodes of vomiting) and nausea (mild or no nausea) was in the range 77%-98% and 77%-93% respectively. There was a complete response (no emetic episodes throughout the 6-day period) in 16 patients (37.2%). Onset of emesis tends to occur on day 1 and tend to subside after day 3; 85% of patients had onset of emesis in the first 2 days after chemotherapy. Control of emesis and nausea tends to improve after day 3, which could be the result of the reduced emetogenicity of the combination FEC with time. Altogether, 77% had good control of acute emesis; control of delayed emesis was better with 84% achieving a major response on day 2 after chemotherapy, which improved to more than 90% after day 4. Granisetron was generally tolerated with headache being the most common side-effect followed by constipation and flushing. This study suggests that granisetron is an effective and well-tolerated anti-emetic agent, which deserves randomised trials to elucidate its efficacy further.     

The effects of dexamethasone on antiemetics in female patients undergoing gynecologic surgery

This randomized, double-blind study compared the effects of dexamethasone plus either droperidol, metoclopramide, or granisetron with each antiemetic alone for preventing postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) in 270 female patients undergoing general anesthesia for major gynecological surgery. Patients were randomly assigned to receive either droperidol 1.25 mg (Group D1, n = 45), droperidol 1.25 mg plus dexamethasone 8 mg (Group D2, n = 45), metoclopramide 10 mg (Group M1, n = 45), metoclopramide 10 mg plus dexamethasone 8 mg (Group M2, n = 45), granisetron 40 micrograms/kg (Group G1, n = 45), or granisetron 40 micrograms/kg plus dexamethasone 8 mg (Group G2, n = 45) immediately before the induction of anesthesia. A standard general anesthetic technique and postoperative analgesia were used throughout the study. Complete response, defined as no PONV and no administration of rescue antiemetic medication during the first 24 h after anesthesia, was 49% in Group D1, 60% in Group D2 (P = 0.199 versus Group D1), 51% in Group M1, 62% in Group M2 (P = 0.198 versus Group M1), 80% in Group G1, and 96% in Group G2 (P = 0.025 versus Group G1). Our results suggest that dexamethasone enhances the antiemetic efficacy of granisetron but does not potentiate the other antiemetics-droperidol and metoclopramide-in female patients undergoing major gynecological surgery. Implications: We compared the efficacy of dexamethasone plus three different antiemetics-droperidol, metoclopramide, and granisetron-for the prevention of nausea and vomiting after gynecologic surgery. The granisetron-dexamethasone combination was the most effective for preventing post-operative emetic symptoms.     

A lymphoma cell line resistant to 4-piperidinopiperidine was less sensitive to CPT-11

The purpose of the study was to assess the toxicity and efficacy of an oral, combination antiemetic regimen including granisetron (Kytril; SmithKline Beecham Pharmaceuticals, Philadelphia, PA, USA) in the setting of highly emetogenic conditioning chemotherapy for stem cell transplantation. Antiemetic prophylaxis consisted of oral granisetron 2 mg once daily, oral prochlorperazine 10 mg q 6 h and oral dexamethasone 4 mg q 6 h, beginning 1 h prior to chemotherapy on each of the 4 days of chemotherapy and continuing until 24 h after the completion of high-dose chemotherapy (HDC). Patients received either CVP (cyclophosphamide 6 g/m2, VP-16 1800 mg/m2 and carboplatin 1200 mg/m2) or CTP (thiotepa 500 mg/m2 in place of VP-16) in four daily doses given over 4 h from days -4 to -1. Previously mobilized and cryopreserved peripheral blood stem cells (PBSC) were reinfused on day +1. Evaluation of nausea, emetic episodes (EE), adverse events, and rescue medications were recorded on a daily patient diary. Thirty-six patients were entered. Fifty-three percent (95% CI = 37-75%) of patients achieved complete response for emesis (CR = 0 EE/24 h) and 75% (95% CI = 58-90%) had combined complete and major response (CR+MR = 0-3 EE/24 h) during all 5 of the treatment days. During the 5 study days, the average number of patient-days with no emesis was 3.7 (74%) and with 1-3 EE was 4.3 (86%). On days -4, -3, -2, -1 and 0, the combined CR+MR rate for emesis was 97, 92, 86, 78 and 75%, respectively. Nausea was absent or mild on all 5 study days in 57% (95% CI = 37-75%). Eight patients had severe late-onset emesis occurring on days +1 to +3 after reinfusion of stem cells. No clinically significant toxicities attributable to the antiemetic regimen were observed. An all oral antiemetic regimen of granisetron, prochlorperazine and dexamethasone appears to be safe and highly effective in patients receiving multiple, daily, high-dose chemotherapy regimens. This regimen offers the advantage of cost-savings, a low side-effect profile and ease of administration in the predominately outpatient setting of HDC with peripheral blood stem cell transplant (PBSCT).     

Prevention of emesis by tropisetron in children receiving combined chemotherapy with cisplatin

We evaluated the antiemetic efficacy of tropisetron, a 5-HT3 receptor antagonist, during its use in 15 children with malignant disease who received cisplatin (CDDP) either alone (1/15) or in combination (14/15) with other cytostatic drugs. Tropisetron was given to 15 children (8 boys and 7 girls, ranging from 6 months to 17 years of age) with miscellaneous neoplasms. Generally, tropisetron (5 mg/m2/day, maximum 5 mg/day) was administered intravenously the first day of CDDP-based chemotherapy and orally for 4 subsequent days of chemotherapy. The dose of tropisetron was reduced to 0.2 mg/kg/day in children less than 1 year of age and/or those weighing less than 10 kg. Vomiting and nausea were controlled completely in 8 of 15 (53.3%) children on day 1 with a single intravenous infusion of tropisetron. Partial control was observed in 40% of patients on day 1. Complete control of delayed nausea and vomiting ranged between 40% and 80% in patients over days 2 to 5. The results obtained during administration of tropisetron confirm that it is a valid, safe, and manageable antiemetic for the treatment of malignant disease in pediatric patients.     

Reduction of cisplatin-induced emesis by a selective neurokinin-1-receptor antagonist. L-754,030 Antiemetic Trials Group

BACKGROUND: The localization of substance P in brain-stem regions associated with vomiting, and the results of studies in ferrets, led us to postulate that a neurokinin-1-receptor antagonist would be an antiemetic in patients receiving anticancer chemotherapy. METHODS: In a multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial involving 159 patients who had not previously received cisplatin, we evaluated the prevention of acute emesis (occurring within 24 hours) and delayed emesis (on days 2 to 5) after a single dose of cisplatin therapy (70 mg or more per square meter of body-surface area). Before receiving cisplatin, all the patients received granisetron (10 microg per kilogram of body weight intravenously) and dexamethasone (20 mg orally). The patients were randomly assigned to one of three treatments in addition to granisetron and dexamethasone: 400 mg of an oral trisubstituted morpholine acetal (also known as L-754,030) before cisplatin and 300 mg on days 2 to 5 (group 1), 400 mg of L-754,030 before cisplatin and placebo on days 2 to 5 (group 2), or placebo before cisplatin and placebo on days 2 to 5 (group 3). Additional medication was available at any time to treat occurrences of vomiting or nausea. RESULTS: In the acute-emesis phase, 93 percent of the patients in groups 1 and 2 combined and 67 percent of those in group 3 had no vomiting (P<0.001). In the delayed-emesis phase, 82 percent of the patients in group 1, 78 percent of those in group 2, and 33 percent of those in group 3 had no vomiting (P<0.001 for the comparison between group 1 or 2 and group 3). The median nausea score in the delayed-emesis phase was significantly lower in group 1 than in group 3 (P=0.003). No serious adverse events were attributed to L-754,030. CONCLUSIONS: The neurokinin-1-receptor antagonist L-754,030 prevents delayed emesis after treatment with cisplatin. Moreover, combining L-754,030 with granisetron plus dexamethasone improves the prevention of acute emesis.     

Clinical evaluation of Azasetron Hydrochloride: a new selective 5-HT3 receptor antagonist--antiemetic profile and plasma concentration in transcatheter arterial chemoembolization using CDDP for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma

We performed a clinical evaluation on the antiemetic profile and the plasma concentration of Azasetron Hydrochloride (a new selective 5-HT3 receptor antagonist), in transcatheter arterial chemoembolization using CDDP for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma. Antiemetic effects were examined in 32 patients in the serotone group (administration of serotone 10 mg + methylprednisolone 125 mg) and in 77 patients of the control group (administration of metoclopramide 20-30 mg + methylprednisolone 500 mg). The response rate and the CR ratio in serotone group was 97% and 66%, respectively. These results were statistically higher than in the control group. Although all patients had chronic liver diseases, no side effects and complications related to administration of serotone were observed. The average area under the concentration (AUC) curve of plasma serotone in five patients with liver cirrhosis was 531 ng.h/ml, which was greater than that of a healthy volunteer. In conclusion, serotone is a new, safe and useful antiemetic drug in TACE therapy for hepatocellular carcinoma.     

Modified oral ondansetron regimen for cyclophosphamide-induced emesis in lupus nephritis

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the antiemetic efficacy of a modified regimen of oral ondansetron and dexamethasone in patients with lupus nephritis undergoing treatment with cyclophosphamide whose conventional antiemetic regimen had failed. DESIGN: A before-after prospective observational pilot project. SETTING: A federal research hospital. PATIENTS: Fourteen outpatients with lupus nephritis receiving intravenous cyclophosphamide 0.75-1.0 g/m2 had previously experienced chemotherapy-induced emetic events (vomiting or retching) while receiving a standard combination intravenous antiemetic regimen. The regimen consisted of four doses of thiethylperazine 10 mg and diphenhydramine 25 mg every 6 hours, and two doses of lorazepam 0.5 mg every 6 hours starting at 1 hour prior to cyclophosphamide. A subset of 8 patients previously completed a blinded study in which they received the intravenous formulation of ondansetron (4 doses of 4-16 mg q4h) administered orally beginning 30 minutes prior to the cyclophosphamide infusion. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The number of emetic events and cost of drug administration were assessed for the modified ondansetron intervention and compared with those of the standard antiemetic regimen. The incidence of emetic events and visual analog nausea scores for the subset of eight patients were also evaluated. INTERVENTIONS: To account for the delayed onset of emesis associated with cyclophosphamide, patients received both ondansetron 8 mg orally every 4 hours (3 doses) and dexamethasone 10 mg orally (1 dose) beginning 4 hours after the cyclophosphamide infusion. This is different from the manufacturer's recommended dose schedule, in which ondansetron is administered prior to chemotherapy. RESULTS: No emetic events were observed following the administration of oral ondansetron/dexamethasone. The 95% confidence interval for the true rate of emesis was 0% to 19.3%. There was a significant difference in efficacy between ondansetron/dexamethasone and the triple antiemetic regimen (p < 0.0002). None of the patients experienced adverse effects while receiving the ondansetron/dexamethasone regimen. Cost comparisons (including admixture and nursing administration times) for standard combination therapy and oral ondansetron/dexamethasone were $109.09 and $70.24, respectively. No difference in emetic events or nausea ratings was observed between oral ondansetron/dexamethasone tablets and oral administration of ondansetron using the intravenous formula. CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that a modified oral ondansetron/dexamethasone regimen is safe and efficacious, and costs less than alternative regimens to prevent cyclophosphamide-induced emesis in patients with lupus nephritis.     

Initial high anti-emetic efficacy of granisetron with dexamethasone is not maintained over repeated cycles

We have reported previously that the anti-emetic efficacy of single agent 5HT3 antagonists is not maintained when analysed with the measurement of cumulative probabilities. Presently, the most effective anti-emetic regimen is a combination of a 5HT3 antagonist plus dexamethasone. We, therefore, assessed the sustainment of efficacy of such a combination in 125 patients, scheduled to receive cisplatin > or = 70 mg m(-2) either alone or in combination with other cytotoxic drugs. Anti-emetic therapy was initiated with 10 mg of dexamethasone and 3 mg of granisetron intravenously, before cisplatin. On days 1-6, patients received 8 mg of dexamethasone and 1 mg of granisetron twice daily by oral administration. Protection was assessed during all cycles and calculated based on cumulative probability analyses using the method of Kaplan-Meier and a model for transitional probabilities. Irrespective of the type of analysis used, the anti-emetic efficacy of granisetron/dexamethasone decreased over cycles. The initial complete acute emesis protection rate of 66% decreased to 30% according to the method of Kaplan-Meier and to 39% using the model for transitional probabilities. For delayed emesis, the initial complete protection rate of 52% decreased to 21% (Kaplan-Meier) and to 43% (transitional probabilities). In addition, we observed that protection failure in the delayed emesis period adversely influenced the acute emesis protection in the next cycle. We conclude that the anti-emetic efficacy of a 5HT3 antagonist plus dexamethasone is not maintained over multiple cycles of highly emetogenic chemotherapy, and that the acute emesis protection is adversely influenced by protection failure in the delayed emesis phase.     

Review of the preclinical pharmacology and comparative efficacy of 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 receptor antagonists for chemotherapy-induced emesis

PURPOSE: This analysis was undertaken to review published reports of the comparative efficacy and safety of 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 (5-HT3) receptor antagonists in the prophylaxis of acute chemotherapy-induced emesis. METHODS: Comparison data used are the preclinical pharmacology as well as the design and results of clinical trials. Seven comparative studies that used granisetron, ondansetron, or tropisetron in patients who received either moderately or highly emetogenic chemotherapy are reviewed. As the study designs, patient population, chemotherapy, antiemetic doses and schedule, and methods of assessment were slightly different, the results of each study are analyzed independently. Effectiveness is assessed by emetic episodes, nausea, and patient preference. RESULTS: The preclinical pharmacologic profile is different among the 5-HT3 antagonists in terms of potency, selectivity, dose response, and duration of action. The comparative clinical trials show that a single intravenous (i.v.) dose of granisetron 3 mg is as effective as multiple (8 mg x 3) or single (32 mg) i.v. doses of ondansetron for the prevention of acute nausea and emesis due to cisplatin. In the two moderately emetogenic clinical trials, granisetron 3 mg i.v. was at least as effective as ondansetron 8 mg i.v. +/- 24 mg orally and tropisetron 5 mg i.v. Patient preference was evaluated in three of the four crossover trials: granisetron was preferred in three of four, and no preference was reported in the fourth. The one trial to compare ondansetron 0.15 mg/kg x 3 versus granisetron 10 micrograms/kg x 1 or granisetron 40 micrograms/kg i.v. demonstrated equivalent control of nausea and vomiting in patients who received cisplatin-based chemotherapy. CONCLUSION: The 5-HT3 receptor antagonists compared are highly effective antiemetic agents that have now become the standard of care for preventing chemotherapy-induced emesis. Whether the described preclinical differences among these agents are also clinically significant remains to be seen. In the comparative trials analyzed, the 5-HT3 receptor antagonists demonstrated relatively equivalent clinical efficacy. Cost analysis may favor the use of one agent over another depending on the emetogenic challenge, dose of the 5-HT3 antagonists, and number of doses recommended. Patient preference may be an important factor to be considered in future antiemetic trials.     

Options in the treatment of chemotherapy-induced emesis

PURPOSE: The incidence and duration of chemotherapy-induced emesis, pathophysiology of the emetic response, and antiemetic treatment of options are reviewed. OVERVIEW: Nausea and vomiting are among the most common and debilitating side effects of cancer chemotherapy. If not controlled, these side effects may interfere with the delivery of potentially life-saving treatment. Acute, delayed, and anticipatory nausea and vomiting may be prevented by appropriate antiemetic therapy. Drug selection is based on the emetogenicity of the patient's cancer treatment and potency of the antiemetic agent. Efficacy and safety of the antiemetic regimen are often improved by combining agents with different mechanisms of action. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: By preventing and controlling chemotherapy-induced emesis, clinicians may improve cancer patients' functional status and quality of life significantly. Improved tolerability may lead to greater patient acceptance of chemotherapy and prevent premature withdrawal from or cessation of treatment. Controlling chemotherapy-induced emesis also helps to decrease the direct and indirect costs of managing cancer.