scispace - formally typeset
Search or ask a question
Topic

Granisetron

About: Granisetron is a research topic. Over the lifetime, 1399 publications have been published within this topic receiving 29881 citations. The topic is also known as: LY-278584 & Kytril.


Papers
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: Patients at high risk for postoperative emesis should receive special considerations with respect to the prophylactic use of antiemetic drugs, as suggested in a recent editorial.
Abstract: In a recent editorial, Kapur described perioperative nausea and vomiting as "the big 'little problem' following ambulatory surgery."257 Although the actual morbidity associated with nausea is relatively low in health outpatients, it should not be considered an unavoidable part of the perioperative experience. The availability of an emesis basin for every patient in the postanesthesia recovery unit is a reflection of the limited success with the available therapeutic techniques.257 There had been little change in the incidence of postoperative emesis since the introduction of halothane into clinical practice in 1956. However, newer anesthetic drugs (e.g. propofol) appear to have contributed to a recent decline in the incidence of emesis. Factors associated with an increased risk of postoperative emesis include age, gender (menses), obesity, previous history of motion sickness or postoperative vomiting, anxiety, gastroparesis, and type and duration of the surgical procedure (e.g., laparoscopy, strabismus, middle ear procedures). Anesthesiologists have little, if any, control over these surgical factors. However, they do have control over many other factors that influence postoperative emesis (e.g., preanesthetic medication, anesthetic drugs and techniques, and postoperative pain management). Although routine antiemetic prophylaxis is clearly unjustified, patients at high risk for postoperative emesis should receive special considerations with respect to the prophylactic use of antiemetic drugs. Minimally effective doses of antiemetic drugs can be administered to reduce the incidence of sedation and other deleterious side effects. Potent nonopioid analgesics (e.g., ketorolac) can be used to control pain while avoiding some of the opioid-related side effects. Gentle handling in the immediate postoperative period is also essential. If emesis does occur, aggressive intravenous hydration and pain management are important components of the therapeutic regimen, along with antiemetic drugs. If one antiemetic does not appear to be effective, another drug with a different site of action should be considered. With the availability of new antiserotonin drugs, the incidence of recurrent (intractable) emesis could be further decreased. Research into the mechanisms of this common postoperative complication may help in improving the management of emetic sequelae in the future. As suggested in a recent editorial, improvement in antiemetic therapy could have a major impact for surgical patients, particularly after ambulatory surgery. Patients as well as those involved in their postoperative care look forward to a time when the routine offering of an emesis basin after surgery becomes a historical practice.

1,647 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
01 Feb 2000-Drugs
TL;DR: This multimodal PONV management approach includes use of multiple different antiemetics medications (double or triple combination antiemetic therapy acting at different neuroreceptor sites); less emetogenic anaesthesia techniques; adequate intravenous hydration; and adequate pain control.
Abstract: Pain, nausea and vomiting are frequently listed by patients as their most important perioperative concerns. With the change in emphasis from an inpatient to outpatient hospital and office-based medical/surgical environment, there has been increased interest in the ‘big little problem’ of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV). Currently, the overall incidence of PONV is estimated to be 25 to 30%, with severe, intractable PONV estimated to occur in approximately 0.18% of all patients undergoing surgery. PONV can lead to delayed postanaesthesia care unit (PACU) recovery room discharge and unanticipated hospital admission, thereby increasing medical costs. The aetiology and consequences of PONV are complex and multifactorial, with patient-, medical- and surgery-related factors. A thorough understanding of these factors, as well as the neuropharmacology of multiple emetic receptors [dopaminergic, muscarinic, cholinergic, opioid, histamine, serotonin (5-hydroxy-tryptamine; 5-HT)] and physiology [cranial nerves VIII (acoustic-vestibular), IX (glossopharyngeal) and X (vagus), gastrointestinal reflex] relating to PONV are necessary to most effectively manage PONV. Commonly used older, traditional antiemetics for PONV include the anticholinergics (scopolamine), phenothiazines (promethazine), antihistamines (diphenhydramine), butyrophenones (droperidol) and benzamides (metoclopramide). These antiemetics have adverse effects such as dry mouth, sedation, hypotension, extrapyramidal symptoms, dystonic effects and restlessness. The newest class of antiemetics used for the prevention and treatment of PONV are the serotonin receptor antagonists (ondansetron, granisetron, tropisetron, dolasetron). These antiemetics do not have the adverse effects of the older, traditional antiemetics. Headache and dizziness are the main adverse effects of the serotonin receptor antagonists in the dosages used for PONV. The serotonin receptor antagonists have improved antiemetic effectiveness but are not as completely efficacious for PONV as they are for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting. Older, traditional antiemetics (such as droperidol) compare favourably with the serotonin receptor antagonists regarding efficacy for PONV prevention. Combination antiemetic therapy improves efficacy for PONV prevention and treatment. In the difficult-to-treat PONV patient (as in the chemotherapy patient), suppression of numerous emetogenic peripheral stimuli and central neuroemetic receptors may be necessary. This multimodal PONV management approach includes use of: (i) multiple different antiemetic medications (double or triple combination antiemetic therapy acting at different neuroreceptor sites); (ii) less emetogenic anaesthesia techniques; (iii) adequate intravenous hydration; and (iv) adequate pain control.

552 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: This phase III, multicentre, randomised, double-dummy, stratified, parallel-group, active-comparator trial assessed the efficacy and safety of palonosetron versus granisetron for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting.
Abstract: Summary Background Palonosetron is a second-generation 5-hydroxytryptamine 3 (5-HT 3 )-receptor antagonist that has shown better efficacy than ondansetron and dolasetron in preventing chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in patients receiving moderately emetogenic chemotherapy, and similar efficacy to ondansetron in preventing CINV in patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy. In this phase III, multicentre, randomised, double-blind, double-dummy, stratified, parallel-group, active-comparator trial, we assessed the efficacy and safety of palonosetron versus granisetron for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting, both of which were administered with dexamethasone in patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy. Methods Between July 5, 2006, and May 31, 2007, 1143 patients with cancer who were receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy (ie, cisplatin, or an anthracycline and cyclophosphamide combination [AC/EC]) were recruited from 75 institutions in Japan, and randomly assigned to either single-dose palonosetron (0·75 mg), or granisetron (40 μg/kg) 30 min before chemotherapy on day 1, both with dexamethasone (16 mg intravenously) on day 1 followed by additional doses (8 mg intravenously for patients receiving cisplatin or 4 mg orally for patients receiving AC/EC) on days 2 and 3. A non-deterministic minimisation method with a stochastic-biased coin was applied to the randomisation of patients. Covariates known to effect emetic risk, such as sex, age, and type of highly emetogenic chemotherapy, were used as stratification factors of minimisation to ensure balance between the treatment groups. Primary endpoints were the proportion of patients with a complete response (defined as no emetic episodes and no rescue medication) during the acute phase (0–24 h postchemotherapy; non-inferiority comparison with granisetron) and the proportion of patients with a complete response during the delayed phase (24–120 h postchemotherapy; superiority comparison with granisetron). The non-inferiority margin was predefined in the study protocol as a 10% difference between groups in the proportion of patients with complete response. The palonosetron dose of 0·75 mg was chosen on the basis of two dose-determining trials in Japanese patients. All patients who received study treatment and highly emetogenic chemotherapy were included in the efficacy analyses (modified intention to treat). This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00359567. Findings 1114 patients were included in the efficacy analyses: 555 patients in the palonosetron group and 559 patients in the granisetron group. 418 of 555 patients (75·3%) in the palonosetron group had complete response during the acute phase compared with 410 of 559 patients (73·3%) in the granisetron group (mean difference 2·9% [95% CI −2·70 to 7·27]). During the delayed phase, 315 of 555 patients (56·8%) had complete response in the palonosetron group compared with 249 of 559 patients (44·5%) in the granisetron group (p vs 88 of 562 [15·7%] in the granisetron group) and raised concentrations of serum aminotransferases (aspartate aminotransferase: 24 of 557 [4·3%] vs 34 of 562 [6·0%]; alanine aminotransferase: 16 of 557 [2·9%] vs 33 of 562 [5·9%]); no grade 4 main treatment-related adverse events were reported. Interpretation When administered with dexamethasone before highly emetogenic chemotherapy, palonosetron exerts efficacy against chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting which is non-inferior to that of granisetron in the acute phase and better than that of granisetron in the delayed phase, with a comparable safety profile for the two treatments. Funding Taiho Pharmaceutical (Tokyo, Japan).

387 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: The neurokinin-1-receptor antagonist L-754,030 prevents delayed emesis after treatment with cisplatin and combined with granisetron plus dexamethasone improves the prevention of acute emesis.
Abstract: 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 (occurring 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 μg 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 befor...

370 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
01 Feb 1998-Drugs
TL;DR: There is no good scientific rationale for the use of 5-HT 3 antagonists in controlling delayed nausea and vomiting since serotonin has not been shown to be released during the delayed phase and there is no appreciable difference in the incidence or severity of adverse effects among the 5- HT 3 antagonists.
Abstract: In the mid-1980s it was discovered that serotonin (5-hydroxytryptamine; 5-HT) was at least partially responsible for producing chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting. It was therefore realised that serotonin receptor blockade with serotonin 5-HT3 receptor antagonists could inhibit chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting. 5-HT3 antagonists have different chemical structures and receptor binding affinity. Granisetron, dolasetron and its major metabolite are pure 5-HT3 antagonists, while ondansetron and tropisetron are weak antagonists at the 5-HT4 receptor. Ondansetron has also been demonstrated to bind at other serotonin receptors and to the opioid µ receptor. The half-lives of granisetron, tropisetron and the active metabolite of dolasetron are 2 to 3 times longer than that of ondansetron. These observations initially suggested that more frequent ondansetron administration would be required; however, it has now been shown that receptor blockade does not correlate with elimination half-life and all 5-HT3 antagonists can be effectively administered once daily. Clinical trials have been conducted that directly compare the 5-HT3 antagonists. To compare these studies, it is necessary to assess trial design, including known risk factors for the development of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting, and response criteria. Stratification for risk factors, use of strict efficacy criteria and randomisation to a blinded trial using an appropriate comparative regimen are essential for a well designed antiemetic trial. Comparative clinical trials using various doses, routes and regimens of administration have been conducted with 5-HT3 antagonists. Despite some trial design shortcomings, most of the studies show equal efficacy between the agents, especially in moderately emetogenic chemotherapy and mild, infrequently occurring adverse effects. The addition of steroids also appears to improve outcome. However, since many doses and regimens of ondansetron were used, further study is needed to determine the optimal regimen. The efficacy of 5-HT3 antagonists in controlling delayed nausea and vomiting from chemotherapy is less well studied. Further, there is no good scientific rationale for the use of 5-HT3 antagonists in controlling delayed nausea and vomiting since serotonin has not been shown to be released during the delayed phase. In fact, most studies show no benefit or modest benefit of 5-HT3 antagonists over placebo. Because the 5-HT3 antagonists perform similarly in the clinical setting, pharmacological differences do not seem to translate into therapeutic differences. There is also no appreciable difference in the incidence or severity of adverse effects among the 5-HT3 antagonists. Determination of clinical use may then be driven by cost.

270 citations


Network Information
Related Topics (5)
Chemotherapy
33.5K papers, 1M citations
80% related
Survival rate
73.3K papers, 3.5M citations
74% related
Clinical trial
57.6K papers, 1.8M citations
74% related
Palliative care
60.8K papers, 1.4M citations
74% related
Perioperative
56.5K papers, 1.2M citations
73% related
Performance
Metrics
No. of papers in the topic in previous years
YearPapers
202315
202235
202129
202033
201934
201837