• Journal of Pharmaceutical Investigation
• /
• v.36 no.6
• /
• pp.363-369
• /
• 2006

Granisetron is a selective 5-HT3 receptor antagonist that is used therapeutically for the prevention of vomiting and nausea associated with emetogenic cancer chemotherapy. Although this drug is commercially available for intravenous and oral dosage, there is a need for intranasal delivery formulations in specific patient populations in which the use of these dosage forms may be unfeasible and/or inconvenient. A rapid and specific high-performance liquid chromatography method with mass spectrometric detection(LC-MS) was developed and validated for the analysis of granisetron in plasma after nasal administration in rats. This method has been validated for concentrations ranging from 5 to 1000 ng/ml with simple treatment. This technique has high level reproducibility, accuracy, and sensitivity. The method described was found to be suitable for the analysis of all samples collected during preclinical pharmacokinetic investigations of granisetron in rats after nasal administration. This study was aimed to investigate the feasibility of nasal delivery of granisetron for the elimination of vomiting. The effects of osmolarity, dosage volume at the same dose and applied dose on the nasal absorption of granisetron in rats were observed. No significant difference in the effect of osmolarity and dosage volume at the same dose was observed. As the applied dose of granisetron in nasal formulation increased, the absorption increased linearly. Based on these results it appears that only the applied dose(drug mass) determines the nasal absorption of granisetron. The bioavailability of granisetron on nasal administration of 4 mg/kg appeared to be comparable to that of intravenous administration of the same dose. These results suggest that granisetron can be efficiently delivered nasally and the development of nasal formulation will be feasible.

• Asian Pacific Journal of Cancer Prevention
• /
• v.14 no.12
• /
• pp.7701-7706
• /
• 2013

Background: In a prospective cohort study of antiemetic therapy conducted in Malaysia, a total of 94 patients received low emetogenic chemotherapy (LEC) with or without granisetron injections as the primary prophylaxis for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV). This study is a retrospective cost analysis of two antiemetic regimens from the payer perspective. Materials and Methods: This cost evaluation refers to 2011, the year in which the observation was conducted. Direct costs incurred by hospitals including the drug acquisition, materials and time spent for clinical activities from prescribing to dispensing of home medications were evaluated (MYR 1=$0.32 USD). As reported to be significantly different between two regimens (96.1% vs 81.0%; p=0.017), the complete response rate of acute emesis which was defined as a patient successfully treated without any emesis episode within 24 hours after LEC was used as the main indicator for effectiveness. Results: Antiemetic drug acquisition cost per patient was 40.7 times higher for the granisetron-based regimen than for the standard regimen (MYR 64.3 vs 1.58). When both the costs for materials and clinical activities were included, the total cost per patient was 8.68 times higher for the granisetron-based regimen (MYR 73.5 vs 8.47). Considering the complete response rates, the mean cost per successfully treated patient in granisetron group was 7.31 times higher (MYR 76.5 vs 10.5). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) with granisetron-based regimen, relative to the standard regimen, was MYR 430.7. It was found to be most sensitive to the change of antiemetic effects of granisetron-based regimen. Conclusions: While providing a better efficacy in acute emesis control, the low incidence of acute emesis and high ICER makes use of granisetron as primary prophylaxis in LEC controversial.

• Journal of the Korean Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons
• /
• v.42 no.2
• /
• pp.84-89
• /
• 2016

Objectives: To compare the efficacy of intravenous ondansetron (4 mg, 2 mL) and granisetron (2 mg, 2 mL) for preventing postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) in patients during oral and maxillofacial surgical procedures under general anesthesia. Materials and Methods: A prospective, randomized, and double blind clinical study was carried out with 60 patients undergoing oral and maxillofacial surgical procedures under general anesthesia. Patients were divided into two groups of 30 individuals each. Approximately two minutes before induction of general anesthesia, each patient received either 4 mg (2 mL) ondansetron or 2 mg (2 mL) granisetron intravenously in a double blind manner. Balanced anesthetic technique was used for all patients. Patients were assessed for episodes of nausea, retching, vomiting, and the need for rescue antiemetic at intervals of 0-2, 3, 6, 12, and 24 hours after surgery. Incidence of complete response and adverse effects were assessed at 24 hours postoperatively. Data was tabulated and subjected to statistical analysis using the chi-square test, unpaired t-test, or the Mann-Whitney U-test as appropriate. A P-value less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Results: There was no statistically significant difference between the two groups for incidence of PONV or the need for rescue antiemetic. Both study drugs were well tolerated with minimum adverse effects; the most common adverse effect was headache. The overall incidence of complete response in the granisetron group (86.7%) was significantly higher than the ondansetron group (60.0%). Conclusion: Granisetron at an intravenous dose of 2 mg was found to be safe, well tolerated, and more effective by increasing the incidence of complete response compared to 4 mg intravenous ondansetron when used for antiemetic prophylaxis in maxillofacial surgery patients receiving general anesthesia. Benefits of granisetron include high receptor specificity and high potency, which make it a valuable alternative to ondansetron.

• Asian Pacific Journal of Cancer Prevention
• /
• v.14 no.1
• /
• pp.469-473
• /
• 2013

Background: The purpose of this study is to examine the risk of uncontrolled chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) among patients receiving low emetogenic chemotherapy (LEC) with and without granisetron injection as the primary prophylaxis in addition to dexamethasone and metochlopramide. Materials and Methods: This was a single-centre, prospective cohort study. A total of 96 patients receiving LEC (52 with and 42 without granisetron) were randomly selected from the full patient list generated using the e-Hospital Information System (e-His). The rates of complete control (no CINV from days 1 to 5) and complete response (no nausea or vomiting in both acute and delayed phases) were identified through patient diaries which were adapted from the MASCC Antiemesis Tool (MAT). Selected covariates including gender, age, active alcohol consumption, morning sickness and previous chemotherapy history were controlled using the multiple logistic regression analyses. Results: Both groups showed significant difference with LEC regimens (p<0.001). No differences were found in age, gender, ethnic group and other baseline characteristics. The granisetron group indicated a higher complete response rate in acute emesis (adjusted OR: 0.1; 95%CI 0.02-0.85; p=0.034) than did the non-granisetron group. Both groups showed similar complete control and complete response rates for acute nausea, delayed nausea and delayed emesis. Conclusions: Granisetron injection used as the primary prophylaxis in LEC demonstrated limited roles in CINV control. Optimization of the guideline-recommended antiemetic regimens may serve as a less costly alternative to protect patients from uncontrolled acute emesis.

• Radiation Oncology Journal
• /
• v.17 no.2
• /
• pp.141-145
• /
• 1999

Purpose : Granisetron is a potent, the most selective 5-HT3 receptor antagonist and is reported to b effective in treatment of radiation-induced emesis. The antiemetic efficacy and safety of oral granisteron was evaluated in patients with receiving highly emetogenic treatment by conventional fractionated irradiation. Materials and Methods : Patients with various cancers who were being treated with irradiation were accrued into the present study. The intensity of nausea was evaluated on first 24 hours and on day-7 by patients according to the degree of interference with normal daily life as followings; a) none; b) present but no interference with normal daily life (mild): c) interference with normal daily life (moderate): and d) bedridden because of nausea (severe). Non or mild state was considered to indicate successful treatment. The efficacy of antiemetic treatment was graded as follows; a) complete response; no vomiting, no worse than mild nausea and receive no rescue antiemetic therapy over the 24h period, b) major response; either one episode of vomiting or moderate/severe nausea or had received rescue medication over 24h period, or any combination of these, c) minor response; two to four episodes of vomiting over the 24h period, regardless of nausea and rescue medication, d) failure; more than four medication. The score of the most symptom was recorded and the total score over 24 hours was summarized. The complete or major response was considered to indicate successful treatment. Results : A total of 10 patients were enrolled into this study, and all were assessable for efficacy analysis. Total nausea control was achieved in 90$\%$ (9/10:none=60$\%$ plus mild=30$\%$) of total patients after 7 days. The control of vomiting by granisteron was noted in seven patients (70$\%$) of complete response and three (30$\%$) of major response with a hundred-percent successful treatment over 7 days. The minor response or treatment failure were not observed. No significant adverse events or toxicities from granisetron were recorded in patient receiving granisetron. Conclusion : We concluded that granisetron is a highly effective antiemetic agent in controlling radiotherapy-induced nausea or vomiting with a minimal toxicity profile.

• 대한임상약리학회:학술대회논문집
• /
• 1995.12a
• /
• pp.43-43
• /
• 1995

• 대한두경부종양학회:학술대회논문집
• /
• 1995.11a
• /
• pp.211-212
• /
• 1995

• Asian Pacific Journal of Cancer Prevention
• /
• v.15 no.22
• /
• pp.9627-9630
• /
• 2014

Background: Although efficacy of aprepitant for suppressing emesis associated with single-dose cisplatin has been demonstrated, there are limited data on the antiemetic effect of this oral neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist during daily administration of cisplatin. Accordingly, we investigated the efficacy and safety of aprepitant in patients with head and neck cancer (HNC) receiving combination therapy with cisplatin and 5-FU (FP therapy). Materials and Methods: Twenty patients with HNC were prospectively studied who received a triple antiemetic regimen comprising granisetron ($40{\mu}g/kg$ on Days 1-4), dexamethasone (8 mg on Days 1-4), and aprepitant (125 mg on day 1 and 80mg on days 2-5) with FP therapy (cisplatin $20mg/m^2$ on days 1-4; 5-FU $400mg/m^2$ on days 1-5) (aprepitant group). We also retrospectively studied another 20 HNC patients who received the same regimen except for aprepitant (control group). Results: For efficacy endpoints based on nausea, the aprepitant group showed significantly better results, including a higher rate of complete response (no vomiting and no salvage therapy) for the acute phase (p=0.0342), although there was no marked difference between the two groups with regard to percentage of patients in whom vomiting was suppressed. There were no clinically relevant adverse reactions to aprepitant. Conclusions: This study suggested that a triple antiemetic regimen containing aprepitant is safe and effective for HNC patients receiving daily cisplatin therapy.

• Korean Journal of Clinical Pharmacy
• /
• v.28 no.3
• /
• pp.224-229
• /
• 2018

Background: The patients receiving hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) are known to have a high incidence of breakthrough nausea and vomiting due to the conditioning regimen. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the adequacy of antiemetic therapy for breakthrough nausea and vomiting in patients receiving HSCT and to propose an effective treatment regimen. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed the electronic medical records of 109 adult patients. The collected data were used to identify (1) antiemetic and dosing regimens prescribed for controlling breakthrough nausea and vomiting, (2) the rate of patients who developed breakthrough nausea and vomiting, and (3) the percent of antiemetics prescribed on the day of symptom onset. Based on the National Comprehensive Cancer Network guideline, we assessed the suitability of antiemetics for breakthrough nausea and vomiting, and prescription timing. Results: All patients were prescribed pro re nata antiemetics. About 40.0%, 41.4%, and 18.6% of patients were using one, two, and three or more additional drugs for breakthrough nausea and vomiting, respectively. The most frequently administered drugs were intravenous metoclopramide (43.8%) and granisetron patch (36.2%). Breakthrough nausea and vomiting occurred in 87 patients (79.1%) and they developed symptoms 320 cases. About 220 cases (68.8%) were treated with additional antiemetics on the day of symptom onset and the rate of symptom resolution was only 10.3% (9 patients). Conclusion: The breakthrough nausea and vomiting in patients receiving HSCT occurred very frequently and was hard to control, thus requiring more rapid and aggressive treatments.