Search

Background: Nausea and vomiting (NV) seen during and after lower segment cesarean section (LSCS) are due to increased intragastric pressure, hypotension, stretching the peritoneum (exteriorization of the uterus), excessive surgical manipulation and visceral stimulation, using opioids, using uterotonic agents, and the patient's mental status. Ondansetron and granisetron intravenous (i.v.) are useful for avoiding bradycardia and hypotension. Objectives: The objective of this study is to study the effectiveness of granisetron versus ondansetron to control NV during LSCS under subarachnoid block. Materials and Methods: Eighty patients undergoing elective cesarean section under spinal anesthesia by intrathecal bupivacaine were randomly divided into two groups (40 pregnant females of the American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status Classes I and II in each Group). Group 1 received granisetron 40 mg.kg−1 i.v. stat after clamping the cord and Group 2 given i.v. ondansetron 8 mg stat after clamping the cord. NV were observed at the "early postoperative period (0–3 h)" and "late postoperative period (4–24 h)." Statistical Analysis Used: Student's t-test and Chi-square test were used to find out the statistical significance, P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Results: The mean age was 29.3 years with 4.15 standard deviation (SD) and 28.3 years with 4.41 SD in Groups 1 and 2, respectively. The mean duration of surgery was 53.1 min with 6.67 min SD and 57.7 min with 10.26 SD in Groups 1 and 2, respectively. In the "early postoperative period," NV observed in 7.5% and 10.0% participants in Groups 1 and 2, respectively (P > 0.05), and in "late postoperative period," NV observed in 0.0% and 22.5% participants in Groups 1 and 2, respectively (P < 0.05). Conclusion: Granisetron reduces the severity of spinal-induced hypotension, need for rescue vasopressor, and incidence of nausea. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Background Cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisolone (CHOP) regimen includes a high dose of prednisolone (100 mg/body), which exhibits an anticancer and antiemetic effect. However, its optimal use for antiemetic therapy has not been established yet. We assessed the efficacy of granisetron plus aprepitant versus granisetron for CHOP or rituximab-CHOP (R-CHOP) regimen-induced nausea and vomiting in malignant lymphoma. Methods This retrospective and observational clinical study included patients who received CHOP or R-CHOP regimen as initiating chemotherapy between July 2010 and March 2016 (N = 39). Patients were assigned to an aprepitant [aprepitant (125 mg on day 1, 80 mg on days 2–3) plus granisetron (3 mg); n = 15] or control regimen group [granisetron (3 mg); n = 24]. Complete response (CR), defined as no vomiting and no use of rescue therapy during overall phase (0–120 h), was the primary endpoint. Secondary endpoints included the time to first vomiting and using rescue medication and complete protection (CP) defined as no vomiting and no retching and/or no nausea and no rescue therapy. The patient records were investigated, and data were retrospectively analyzed. Results CR rate CP rates did not significantly differ between the groups during the observation period (80.0% versus 83.3%, p = 1.000; and 80.0% versus 79.2%, p = 1.000, respectively). Additionally, the time to first vomiting and using rescue medication in did not significantly differ between the groups (p = 0.909). Conclusions This study suggests that granisetron alone could be one treatment option in the management of CINV in patients with non-Hodgkin lymphoma receiving CHOP or R-CHOP regimen.

Karin Melanie Cabanillas Stanchi,1,* Martin Ebinger,1,* Ulrike Hartmann,2 Manon Queudeville,1 Judith Feucht,1 Michael Ost,1 Marie-Sarah Koch,1 Carmen Malaval,1 Markus Mezger,1 Sarah Schober,1 Simone Weber,1 Sebastian Michaelis,1 Veit Lange,1 Peter Lang,1 Rupert Handgretinger,1 Michaela Döring1 1Department of General Pediatrics, Hematology/Oncology, University Children‘s Hospital Tübingen, Tübingen 72076, Germany; 2University Pharmacy, Eberhard-Karls-University of Tübingen, Tübingen 72076, Germany*These authors contributed equally to this workCorrespondence: Michaela DöringUniversity Hospital Tübingen - Children’s Hospital, Department I – General Pediatrics, Hematology/Oncology, Hoppe-Seyler-Str. 1, Tübingen 72076, GermanyTel +49-(0)7071-2981355Fax +49-(0)7071-295203Email michaela.doering@med.uni-tuebingen.deBackground: Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) are a major burden for patients undergoing emetogenic chemotherapy. International guidelines recommend an antiemetic prophylaxis with corticosteroids, 5-HT3R-antagonists and NK1R-antagonists. The NK1R-antagonist fosaprepitant has shown favorable results in pediatric and adult patients. There is little pediatric experience with fosaprepitant.Methods: This non-interventional observation study analyzed 303 chemotherapy courses administered to 83 pediatric patients with a median age of 9 years (2–17 years), who received antiemetic prophylaxis either with fosaprepitant and granisetron with or without dexamethasone (fosaprepitant group/FG; n=41), or granisetron with or without dexamethasone (control group/CG; n=42), during moderately (CINV risk 30–90%) or highly (CINV risk>90%) emetogenic chemotherapy. The two groups’ results were compared with respect to the safety and efficacy of the antiemetic prophylaxis during the acute (0-24hrs after chemotherapy), delayed (>24–120hrs after chemotherapy) and both CINV phases. Laboratory and clinical adverse events were compared between the two cohorts.Results: Adverse events were not significantly different in the two groups (p>0.05). Significantly fewer vomiting events occurred during antiemetic prophylaxis with fosaprepitant in the acute (23 vs 142 events; p

Background: Shivering has many negative effects on the postanesthesia patient. Shivering is regulated by serotonin. The serotonin antagonists such as ondansetron and granisetron are widely used to prevent nausea and vomiting. Ondansetron is used in regional and general anesthesia, while granisetron is widely used in chemotherapy. This study aimed to determine the effect of low-dose granisetron on the incidence of shivering in postspinal anesthesia. Patients and Methods: The study conducted at Dr. Saiful Anwar General Hospital, Malang, Indonesia. Twenty-three patients divided into two groups: Group C (control) received no premedication and Group G (granisetron) received low-dose granisetron 10 μg/kg. The shivering grade and shivering intensity were recorded every 5 min in the first 1-h postanesthesia. The data were analyzed using t-test, regression test, and effective contribution test. Results: The shivering incidence in Group K was 71.9% and Group G was 9.4% (P = 0.018). The control group experienced shivering Grade I, II, III, and IV. Granisetron group only experienced shivering Grade I and II. Conclusion: The administration of low-dose granisetron before the spinal anesthesia significantly reduced the incidence of shivering in adult patients with no side effects.

Introduction: Pain on injection of anaesthetics is significant for patients' dissatisfaction. The present study aimed to compare the efficacy of granisetron, dexmedetomidine and lidocaine on the reduction of etomidate injection pain. Materials and Methods: A clinical trial was performed on 132 patients aged 18–50 years undergoing elective surgery under general anaesthesia. Two cannulas were inserted into the veins on the dorsum of both hands, and arterial drainage of both was occluded. The patients were randomised into three groups and injected with 6 mg granisetron, 40 mg lidocaine and 5 mcg dexmedetomidine, respectively, into one arm, while injecting normal saline into the other arm. Two minutes later, the tourniquet was released in each group, and 2 mg etomidate was injected into each arm. Participants were asked to rate their pain using the visual analogue scale for each arm on injection, as well as 5 min after injection. Results: A significant difference was found in pain scores of etomidate injection in the three groups of dexmedetomidine, lidocaine and granisetron. Moreover, the pain reduction effect was lower both immediately and at 5 min after injection in dexmedetomidine group than other groups (P = 0.03). In addition, the mean of pain score was lower in lidocaine group than granisetron group (P = 0.01). Nevertheless, the trend of haemodynamic parameters was not significant and different among studied groups (P > 0.05). Conclusion: Dexmedetomidine seems to have been more efficient than the others in reducing etomidate injection pain. However, the adverse effect of the three interventions was not different, and the haemodynamic parameters were stable during anaesthesia.

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

Post-anaesthetic shivering is one of the commonest complications during emergence from general anaesthesia with the rate of occurrence between 5 to 65%. It increases oxygen consumption and carbon dioxide production resulting in delayed recovery from anaesthesia and other adverse events. Granisetron is one of the drugs used to prevent post-anaesthetic shivering. This prospective, double-blind and randomised control study compared the efficacy of prophylaxis IV granisetron at 2 mg and 3 mg doses in preventing post-anaesthetic shivering. There were 104 patients, ASA I and II scheduled for elective open gynaecological surgery recruited and randomised into 2 groups: Group A and B, receiving 2 and 3 mg of IV granisetron, resepectively. Intravenous anaesthetic drugs were administered and tracheal intubation was facilitated by muscle paralysis. Patients' baseline and periodic tympanic core temperatures were measured perioperatively. The incidence and severity of shivering were assessed postoperatively using Wrench Scoring Classification whereby Group A and B had 8.3% and 16.7% of incidence, respectively, in which they were not statistically significant (p = 0.199). All patients from both groups who shivered experienced Grade 1 shivering except for one patient who registered a Grade 2 in Group B. None of our patients had Grade 3 or 4 shivering postoperatively. No one experienced nausea or vomiting in the recovery area. Prophylactic IV granisetron of 2 mg and 3 mg were equally effective in reducing the incidence and severity of post-anaesthetic shivering in gynaecological patients undergoing surgery under general anaesthesia with no unpleasant side effects. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: It was aimed to evaluate the effect of intravenous (IV) granisetron used for nausea and vomiting prophylaxis on hypotension and bradycardia caused by spinal anesthesia. Methods: 120 ASA 1-2 patients undergoing elective surgery under spinal anesthesia were randomly divided into Group G (Ganisetron; n=60) and Group P (Placebo; n=60) groups. Five minutes before spinal anesthesia, Group G received 1 mg intravenous granisetron diluted in 10 mL of isotonic sodium chloride solution and Group P received 10 mL of isotonic sodium chloride solution. Spinal anesthesia with hyperbaric bupivacaine 0.5%, 15 mg at the level of L4-5 was applied for both groups. Hemodynamic data, sensory and motor block parameters were recorded before and after spinal anaesthesia every 5 minutes during 20 minutes of surgery. Results: There was no difference in the demographic data of both groups. Although hemodynamic data showed a decrease in both groups according to initial values, blood pressure measurements in group G were significantly higher than the first measure values. There was no significant difference in heart rate values between the groups. Conclusion: Intravenous granisetron reduces hypotension after spinal anesthesia, but it has no significant effect on heart rate. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To determine the efficacy of granisetron versus placebo (saline) for reducing shivering in patients undergoing lower segment caeserian section under spinal anaesthesia. Study Design: Comparative cross - sectional study. Place and Duration of Study: Department of Anaesthesia, Combined Military Hospital Rawalpindi, from Apr to Sep 2019. Methodology: Total 178 patients undergoing lower segment ceaserian section under spinal anaesthesia with age ranges from 18-40 years of American Society of Anaesthesiologists status I & II with full term pregnancy scheduled for elective caesarean section under spinal anaesthesia. Group A (n=92) received an intravenous bolus of 1 mg granisetron in a 10ml syringe and Group B (n=86) received intravenous bolus of normal saline in a 10ml syringe, drugs were administered immediately before spinal anaesthesia by anaesthetist as coded syringes. Heart rate, blood pressure, core body temperature and shivering scores were measured at 0 minutes, 30 minutes and 60 minutes, average surgery time recorded to be 60 minutes. Results: None of the patients in group A (drug group) exhibited appreciable post spinal shivering whereas 25 (29%) in group B (placebo) had clinically significant shivering necessitated administration of other established pharmacological agents to abort shivering in order to ensure patient comfort and satisfaction with statistically significant p-value of <0.05. Conclusion: Prophylactic injection granisetron was efficacious against post spinal shivering, moreover provides worth while relief of nausea and vomiting which is dilemma with most of the drugs employed for control of post spinal shivering. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This research aimed to boost granisetron (GS) delivery to the brain via the intranasal route to better manage chemotherapy-induced emesis. Glycerol monooleate (GMO), Poloxamer 407 (P 407) and Tween 80 (T 80) were used to formulate GS-loaded cubosomes (GS-CBS) utilizing a melt dispersion-emulsification technique. GS-CBS were characterized by testing particle diameter, surface charge and entrapment efficiency. The formulations were optimized using a Box–Behnken statistical design, and the optimum formula (including GMO with a concentration of 4.9%, P 407 with a concentration of 10%, and T 80 with a concentration of 1%) was investigated for morphology, release behavior, ex vivo permeation through the nasal mucosa, and physical stability. Moreover, the optimal formula was incorporated into a thermosensitive gel and subjected to histopathological and in vivo biodistribution experiments. It demonstrated sustained release characteristics, increased ex vivo permeability and improved physical stability. Moreover, the cubosomal in situ gel was safe and biocompatible when applied to the nasal mucosa. Furthermore, compared to a drug solution, the nose-to-brain pathway enhanced bioavailability and brain distribution. Finally, the cubosomal in situ gel may be a potential nanocarrier for GS delivery to the brain through nose-to-brain pathway.

Objective: This review provides an update review of the efficacy and safety of 5- hydroxytryptamine-3 receptor antagonists in the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in cancer patients. Methods: The information was collected from electronic scientific search engines from PubMed, Science Direct, Scopus, and Google Scholar. The publication dates covered were from 2010 to 2020. The primary endpoint was the percentage of patients who achieved a complete response (CR), complete control (CC), no nausea, no emesis, or no rescue medication.The secondary endpoint was the percentage of patients who experience constipation related to 5-HT RA constipation, headache, diarrhea, or dizziness, as well as changes in heart rhythm. Results: Fourteen articles were identified. Palonosetron has the same effectiveness as granisetron as but more effective than ondansetron in the delayed phase and overall. Adverse effects that often occur due to the use of palonosetron, granisetron, and ondansetron are constipation and headache. Some of the articles also mentioned that palonosetron does not cause changes in heart rhythm but granisetron and ondansetron do cause changes in the electrocardiogram (ECG) at certain doses. Conclusion: Palonosetron has the same effectiveness as granisetron, and more effective than ondansetron in delayed, and overall phases. The use of palonosetron, granisetron, and ondansetron cause constipation and headaches at all doses, palonosetron does not cause ECG abnormalities whereas granisetron and ondansetron cause ECG changes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Radiation-induced nausea and vomiting (RINV) is a frequent adverse event that occurs in patients undergoing radiotherapy. However, research on RINV is underrepresented. This prospective single-institution exploratory pilot study investigated the incidence of RINV according to the irradiation site and observed the efficacy of symptomatic antiemetic treatment in controlling symptoms of RINV. The primary outcomes were the proportions of emesis-free days and nausea-free days. The secondary endpoints included the time to the first episode of RINV, frequency of vomiting, and severity of nausea, including its impact on eating habits and weight loss. Fifteen patients were enrolled in each group (minimal, low, and moderate emetogenic risk). All patients received greater than 20 Gy in five fractions. Evaluation was based on weekly questionnaires completed by patients during routine clinic visits. Nausea and vomiting occurred in 11 and 0 patients, respectively. Six of 15 patients in the minimal-risk group, 1 in the low-risk group, and 4 in the moderate-risk group experienced nausea. Although all 11 symptomatic patients were offered antiemetics, only 3 used them, who reported satisfactory control of nausea. The percentage of emesis-free days for all patients was 100% and the percentage of nausea-free days for the 11 patients who developed RINV was 38%. An unexpectedly high percentage of patients in the minimal-risk group experienced nausea; all had breast cancer. Future studies should investigate factors beyond the irradiation site, including the characteristics of the patient and the treatment, to better predict an individual's risk of RINV.

Background: The specific serotonin type 3 (5-HT3)-receptor antagonist granisetron effectively reduces clinical as well as experimental muscle pain and hyperalgesia and with a duration that exceeds that of lidocaine. Hence, it may be an alternative to lidocaine as a local anesthetic. There are also some indications that granisetron in addition to 5-HT3 receptors blocks sodium channels. Thus, the local anesthetic effect by granisetron may resemble that of lidocaine, but this has not been tested. The aim of this study was therefore to compare the effect granisetron has on facial skin sensitivity to the effect of lidocaine and isotonic saline.Methods: This was a randomized, controlled, and double-blind study, in which 1 ml of either granisetron (test-substance), lidocaine (positive control), or isotonic saline (negative control) was injected into the skin over the masseter muscle at three different occasions in 18 healthy males (27.2 ± 5.8 years old). Skin detection thresholds and pain thresholds for thermal stimuli as well as mechanical detection thresholds and sensitivity to a painful mechanical (pinprick) stimulus were assessed before (baseline) and 5, 20, 40, and 60 min after injection. The quality and area of subjective sensory change over the cheek were assessed 20 min after injection.Results: All substances increased the mechanical detection threshold (granisetron: p = 0.011; lidocaine: p = 0.016; saline: p = 0.031). Both granisetron and lidocaine, but not isotonic saline, increased the heat detection thresholds (p < 0.001 and p < 0.02, respectively), but not the cold detection thresholds. Granisetron and lidocaine also reduced pinprick pain (p = 0.001 for each comparison). There were no significant differences between granisetron and lidocaine for any of these variables. There was no effect on thermal pain thresholds for any substance.Conclusion: The similar analgesic patterns on mechanical sensory and pain thresholds as well as thermal sensory thresholds over the facial skin by subcutaneous injection of granisetron and lidocaine shown in this study and the absence of paresthesia, in combination with the reduced pain intensity and pressure pain sensitivity shown in previous studies, indicate that granisetron might be a novel candidate as a local anesthetic.

Abstract Background We conducted an economic assessment using test data from the phase III TRIPLE study, which examined the efficacy of a 5-hydroxytryptamine 3 receptor antagonist as part of a standard triplet antiemetic regimen including aprepitant and dexamethasone in preventing chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in patients receiving cisplatin-based highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC). Methods We retrospectively investigated all medicines prescribed for antiemetic purposes within 120 h after the initiation of cisplatin administration during hospitalization. In the TRIPLE study, patients were assigned to treatment with granisetron (GRA) 1 mg (n = 413) or palonosetron (PALO) 0.75 mg (n = 414). The evaluation measure was the cost-effectiveness ratio (CER) assessed as the cost per complete response (CR; no vomiting/retching and no rescue medication). The analysis was conducted from the public healthcare payer’s perspective. Results The CR rates were 59.1% in the GRA group and 65.7% in the PALO group (P = 0.0539), and the total frequencies of rescue medication use for these groups were 717 (153/413 patients) and 573 (123/414 patients), respectively. In both groups, drugs with antidopaminergic effects were chosen as rescue medication in 86% of patients. The costs of including GRA and PALO in the standard triplet antiemetic regimen were 15,342.8 and 27,863.8 Japanese yen (JPY), respectively. In addition, the total costs of rescue medication use were 73,883.8 (range, 71,106.4–79,017.1) JPY for the GRA group and 59,292.7 (range, 57,707.5–60,972.8) JPY for the PALO group. The CERs (JPY/CR) were 26,263.4 and 42,628.6 for the GRA and PALO groups, respectively, and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) between the groups was 189,171.6 (189,044.8–189,215.5) JPY/CR. Conclusions We found that PALO was more expensive than GRA in patients who received a cisplatin-based HEC regimen.

James Gilmore,1 Steven D’Amato,2 Niesha Griffith,3 Lee Schwartzberg4,5 1Clinical Services, Georgia Cancer Specialists, Atlanta, GA, USA; 2Department of Clinical Pharmacy Services, New England Cancer Specialists, Scarborough, ME, USA; 3West Virginia University Medicine, Morgantown, WV, USA; 4West Cancer Center, 5Division of Hematology/Oncology, Department of Medicine, University of Tennessee Health Science Center, Memphis, TN, USA Purpose: To discuss new therapeutic strategies for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) involving 5-hydroxytryptamine type 3 (5HT3)-receptor antagonists (RAs).Summary: CINV remains poorly controlled in patients receiving moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC) or highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC); nausea and delayed-phase CINV (24–120 hours after chemotherapy) are the most difficult to control. National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) and American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) antiemesis-guideline recommendations for HEC include a four-drug regimen (5HT3 RA, neurokinin 1 [NK1] RA, dexamethasone, and olanzapine). For some MEC regimens, a three-drug regimen (5HT3 RA, NK1 RA, and dexamethasone) is recommended. While 5HT3 RAs have dramatically improved CINV in the acute phase (0–24 hours after chemotherapy), their efficacy declines in the delayed phase. Newer formulations have been developed to extend 5HT3-RA efficacy into the delayed phase. Granisetron extended-release subcutaneous (GERSC), the most recently approved 5HT3 RA, provides slow, controlled release of therapeutic granisetron concentrations for ≥5 days. GERSC is included in the NCCN and ASCO guidelines for MEC and HEC, with NCCN-preferred status for MEC in the absence of an NK1 RA. Efficacy and safety of 5HT3 RAs in the context of guideline-recommended antiemetic therapy are reviewed.Conclusion: Recent updates in antiemetic guidelines and the development of newer antiemetics should help mitigate CINV, this dreaded side effect of chemotherapy. GERSC, the most recently approved 5HT3-RA formulation, is indicated for use with other antiemetics to prevent acute and delayed nausea and vomiting associated with initial and repeat courses of MEC and anthracycline–cyclophosphamide combination-chemotherapy regimens. Keywords: chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting, serotonin-receptor antagonist, granisetron extended-release subcutaneous, granisetron extended-release injection, granisetron

Background Spinal anesthesia avoids the hazards of airway management during general anesthesia. Shivering is a frequent risk factor in patients undergoing lower half operations under spinal anesthesia. Premedication with intravenous serotonin receptor antagonists such as granisetron has been used to overcome this problem. Ketamine increases arterial pressure and heart rate and may decrease core-to-peripheral redistribution of heat. Moreover, pethidine which is considered as a time-tested drug for control of shivering can be of value for shivering prophylaxis. Objective This study evaluates the efficacy of granisetron, ketamine, and pethidine on shivering in patients undergoing lower half operation under spinal anesthesia. Patients and methods A total of 60 patients were assigned to three equal groups: group G received 3 mg granisetron, group K received 25 mg ketamine, and group P received 25 mg pethidine 5 min before spinal anesthesia. The incidence of shivering episodes was recorded at baseline monitoring, intraoperatively, and postoperatively. Moreover, propagation and regression of motor and sensory block were assessed. Results Regarding mean arterial blood pressure, there was significant decrease in group P in comparison with groups G and K. Regarding decreased incidence of shivering, there was no significant difference between the study groups. Regarding incidence of nausea and vomiting, there was significant decrease incidence in group G compared with groups K and P. Moreover, there was significant difference regarding faster time to regression of sensory block in group G in comparison with groups K and P. Conclusion In patients undergoing lower half surgery under spinal anesthesia, prophylactic intravenous administration of 3 mg granisetron, 25 mg ketamine, or 25 mg pethidine 5 min before induction of spinal anesthesia significantly reduced the severity of shivering. Regression of sensory block was faster with granisetron than ketamine and pethidine. Moreover, prophylactic granisetron also reduces nausea and vomiting and the need of antiemetics.

Abstract Background Antiemetic effects and safety of granisetron or palonosetron alone and in combination with a corticosteroid against chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) were retrospectively evaluated in patients with Hodgkin lymphoma receiving adriamycin, bleomycin, vinblastine, and dacarbazine (ABVD) therapy. Methods A total of 39 patients were eligible for this study. Before ABVD therapy, granisetron or palonosetron was intravenously administered with or without a corticosteroid (dexamethasone or hydrocortisone) and aprepitant. The proportions of patients with complete control (CC) during the overall (0–120 h after the start of ABVD therapy), acute (0–24 h) and delayed (24–120 h) phases were evaluated. CC was defined as no vomiting and no use of antiemetic rescue medication with only grade 0–1 nausea. Results Granisetron and palonosetron were administered in 21 and 18 patients, respectively. The CC rate during the acute, delayed and overall phases was not statistically different between the two groups. The CINV was completely controlled during overall phase in 58.3% of patients receiving granisetron or palonosetron in combination with a corticosteroid, whereas in 11.1% of those without co-treatment of a corticosteroid (P

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

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

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: To investigate whether palonosetron is better than granisetron in preventing chemotherapy‐induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in a three‐drug combination with dexamethasone and fosaprepitant (Fos) in patients with breast cancer who are placed on anthracycline and cyclophosphamide (AC‐based regimen). Patients and Methods: Chemo‐naive women with primary breast cancer were randomly administered either palonosetron 0.75 mg (day 1) or granisetron 1 mg (day 1) combined with dexamethasone (12 mg at day 1, 8 mg at day 2 and day 3) and Fos 150 mg (day 1) before receiving AC‐based regimen in a double‐blind study. The primary endpoint was the complete response (CR) rate of emesis in cycle 1 in the delayed phase. This was defined as neither vomiting nor rescue drug usage for emesis at >24‐120 hours after chemotherapy. Secondary endpoints were the CR in the acute/overall phase (0‐24/0‐120 hours, respectively, after chemotherapy), no nausea and vomiting, Patient‐Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO‐CTCAE), and safety. Results: From December 2012 to October 2014, 326 patients were treated and evaluated (164/162 evaluable patients in granisetron/palonosetron arm, respectively). The CR during the delayed phase was 60.4% in the granisetron regimen and 62.3% in the palonosetron regimen. The CR during acute phase (73.2% vs 75.9%, respectively) and the CR during overall phase (54.9% in both regimens) were very identical. A significantly higher number of patients in the palonosetron arm were free from nausea during the delayed phase (28% vs 40.1%; P =.029). Adverse events were also identical, although infusion site reactions (ISR) were higher (20.3%‐23.3%) than preceding studies in both regimens. Conclusion: In combination with dexamethasone and Fos, this study suggests that palonosetron is not better than granisetron in chemo‐naive patients with primary breast cancer receiving AC‐based regimen. Administration of Fos in peripheral veins after AC‐based regimen increased ISR. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The specific serotonin type 3 (5-HT3)-receptor antagonist granisetron effectively reduces clinical as well as experimental muscle pain and hyperalgesia and with a duration that exceeds that of lidocaine. Hence, it may be an alternative to lidocaine as a local anesthetic. There are also some indications that granisetron in addition to 5-HT3 receptors blocks sodium channels. Thus, the local anesthetic effect by granisetron may resemble that of lidocaine, but this has not been tested. The aim of this study was therefore to compare the effect granisetron has on facial skin sensitivity to the effect of lidocaine and isotonic saline. Methods: This was a randomized, controlled, and double-blind study, in which 1 ml of either granisetron (test-substance), lidocaine (positive control), or isotonic saline (negative control) was injected into the skin over the masseter muscle at three different occasions in 18 healthy males (27.2 ± 5.8 years old). Skin detection thresholds and pain thresholds for thermal stimuli as well as mechanical detection thresholds and sensitivity to a painful mechanical (pinprick) stimulus were assessed before (baseline) and 5, 20, 40, and 60 min after injection. The quality and area of subjective sensory change over the cheek were assessed 20 min after injection. Results: All substances increased the mechanical detection threshold (granisetron: p = 0.011; lidocaine: p = 0.016; saline: p = 0.031). Both granisetron and lidocaine, but not isotonic saline, increased the heat detection thresholds (p < 0.001 and p < 0.02, respectively), but not the cold detection thresholds. Granisetron and lidocaine also reduced pinprick pain (p = 0.001 for each comparison). There were no significant differences between granisetron and lidocaine for any of these variables. There was no effect on thermal pain thresholds for any substance. Conclusion: The similar analgesic patterns on mechanical sensory and pain thresholds as well as thermal sensory thresholds over the facial skin by subcutaneous injection of granisetron and lidocaine shown in this study and the absence of paresthesia, in combination with the reduced pain intensity and pressure pain sensitivity shown in previous studies, indicate that granisetron might be a novel candidate as a local anesthetic. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is a severe and distressing complication during allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (alloHSCT). The antiemetic fosaprepitant has shown favorable results in pediatric and adult patients receiving chemotherapy. Data on fosaprepitant in children and adolescents undergoing alloHSCT are missing. Methods: In this non-interventional observation study, 120 children and adolescents with a median age of 11.8 years undergoing alloHSCT after a moderately or highly emetogenic conditioning (MEC or HEC) were analyzed. They received an antiemetic prophylaxis with granisetron (2 × 40 µg/kg d−1) with or without fosaprepitant (4 mg/kg; single dose, max. 1 × 150 mg/kg BW), and were analyzed in the control (CG; n = 60) or fosaprepitant group (FG; n = 60). The efficacy and safety of the two antiemetic prophylaxis regimens were analyzed and compared with respect to the acute (0–24 h) and the delayed (> 24–120 h) CINV phase and > 120–240 h after MEC or HEC administration. Results: During MEC, significantly more patients in the CG experienced vomiting during the first 0–24 h (58.6 vs. 25.0%; p = 0.0156) and during > 24–120 h (93.1% vs. 57.1%; p = 0.0020), compared with the FG. Likewise, significantly more vomiting events (269 vs. 136; p < 0.0001) were registered in the CG. During HEC, significantly more patients in the CG experienced vomiting during the first 0–24 h (32.3 vs. 9.4%; p = 0.0319) compared with the FG. Significantly more vomiting events (241 vs. 99; p < 0.0001) were registered in the CG. Laboratory and clinical adverse events were not significantly different between the two groups (p > 0.05). Conclusions: Antiemetic prophylaxis with fosaprepitant and granisetron was well tolerated, safe, and effective in pediatric patients undergoing alloHSCT. However, larger prospective trials are necessary to evaluate these findings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Current guidelines suggest that granisetron is an optional treatment for nausea and vomiting in pregnancy (NVP) despite lack of evidence to support fetal safety. We aimed to determine the association between early pregnancy exposure to granisetron and fetal/neonatal outcomes.Design: Medical records of patients treated for NVP during the first and second trimester between June 2013 to September 2015 were reviewed. Patients were asked to participate in the study by answering a detailed questionnaire regarding newborn's health and complementary data. Pregnancy outcomes of patients exposed to granisetron were compared with those of patients who were not exposed to granisetron.Results: 100 Granisetron exposed pregnancies were compared with 108 granisetron unexposed pregnancies. Exposure to granisetron occurred in the first trimester in 88 patients (94 fetuses). Maternal characteristics, history of anomalies in first degree relatives, co-exposure to other substances and extent of prenatal sonographic surveillance were comparable between both groups. Miscarriage rate was significantly lower among granisetron exposed patients compared to controls (0 vs 5.5 %, respectively, p = 0.03). Three major malformations were identified prenatally or postnatally in each of the groups (2.77 % Vs 2.83 %, p = 1). The rate of major malformations was similar between exposed and unexposed fetuses even after excluding second trimester exposure (3.2 % vs. 2.83 %, respectively p = 1). Mean gestational age at delivery, mean newborn weight and incidence of small for gestation age, were not significantly different between the groups.Conclusion: Granisetron exposure was not associated with increased risk for minor or major fetal anomalies. This study provides preliminary reassurance regarding the safety of in-utero exposure to granisetron. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Nausea and vomiting may occur in patients receiving chemotherapy, a condition referred to as chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting. The provision of combined dexamethasone and ondansetron or granisetron is the therapeutic management of acute phase nausea and vomiting in cytostatics with a high risk of nausea and vomiting. Granisetron has been known to have better pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics compared to ondansetron, so it is possible to have nausea and vomiting suppressing effect higher than that of ondansetron. This study aimed to compare antiemetic effectiveness of granisetron and dexamethasone with ondansetron and dexamethasone in acute-phase chemotherapy patients. This study was conducted in patients who received the combination of cisplatin-paclitaxel and cisplatin-fluorouracil, double-blind, with samples comprised new head and neck surgical oncology patients. Measurement of nausea and vomiting during the acute phase of chemotherapy was conducted using Index of Nausea, Vomiting, and Retching (INVR). Observation of nausea and vomiting in the patients was done during the first 12 hours after administration of cisplatin and interviews were conducted on h 12. Results showed that there was no difference in the effectiveness of nausea and vomiting suppression in the administration of granisetron and dexamethasone compared to ondanstron and dexamethasone in acute phase chemotherapy patients (p = 0.076).

Ondansetron is a selective 5-hydroxy-tryptamine 3 receptor antagonist that is widely used as an antiemetic agent, especially for the preventive treatment of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting. Side effects of ondansetron are headache, dizziness, constipation, diarrhoea and hypersensitivity reactions such as anaphylaxis, which are very rarely described in the literature. Herein, we present a patient with Hodgkin lymphoma who developed urticaria secondary to ondansetron intake, had been receiving chemotherapy and has safely used granisetron as alternative. Granisetron appears to be a safer potent alternative to ondansetron in patients with cancer receiving chemotherapy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]