Palonosetron plus dexamethasone versus granisetron plus dexamethasone for prevention of nausea and vomiting during chemotherapy: a double-blind, double-dummy, randomised, comparative phase III trial. Ondansetron versus granisetron, both combined with dexamethasone, in the prevention of cisplatin-induced emesis. Italian Group of Antiemetic Research. Ondansetron versus granisetron in the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting. Results of a prospective randomized trial. A comparative study of intravenous granisetron versus intravenous and oral ondansetron in the prevention of nausea and vomiting associated with moderately emetogenic chemotherapy. A prospective randomized trial of the anti-emetic efficacy of ondansetron and granisetron during bone marrow transplantation. Single-dose oral granisetron versus multidose intravenous ondansetron for moderately emetogenic cyclophosphamide-based chemotherapy in pediatric outpatients with acute lymphoblastic leukemia. Ondansetron compared with granisetron in the prophylaxis of cisplatin-induced acute emesis: a multicentre double-blind, randomised, parallel-group study. The Ondansetron and Granisetron Emesis Study Group. A Comparison of Oral Ondansetron and Intravenous Granisetron for the Prevention of Nausea and Emesis Associated with Cisplatin-Based Chemotherapy. An open randomised cross-over study on granisetron versus ondansetron in the prevention of acute emesis induced by moderate dose cisplatin-containing regimens.
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.
                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 microg/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.
                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<0.0001). The main treatment-related adverse events were constipation (97 of 557 patients [17.4%] in the palonosetron group 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.
                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.
                Taiho Pharmaceutical (Tokyo, Japan). Differences in pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic characteristics among serotonin-receptor antagonists have been reported in preclinical studies. This prompted us to carry out a study to determine whether such differences are important in terms of clinical efficacy or tolerability.
                973 consecutive cancer patients scheduled to receive cisplatin for the first time (at doses > or = 50 mg2), entered a double-blind multicenter randomized study comparing intravenous ondansetron 8 mg versus granisetron 3 mg. Dexamethasone 20 mg was added to both serotonin antagonists. On days 2 to 4 after chemotherapy all patients received oral metoclopramide plus intramuscular dexamethasone as antiemetic prophylaxis for delayed emesis. Nausea and vomiting were assessed daily until day 6 after chemotherapy.
                We evaluated 966 patients (483 receiving ondansetron and 483 granisetron). Complete protection from acute vomiting/nausea was obtained in 79.3%/72.0% of patients receiving ondansetron and in 79.9%/71.8% of those receiving granisetron. Complete protection from delayed vomiting/nausea as obtained in 69.7%/52.9% and 70.0%/49.6% of patients receiving the ondansetron or granisetron regimens, respectively. Adverse effects were mild and not significantly different between the two antiemetic regimens.
                Ondansetron 8mg and granisetron 3 mg, both combined with dexamethasone, showed similar efficacy and tolerability in the prevention of cisplatin-induced emesis. The choice between the two regimens can be dictated by their respective purchase prices. A single-institution, prospective, randomized open trial was performed to compare ondansetron and granisetron in the prevention of chemotherapy-related nausea and vomiting. The effect of antemetic drugs was analyzed indipendently for patients treated with highly emetogenic chemotherapy (Study 1), and those treated with moderately emetogenic regimens (Study 2).
                In Study 1, 182 patients treated with chemotherapeutic regimens containing high dose cisplatin (more than 70 mg/m2) were randomized to receive 24 mg of ondasentron intravenously (i.v.) or 3 mg of granisetron i.v. for the control of acute emesis. Patients treated with fractionated chemotherapy and those followed-up for delayed emesis also received 8 mg of ondansetron orally twice a day or 3 mg of granisetron i.v. on the days after Day 1. In Study 2, 164 patients were randomized to receive either 16 mg of ondansetron i.v. or 3 mg of granisetron i.v. to prevent emesis in the first 24 hours.
                In the ondansetron group in Study 1, a complete response (CR) (i.e., no vomiting, nausea possible) from acute emesis was achieved in 52% of cases, a major response (MR) in 29%, and a minor response (MiR) in 14%. In the granisetron group in Study 1, a CR was seen in 49% of patients, an MR in 24%, and an MiR in 12%. Failure was recorded in 5% and 15% of cases in the ondansetron and granisetron groups, respectively. No statistically significant difference in any response category was seen between the two groups. In the ondansetron group, a complete protection from delayed emesis was recorded in 39% of cases, an MR in 32%, an MiR in 21%, and failure in 16%. In the granisetron arm, 36% of the patients had a CR, 22% had an MR, 14% had an MiR, and 14% experienced treatment failure. Again, these differences did not reach statistical significance. In Study 2, no statistical significant difference was observed between the ondansetron arm and the granisetron arm, both for acute and delayed emesis. Both ondansetron and granisetron were tolerated very well by most patients, with no severe side effects. In the group of patients treated with ondansetron, however, the incidence of headache (9%) was higher than in the group treated with granisetron (4%).
                These data suggest that although both ondansetron and granisetron are very effective drugs for the control of acute emesis, their efficacy against delayed emesis is still not entirely satisfactory. We conducted a prospective, randomized, open, single-center, parallel group study comparing the anti-emetic efficacy and toxicity of granisetron with that of ondansetron in patients receiving moderately emetogenic chemotherapy. From December 1994 to May 1995, patients who were to receive moderately emetogenic chemotherapy for the first time or who had not received chemotherapy (80 to 100 mg/m2 of cisplatin or 40 mg/m2 of doxorubicin) within 4 weeks previously were enrolled in this study. The following anti-emetic regimens were used: 3 mg of granisetron were given intravenously before chemotherapy for a single dose; 8 mg of ondansetron were given intravenously before chemotherapy and then every 8 hours for a total of 3 doses, plus 8 mg of an oral maintenance dose every 12 hours for 5 consecutive days. We evaluated 97 patients (48 received granisetron and 49 received ondansetron). In the first 24 hours after chemotherapy, complete and major responses were achieved in 76.6% of the patients receiving granisetron and in 72.9% of patients receiving ondansetron (p = 0.9033). Additionally, there was no difference in the control of delayed nausea and vomiting between the two groups (51.1% versus 54.2%, p = 0.9200), and there were no significant adverse effects or toxicities. We have concluded that a single dose of granisetron is as effective in prophylaxis of emesis induced by moderately emetogenic chemotherapy as a triple dose of ondansetron plus oral maintenance. To determine the comparative anti-emetic efficacy of ondansetron and granisetron in patients undergoing bone marrow transplantation, we performed a double-blind, randomized trial in pediatric and adult patients receiving transplants at the University of Minnesota. The results in 187 patients stratified by age (<18 years, n = 51; > or =18 years, n = 136) were analyzed. The average number of emetic episodes in the entire group from day -7 to 2 was 0.86/day for patients receiving ondansetron and 0.73/day for those receiving granisetron (p = 0.32). No differences were noted between the two drugs in total days of complete or major control of emesis or in the number of requests for additional drugs to alleviate symptoms of nausea. The use of total-body irradiation-containing conditioning regimens was associated with a decreased number of emetic episodes compared with regimens of chemotherapy alone. Perceived nausea was evaluated using a nausea scoring system, and no differences were apparent between the granisetron and ondansetron groups; however, reported nausea was significantly higher in females (p<0.01) and in the adult population (p = 0.05). We conclude that both ondansetron and granisetron provide good control of nausea and vomiting experienced with conditioning regimens for bone marrow transplantation. The relative cost of the drugs within an institution must be considered in developing standard anti-emetic regimens for bone marrow transplantation. This prospective study was designed to compare the efficacy of ondansetron with granisetron in terms of complete emesis control and time spent in an ambulatory care setting in children with acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) undergoing moderately emetogenic cyclophosphamide-based chemotherapy. The costs for both treatments are also examined. A total of 33 children (mean age: 7.8 +/- 4.9 year) were studied during 66 chemotherapy cycles. Analysis was based on 33 courses of a single oral dose of granisetron and 33 courses of ondansetron incorporating 2 intravenous doses of ondansetron 0.15 mg/kg followed by 1 dose of the same dosage orally. There was no significant difference between the 2 treatments in terms of overall efficacy (McNemar's chi-square test). Twenty of 33 patients (60.6%) receiving granisetron and 15 of 33 patients (45.5%) receiving ondansetron experienced no emesis 24 h after chemotherapy (p = .227). Boys experienced greater rates of vomiting than did girls despite antiemetic treatment; however, no apparent reason for the gender discrepancy was noted. Both antiemetic regimens have similar antiemetic efficacy for treating the moderately emetogenic effects associated with cyclophosphamide-based chemotherapy. It is possible that the granisetron regimen may be preferable because it is simpler to administer and more cost-effective. This is the first international, multi-centre, double-blind, randomised, parallel group study to directly compare the efficacy and safety profile of a single intravenous dose of ondansetron (8 or 32 mg) with granisetron (3 mg) in the control of cisplatin-induced acute emesis. A total of 496 patients were randomised to receive one of three anti-emetic treatments prior to cisplatin chemotherapy (> or = 50 mg/m2). Of these, 165 and 162 patients received 8 and 32 mg of ondansetron, respectively, and 169 patients received 3 mg of granisetron. Complete control of emesis (0 emetic episodes) over 24 h was reported in 59% of patients in the 8-mg ondansetron group, 51% of patients in the 32-mg ondansetron group and 56% of patients in the granisetron group. Complete or major control (< or = 2 emetic episodes) was achieved in 76 and 74% of patients in the 8- and 32-mg ondansetron group, respectively, compared with 78% of patients in the granisetron group. Nausea graded none or mild 24 h after the start of cisplatin infusion was reported in 71 and 69% of patients in the 8- and 32-mg ondansetron groups, respectively, and in 73% of patients in the granisetron group. There were no significant differences between the treatment groups when global satisfaction scores were compared. Logistic regression models were fitted to assess any interaction between treatments and prognostic factors (age, gender, alcohol use, cisplatin dose or concomitant chemotherapy) on complete or major response, but there was no evidence of interaction for any factor. All three anti-emetic treatments were well tolerated and no severe or unexpected drug-related adverse events were observed with ondansetron or granisetron. Headache, the most reported drug-related adverse event for all three treatment groups, occurred in 9% of all patients. In summary, no significant difference was observed between any of the treatment groups with respect to emesis, nausea or drug-related adverse events. PURPOSE: To compare the efficacy and safety of oral ondansetron with i.v. granisetron each given as a single dose prior to administration of highly emetogenic cisplatin chemotherapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Chemotherapy-naive patients with histologically confirmed malignancies were randomized to receive a single 24 mg ondansetron hydrochloride tablet plus a 50 ml i.v. infusion of normal saline, or a single 10 µg/kg (50 ml) i.v. infusion of granisetron plus a placebo tablet in this multicenter, double-blind, parallel-group trial. Study drug was administered 30 min prior to a single i.v. infusion of cisplatin (50-75 mg/m&sup2;), given over a period of </= 3 h. Concurrent administration of corticosteroids was not allowed. Efficacy measurements included the number of emetic episodes, need for rescue medication, and patient assessments of nausea and appetite. Complete response (CR) was defined as no emetic episodes, rescue, or withdrawal; major response was defined as one or two episodes. Safety was evaluated by monitoring adverse events and changes in laboratory parameters. RESULTS: A total of 371 patients entered the study and received study drug, of whom 184 received ondansetron and 187 received granisetron. For all parameters tested, a single 24 mg oral ondansetron tablet was at least as effective as i.v. granisetron. CR was achieved in 58% of ondansetron-treated patients and 51% of granisetron-treated patients (95% confidence interval on the difference: -4% to 17%). Subjective assessments revealed no difference with regard to complete control of nausea, appetite, or satisfaction with antiemetic therapy. Both drugs were well tolerated; the most common adverse event was headache. CONCLUSION: A single 24 mg oral dose of ondansetron is at least as safe and effective as a single i.v. infusion of 10 µg/kg of granisetron in preventing nausea and vomiting induced by highly emetogenic cisplatin chemotherapy. The aim of the study was to compare granisetron (GRA) with ondansetron (OND) in the prevention of acute emesis in consecutive chemotherapy-naive patients admitted to our department to receive a cytotoxic treatment containing cisplatinum (CP) at a dose > or = 50 mg/m2. Eligible patients were randomised at their first cycle to receive either OND or GRA with cross-over of the anti-emetic treatment on the second cycle. The cytotoxic treatments included five different multidrug regimens containing CP (median dose 60 mg/m2, range 50-70 mg/m2) administered on day 1 and repeated every 21-28 days. OND was administered at the dose of 8 mg x 3 i.v. on day 1 and 8 mg x 2 orally on day 2. GRA was always administered at the dose of 3 mg i.v. on day 1. 124 patients entered the study. 58 patients received OND at their first cycle and 66 received GRA. Complete protection of acute emesis with OND and GRA was observed, with the first and second cycles combined as follows: nausea 53 and 60%, vomiting 68 and 71%, respectively (no statistically significant difference). The cross-over analysis comprising 101 patients confirmed no difference between the two anti-emetic treatments. 21 patients (19%) on OND and 14 patients (12%) on GRA suffered headaches (P = 0.15). 25 (25%) patients preferred OND, 45 (45%) preferred GRA, while 31 (30%) expressed no preference (P = 0.003). However, these differences also depended on the sequence of anti-emetics in the cross-over. In conclusion, in this study, a single dose of GRA is demonstrated to be as effective as multiple doses of OND in the prevention of acute emesis.
Ondansetron and granisetron appear to be equivalent drugs for the prevention of acute and delayed emesis following the use of highly emetogenic chemotherapy.
According to one single trial the combination of palonosetron and dexamethasone was superior to granisetron and dexamethasone in controlling delayed emesis. However, more evidence is needed before palonosetron could become the candidate 5-HT3 RA for the control of delayed emesis induced by highly emetogenic chemotherapy.