A phase III, double-blind, randomized trial of palonosetron compared with ondansetron in preventing chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting following highly emetogenic chemotherapy. An open randomised cross-over study on granisetron versus ondansetron in the prevention of acute emesis induced by moderate dose cisplatin-containing regimens. Double-blind, randomized comparison of the antiemetic efficacy of intravenous dolasetron mesylate and intravenous ondansetron in the prevention of acute cisplatin-induced emesis in patients with cancer. Dolasetron Comparative Chemotherapy-induced Emesis Prevention Group. Ramosetron for the prevention of cisplatin-induced acute emesis: a prospective randomized comparison with granisetron. A Comparison of Oral Ondansetron and Intravenous Granisetron for the Prevention of Nausea and Emesis Associated with Cisplatin-Based Chemotherapy. Comparative clinical trial of granisetron and ondansetron in the prophylaxis of cisplatin-induced emesis. The Granisetron Study Group. 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 in the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting. Results of a prospective randomized trial. Comparison of granisetron, ondansetron, and tropisetron in the prophylaxis of acute nausea and vomiting induced by cisplatin for the treatment of head and neck cancer: a randomized controlled trial. Single-dose oral granisetron has equivalent antiemetic efficacy to intravenous ondansetron for highly emetogenic cisplatin-based chemotherapy. A double-blind, randomised comparison of the anti-emetic efficacy of two intravenous doses of dolasetron mesilate and granisetron in patients receiving high dose cisplatin chemotherapy. Ondansetron versus granisetron, both combined with dexamethasone, in the prevention of cisplatin-induced emesis. Italian Group of Antiemetic Research. Is Navoban (tropisetron) as effective as Zofran (ondansetron) in cisplatin-induced emesis? The French Navoban Study Group. 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 comparative study of intravenous granisetron versus intravenous and oral ondansetron in the prevention of nausea and vomiting associated with moderately emetogenic chemotherapy.
This pivotal phase III trial evaluated the efficacy and safety of palonosetron in preventing acute and delayed chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) following highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC).
                Patients were randomized to a single intravenous dose of palonosetron 0.25 mg or 0.75 mg, or ondansetron 32 mg prior to HEC. Dexamethasone pre-treatment (with stratification) was used at investigator discretion. The primary efficacy endpoint was the proportion of patients with complete response (CR) during the first 24 h post-chemotherapy (acute phase).
                In the intent-to-treat analysis (n = 667), palonosetron 0.25 mg and 0.75 mg were at least as effective as ondansetron in preventing acute CINV (59.2%, 65.5%, and 57.0% CR rates, respectively); CR rates were slightly higher with palonosetron than ondansetron during the delayed (24-120 h) and overall (0-120 h) phases. Two thirds of patients (n = 447) received concomitant dexamethasone. Patients pre-treated with palonosetron 0.25 mg plus dexamethasone had significantly higher CR rates than those receiving ondansetron plus dexamethasone during the delayed (42.0% versus 28.6%) and overall (40.7% versus 25.2%) phases. Palonosetron and ondansetron were well tolerated.
                Single-dose palonosetron was as effective as ondansetron in preventing acute CINV following HEC, and with dexamethasone pre-treatment, its effectiveness was significantly increased over ondansetron throughout the 5-day post-chemotherapy period. 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. To assess the comparative antiemetic efficacy of single-dose intravenous (IV) dolasetron mesylate and ondansetron in preventing cisplatin-induced nausea and vomiting.
                Cancer patients (n = 609) receiving first-course cisplatin chemotherapy were randomized to one of three treatments: 1.8 or 2.4 mg/kg dolasetron mesylate salt (equivalent to 1.3 and 1.8 mg/kg dolasetron base, respectively) or 32 mg ondansetron. Each treatment was infused over 15 minutes, 30 minutes before cisplatin administration. Patients were stratified to cisplatin doses of > or = 70 and less than 91 mg/m2 (n = 368) or > or = 91 mg/m2 (n = 241), administered over < or = 3 hours. Protocol-defined efficacy criteria included complete response (zero emetic episodes and no rescue medication), major response (1 to 2 emetic episodes and no rescue medication), and patients' report of nausea severity and satisfaction recorded on a 100-mm visual analog scale (VAS).
                The three treatments met protocol-specified criteria for equivalence. Complete response rates for dolasetron mesylate 1.8 mg/kg, 2.4 mg/kg, and ondansetron, respectively, were 49.2%, 45.6%, and 50.4% for patients in the lower cisplatin stratum (mean, 74.7 mg/m2) and 36.8%, 31.3%, and 31.8% in the higher cisplatin stratum (mean, 100.6 mg/m2). No significant differences were observed in the extent of nausea with either dolasetron dose compared with ondansetron. Less nausea was noted with 1.8 mg/kg dolasetron compared with the 2.4 mg/kg dose (P = .044) All three antiemetic treatments were well tolerated. Asymptomatic electrocardiogram changes were recorded with both dolasetron and ondansetron.
                A single IV dose of dolasetron mesylate (1.8 or 2.4 mg/kg) has comparable safety and efficacy to a single 32-mg IV dose of ondansetron in patients receiving cisplatin chemotherapy. Control of nausea and vomiting is very important in determining patient compliance with cisplatin chemotherapy. A multicentre, randomized, single-blind study was conducted to compare the tolerability and efficacy of ramosetron with those of granisetron over 24 h following cisplatin administration to cancer patients. In eight study centres, a total of 194 adult patients were randomly assigned to receive either intravenous ramosetron 0.3 mg or intravenous granisetron 3.0 mg. The anti-emetic effect of ramosetron determined from the no-vomiting rate lasted longer, but there was no significant difference in the number of acute vomiting episodes or the severity of nausea between the two groups. In the tolerability evaluation, there were no statistically significant differences between the two groups, except for a higher incidence of dull headache in the granisetron group. Ramosetron and granisetron appear to have equivalent efficacy and tolerability profiles, but the effects of ramosetron on the prevention of acute vomiting in patients undergoing cisplatin chemotherapy were longer lasting. 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. To compare the efficacy and safety of granisetron and ondansetron, serotonin (5-HT3) receptor antagonists shown to be effective in the prevention of chemotherapy-induced emesis.
                In a double-blind, randomized, stratified, parallel-group study, the efficacy and safety of granisetron and ondansetron were compared in 987 chemotherapy-naive patients who received cisplatin in doses > or = 60 mg/m2. Granisetron was administered as a single dose of 10 or 40 micrograms/kg before the start of chemotherapy. Ondansetron was administered in doses of 0.15 mg/kg before and 4 and 8 hours after the start of chemotherapy. The three treatment groups were well-matched with respect to demographic characteristics and the dose of cisplatin administered.
                For all evaluations, single doses of granisetron 10 or 40 micrograms/kg were as effective as three 0.15-mg/kg doses of ondansetron. Total control (no vomiting, no retching, no nausea, and no use of rescue) was attained by 38%, 41%, and 39% of all patients who received granisetron 10 microgram/kg, granisetron 40 micrograms/kg, and ondansetron, respectively. No vomiting or retching and no use of rescue antiemetics were reported in 47%, 48%, and 51% of patients who received granisetron 10 micrograms/kg, granisetron 40 micrograms/kg, and ondansetron, respectively; no nausea and no use of rescue antiemetics were reported in 39%, 42%, and 40% of patients, respectively.
                All three treatment regimens were well-tolerated. The results of this study indicate that a single dose of granisetron 10 or 40 micrograms/kg is as effective as three doses of ondansetron 0.15 mg/kg in the prevention of nausea and vomiting induced by cisplatin chemotherapy. 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). 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. A single-institution, prospective, randomized, open controlled trial was carried out on head and neck cancer patients to compare granisetron (GRA), ondansetron (OND), and tropisetron (TRO) in the prevention of cisplatin-induced acute nausea and vomiting. All patients were chemotherapy-naive and treated with cisplatin on Day 1 (80 to 100 mg/m2).
                One hundred seventeen patients were treated for a total of 463 cycles of cisplatin-based chemotherapy and randomized to receive 24 mg of OND intravenously (i.v.), 3 mg of GRA i.v., or 5 mg of TRO i.v. for the control of acute nausea and emesis.
                In the GRA group, complete response (CR) was obtained in 119 of 165 cycles (72.1%), major response (MR) in 32 cycles (19.4%), minor response (MiR) in 5 cycles (3%), and a failure (F) in 9 cycles (5.5%). In the OND group, CR was obtained in 110 of 150 cycles (73.3%), MR in 31 cycles (20.7%), MiR in 2 cycles (1.3%), and F in 7 cycles (4.7%). In the TRO group, CR was obtained in 100 of 148 cycles (67.6%), MR in 26 cycles (17.6%), MiR in 15 cycles (10.1%), and F in 7 cycles (4.7%). Major efficacy (CR + MR) was obtained in 151 of 165 cycles (91.5%) for GRA, in 141 of 150 cycles (94.0%) for OND, and in 126 of 148 cycles (85.2%) for TRO. The difference in major efficacy between OND and TRO was statistically significant. When comparing MiR, both GRA and OND were more effective than TRO. No other significant differences were observed among the three antiemetic agents.
                Although our results were achieved in an open trial, they show that GRA and OND are equally effective antiemetic agents in the prevention of cisplatin induced acute nausea and vomiting. TRO provides almost the same protection but is not as effective as OND for major efficacy. All three antiemetics can be administered safely to patients undergoing chemotherapy with cisplatin at doses of 80 mg/m2 or more. To compare the antiemetic efficacy of a single dose of an oral antiemetic (granisetron 2 mg) with a single dose of an intravenous (i.v.) antiemetic (ondansetron 32 mg) given before cisplatin-based chemotherapy.
                This was a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group study. Patients (N = 1,054) scheduled to receive cisplatin (> or = 60 mg/m2)-based chemotherapy were randomized to receive either 2 mg of oral granisetron tablets 1 hour before chemotherapy (n = 534) or i.v. ondansetron (32 mg) 30 minutes before chemotherapy (n = 520). The primary efficacy end point was total control (no emesis, no nausea, and no use of antiemetic rescue medication) over the initial 24 hours after the start of chemotherapy. Dexamethasone or methylprednisolone were permitted, but not required, as concomitant prophylactic antiemetics.
                Total control was equivalent 24 hours after cisplatin chemotherapy for single-dose oral granisetron (54.7%) and i.v. ondansetron (58.3%) (95% confidence interval [CI], -9.6 to 2.4). Similar proportions of patients remained nausea-free in the granisetron group (55.4%) and the ondansetron group (59%) (95% CI, -9.6 to 2.4). The rate of complete control of emesis was 61.2% in the granisetron group and 67.1% in the ondansetron group (95% CI, -11.7 to -0.1). Both treatment regimens were well tolerated, with similar patterns of adverse reactions, generally of a mild degree. The most common side effects included constipation (14%), headache (15%), and diarrhea (10%).
                Oral granisetron, administered as a single 2-mg dose, provided equivalent total antiemetic control when compared with i.v. ondansetron (32 mg) in patients who received highly emetogenic, cisplatin-based chemotherapy. This multicentre, double-blind, double-dummy, randomised trial was designed to compare the efficacy and safety of single intravenous doses of dolasetron mesilate and granisetron in the prevention of acute emesis and nausea due to high-dose (> or = 80 mg/m2) cisplatin. Single intravenous doses of 1.8 or 2.4 mg/kg of dolasetron mesilate or 3 mg of granisetron hydrochloride were administered in a volume of 50 ml over a 5-min period, beginning 30 min prior to cisplatin (> or = 80 mg/m2) administration. The number and timing of emetic episodes, time to administration of escape anti-emetic medication, severity of nausea by visual analogue scale (VAS), and safety were monitored for 24 h after the start of cisplatin-containing chemotherapy. Investigators' evaluations of overall efficacy and patients' satisfaction with therapy were recorded at the end of the 24-h study period. Of the 474 patients evaluable for efficacy, complete responses were achieved by 54, 47 and 48% of patients given dolasetron mesilate 1.8 mg/kg, dolasetron mesilate 2.4 mg/kg and granisetron, respectively. Statistically, treatment groups had comparable complete and complete plus major responses, times to first emesis, and use of escape medication; patient maximum nausea severity and treatment satisfaction ratings; and physician nausea severity and overall efficacy assessments. For the majority of efficacy endpoints, 1.8 mg/kg dolasetron mesilate produced numerically superior responses compared with the 2.4 mg/kg dose. Gender and prior chemotherapy were significant predictors of complete response; males and chemotherapy-naive patients had higher responses. The overall incidences of adverse events were comparable among the treatment groups; headache and diarrhoea were most common. In conclusion, 1.8 and 2.4 mg/kg of dolasetron mesilate and granisetron (3 mg) were equally effective in preventing nausea and vomiting induced by highly emetogenic cisplatin-containing chemotherapy. In addition, because no additional benefit was observed with 2.4 mg/kg of dolasetron mesilate and numerically greater responses were observed with the 1.8 mg/kg dose, the lower dose of 1.8 mg/kg is optimal for further clinical development. 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. The purpose of this study was to evaluate and compare the antiemetic effectiveness and tolerability of Navoban (tropisetron) and Zofran (ondansetron) following high-dose (> or = 50 mg/m2) cisplatin chemotherapy. In a randomised, multi-centre, double-blind, double-dummy, parallel group study, 117 evaluable chemotherapy-naive patients who received Navoban were compared with 114 who received Zofran. Patient diary cards were used to assess both acute (Day 1) and delayed (Days 2-6) nausea and vomiting. Total control of acute vomiting was achieved in 54% of Navoban and 65% of Zofran patients (p = 0.052), and total control of acute nausea in 66% and 62% respectively (p = 0.655). Total control of delayed vomiting was achieved in 44% of Navoban patients and 46% of Zofran patients (p = 0.765), and of delayed nausea in 56% and 47% respectively (p = 0.207). Both reactions combined were totally prevented during the entire 6-day trial period in 22% of Navoban and 24% of Zofran patients (NS), while a further 42% of patients in both groups remained largely free from both nausea and emesis. The few adverse reactions (e.g. headache, constipation, diarrhoea) were mainly mild and typical of the 5-HT3-receptor antagonists. In conclusion, there were no significant differences in efficacy and tolerability between Navoban 5 mg once daily and the highest recommended dose of Zofran (32 mg on Day 1, followed by 8 mg three times a day). 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. 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.
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.