• Journal of Pharmaceutical Investigation
• /
• 제36권6호
• /
• pp.363-369
• /
• 2006

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

• Asian Pacific Journal of Cancer Prevention
• /
• 제14권12호
• /
• pp.7701-7706
• /
• 2013

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

• Journal of the Korean Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons
• /
• 제42권2호
• /
• pp.84-89
• /
• 2016

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

• Asian Pacific Journal of Cancer Prevention
• /
• 제14권1호
• /
• pp.469-473
• /
• 2013

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

• Radiation Oncology Journal
• /
• 제17권2호
• /
• pp.141-145
• /
• 1999

목적: 방사선 치료시 유발되는 오심과 구토에 대하여 5-hydroxytriptamine 길항제인 그라니세트론을 투여하여 그 효과에 대한 임상적 효능과 방법, 사용기간, 부작용 등에 대한 기본적인 자료를 얻고자 본 연구를 시행하였다. 대상 및 방법 : 병리학적으로 암으로 확진된 18세 이상의 성인 남녀 10명(직장암 4명, 자궁경부암 2명, 자궁내막암 1명, 정상피종 1명, 폐암 1명, 백혈병 1명)을 대상으로 그라니세트론 치료의 효과를 조사하였다. 그라니세트론은 경구 투여로 2mg을 하루 1회 사용하였으며, 방사선치료 후 오심이나 구토 증상이 나타나기 시작하면 사용하여 2주간 계속적으로 투여하였다 환자의 오심의 정도, 구토 회수, 부작용 등의 증세는 방사선치료 시작일로부터 하루 한번씩 기록하여 24시간 후와 제7일 째의 결과를 분석하였다. 오심은 무증상, 경증, 증등도, 중증 등 4단계로 분류하였으며 무증상과 경증을 치료효과가 있는 것으로 판정하였다. 구토 억제에 대한 효과는 완전효과, 주효효과, 경미효과, 치료실패 등으로 구분하였고 완전효과와 주효효과를 구토가 조절된 것으로 정의하였다. 결과 : 오심에 대한 효과는 그라니세트론 투여후 제7일에 전체 10명중 9명(90$\%$)에서 증삶이 호전되었다(무증상=6명, 경증=3명). 구토증세에 대한 조절효과는 제7일에 완전효과가 70$\%$ 주효효과가 30$\%$,로 전체적인 치료효과는 100$\%$에서 구토가 조절되었으며 경미효과나 치료실패로 판정된 환자는 없었다. 부작용으로는 경도의 두통을 호소한 환자가 1명 있었고 또 다른 1명에서 경도의 어지러움증을 호소하였으나 특별한 치료없이 곧 소실되었고, 변비나 추체외로 증상은 한 예도 없었다. 결론 : 대부분의 환자(100$\%$)에서 일주일간의 그라니세트론 투여로 오심(90$\%$) 및 구토(100$\%$)의 증상을 억제할 수 있었으나 항암제와 방사선요법을 병행하는 환자나 넓은 부위를 치료하는 경우는 방사선 치료가 끝날 때까지 계속적으로 그라니세트론을 투여할 필요가 있었다. 항암제 투여시 동반되는 오심과 구토는 주요 관심의 대상으로 이에 대한 치료 방법과 효과에 대해서는 비교적 많은 연구가 이루어져 있으나, 방사선치료 시에 나타나는 이러한 증상에 관한 연구는 미흡한 실정이며 효율적인 방사선치료를 위해서는 앞으로 항구토제의 투여 방법 및 기간 등에 관한 체계적인 연구가 필요하다고 하겠다.

• 대한임상약리학회:학술대회논문집
• /
• 대한임상약리학회 1995년도 정기총회 및 추계학술대회
• /
• pp.43-43
• /
• 1995

• 대한두경부종양학회:학술대회논문집
• /
• 대한두경부종양학회 1995년도 제12차 학술대회 연제순서 및 초록집
• /
• pp.211-212
• /
• 1995

• Asian Pacific Journal of Cancer Prevention
• /
• 제15권22호
• /
• pp.9627-9630
• /
• 2014

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

• 한국임상약학회지
• /
• 제28권3호
• /
• pp.224-229
• /
• 2018

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