Skip to content
Home
About Us
Resources
Profiles Metrics
Authors Directory
Institutions Directory
Top Authors
Top Institutions
Top Sponsors
AI Digest
Contact Us
Menu
Home
About Us
Resources
Profiles Metrics
Authors Directory
Institutions Directory
Top Authors
Top Institutions
Top Sponsors
AI Digest
Contact Us
Home
About Us
Resources
Profiles Metrics
Authors Directory
Institutions Directory
Top Authors
Top Institutions
Top Sponsors
AI Digest
Contact Us
Menu
Home
About Us
Resources
Profiles Metrics
Authors Directory
Institutions Directory
Top Authors
Top Institutions
Top Sponsors
AI Digest
Contact Us
Publication Details
AFRICAN RESEARCH NEXUS
SHINING A SPOTLIGHT ON AFRICAN RESEARCH
biochemistry, genetics and molecular biology
Ondansetron compared with granisetron in the prophylaxis of cyclophosphamide-lnduced emesis in out-patients: A multicentre, double-blind, double-dummy, randomised, parallel-group study
Oncology (Switzerland), Volume 52, No. 3, Year 1995
Notification
URL copied to clipboard!
Description
This is the first double-blind clinical trial in a homogenous group of patients to compare the recommended dosing schedules of ondansetron and granisetron in the control of prolonged emesis after cyclophosphamide-containing chemotherapy (48% CMF, 35% EC) for breast cancer. A total of 514 patients were recruited. Of the 488 patients included in the intent-to-treat analyses, 167 were randomised to group A [8 mg ondansetron intravenously (i.v.) + placebo by mouth (p.o.) before chemotherapy + 8 mg ondansetron p.o. twice daily (b.d.) until day 5], 155 to group B (placebo i,.v. + 8 mg ondansetron p.o. before chemotherapy + 8 mg ondansetron p.o. b.d. until day 5) and 166 to group C (3 mg granisetron i.v. + placebo p.o. before chemotherapy + placebo p.o. b.d. until day 5). On study day 1, the groups were comparable with respect to the proportion of patients experiencing up to 2 emetic episodes (group A: 89%; B: 86%; C: 91%) and in the severity of nausea (no nausea; group A: 51%; B: 55%; C: 54%). Over the 5-day study period significantly more patients were rescued or withdrawn due to lack of response after the granisetron regimen (26%) than after the i.v. + p.o. ondansetron regimen (11%; p < 0.001). Since there was no difference in these parameters on day 1, this reflects differences on days 2-5 and was also reflected in the all-oral ondansetron group over this period (group B: 12%; C: 22% on days 2-5). A significant difference in the severity of nausea after i.v. and p.o. ondansetron compared with granisetron was also observed over the 5-day study period (p = 0.009). This was reflected in a numerical difference in favour of the all-p.o. ondansetron regimen compared with the granisetron regimen (no nausea; group A: 33%; B: 34%; C: 25%). Again these differences reflected differences in nausea control on days 2-5, since no differences were observed on day 1. Logistic regression analyses adjusted for prognostic factors also revealed a significant difference (p = 0.011) in favour of the i.v. + ondansetron group compared with the granisetron group when complete plus major response was compared over days 2–5. No significant differences in the safety profiles of the three treatment groups were observed. There were no severe or unexpected drug-related adverse events and as is well established for the serotonin receptor antagonists, mild constipation (mean 8%) and mild headache (mean 8%) were most commonly reported. © 1995 S. Karger AG, Basel.
Authors & Co-Authors
Stewart, Alan L.
United Kingdom, Manchester
The Christie Nhs Foundation Trust
McQuade, B.
United Kingdom, Brentford
Glaxosmithkline Plc.
Cronje, J. D.E.
Unknown Affiliation
Goedhals, Louis
South Africa, Bloemfontein
National Hospital Bloemfontein
Gudgeon, Anne
South Africa, Observatory
Groote Schuur Hospital
Corette, L.
France, Lomme
Centre Hospitalier Saint Philibert Ghicl
Froger, X.
France, Chambery
Chg
Tubiana-Hulin, Michèle
France, Saint-cloud
Centre René
Laplaige, P.
France, Blois
Clinique St-côme
Roberts, James Trevor
United Kingdom, Newcastle
Northern Centre for Cancer Treatment
McRae, J.
United Kingdom, Brentford
Glaxosmithkline Plc.
Forster, J.
United Kingdom, Brentford
Glaxosmithkline Plc.
Parasuraman, T. V.
United States, Philadelphia
Glaxosmithkline, Usa
Butcher, M.
United Kingdom, Brentford
Glaxosmithkline Plc.
Bekker, C.
Unknown Affiliation
Mejer, J.
Unknown Affiliation
Philip, P.
Unknown Affiliation
Audhuy, Bruno
Unknown Affiliation
Bergerot, P.
Unknown Affiliation
Bretau, N.
Unknown Affiliation
Corette, L.
Unknown Affiliation
Crépin, G.
Unknown Affiliation
Froger, X.
Unknown Affiliation
Fumoleau, Pierre
Unknown Affiliation
Gomez, P.
Unknown Affiliation
Guiochet, N.
Unknown Affiliation
Laplaige, P.
Unknown Affiliation
Le Bourgeois, J. P.
Unknown Affiliation
Pouillart, Pierre
Unknown Affiliation
Prévot, G.
Unknown Affiliation
Pujade-Lauraine, P.
Unknown Affiliation
Sevin, Dominique M.
Unknown Affiliation
Tubiana-Hulin, M.
Unknown Affiliation
Veyret, C.
Unknown Affiliation
de Dycker, R.
Unknown Affiliation
de Wilde, R. L.
Unknown Affiliation
du Bois, Andreas
Unknown Affiliation
Gürtler, R.
Unknown Affiliation
Heber, R.
Unknown Affiliation
Jänicke, Fritz
Unknown Affiliation
Marschner, N.
Unknown Affiliation
Niedner, W.
Unknown Affiliation
Ruffert, K.
Unknown Affiliation
Tulusan, A.
Unknown Affiliation
van der Hoeven, J. J.M.
Unknown Affiliation
van Turnhout, J. M.M.P.M.
Unknown Affiliation
Cronje, J. D.E.
Unknown Affiliation
Falkson, Geoffrey G.
Unknown Affiliation
Gudgeon, A.
Unknown Affiliation
Maxwell, A.
Unknown Affiliation
van der Merwe, A.
Unknown Affiliation
Vorobiof, Daniel Alberto
Unknown Affiliation
Coleman, RE E.
Unknown Affiliation
Hutcheon, A.
Unknown Affiliation
Priestman, T.
Unknown Affiliation
Roberts, J. T.
Unknown Affiliation
Soukop, M.
Unknown Affiliation
Stewart, A.
Unknown Affiliation
Statistics
Citations: 58
Authors: 58
Affiliations: 10
Identifiers
Doi:
10.1159/000227458
ISSN:
00302414
e-ISSN:
14230232
Research Areas
Cancer
Disability
Health System And Policy