Antiemetic Activity of Metoclopramide versus Alizapride during Cancer Chemotherapy

[Antiemetic treatment and chemotherapy: general review]

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and emesis are frequent and patients fearful. Emesis caused by cytotoxic agents can be related to their effects on central chemoreceptor or on the gut chemoreceptor by serotonin. 5HT3 receptor antagonists produce a major improvement in the control of cisplatin induced-emesis (70 to 80% of patients). The 5HT3-antagonist efficacy is significantly better than metoclopramide alone, or antimemetic combinations in highly emetogenic chemotherapy regimens but less good in moderately emetogenic chemotherapy. Studies with 5HT3 receptor antagonist plus corticosteroids show advantage over 5HT3 antagonist alone. Comparison studies between the different setrons didn't show any significant difference. Anticipary emesis are treated with anxiolytic drugs. The prevention of delayed emesis, not yet well controlled by 5HT3 antagonist, is a great therapeutic deal. Finally, some therapeutic problems are not resolved: minimal dose, use of oral route, efficacy in fractionated chemotherapy, treatment after loss of efficacy of 5HT3 antagonist.

A single-blind study of the efficacy and safety of intravenous granisetron compared with alizapride plus dexamethasone in the prophylaxis and control of emesis in patients receiving 5-day cytostatic therapy. The Granisetron Study Group

200 cancer patients who were due to receive fractionated chemotherapy (cisplatin greater than or equal to 15, ifosfamide greater than or equal to 1.2 or etoposide greater than or equal to 120, all mg/m2 per day) for 5 days, entered a multicentre study. Patients were randomised single-blind to receive either prophylactic intravenous granisetron (40 micrograms/kg) or alizapride (4 mg/kg followed by 4 mg/kg at 4 and 8 h post-treatment) plus dexamethasone 8 mg. Granistron was superior to the combination in preventing nausea and vomiting (54% vs. 43% complete responders). The differences were in the cisplatin-treated group. The time to first episode of moderate to severe nausea was significantly longer in the granisetron group (P = 0.03). Dosing with granisetron was more simple, with over 85% of patients requiring only a single prophylactic dose. Fewer patients receiving granisetron experienced adverse events (48% vs. 62%, P = 0.047). The frequency of constipation was, as expected, significantly higher in the granisetron group. Extrapyramidal effects, which were not noted by any granisetron patient, occurred in 5.3% of comparator patients.

Oral granisetron--simple and effective: a preliminary report. The Granisetron Study Group

This randomised, double-blind, study was carried out in 930 patients in order to examine the efficacy and safety of oral granisetron in the dose range 0.25, 0.5, 1.0 and 2.0 mg twice daily. Oral granisetron was administered for either 7 or 14 days according to the chemotherapy regimen used. A total of 930 patients were enrolled into this study in order to be able to detect a difference of 15% between groups (80% power). The preliminary results showed that at 7 days efficacy was significantly greater for 1.0 mg b.d. (58.5%) than for 0.25 mg b.d. (43.7%) and indicated that, of the doses examined, the 1.0 mg b.d. dose was optimal in patients receiving moderately emetogenic chemotherapy. In agreement with this there were more withdrawals from the 0.25 and 0.5 mg groups due to lack of efficacy. The adverse events most frequently reported (in greater than 5% of patients) were constipation, headache, abdominal pain, fever, leucopenia and asthenia. The latter three are recognised side effects of the primary disease and of chemotherapy. The incidence of headache was similar to that seen in previous granisetron studies. Abdominal pain may have been related to constipation. The incidence of constipation (25.9%) was higher than that reported in previous granisetron studies but was not dose related. Thus oral granisetron at 1.0 mg twice daily is an effective antiemetic, offering a convenient dosing regimen without significant adverse events.

Fractionated chemotherapy--granisetron or conventional antiemetics? The Granisetron Study Group

Two randomised single-blind comparative studies were carried out in patients receiving 5-day fractionated chemotherapy. The first which has been reported previously [1] compared granisetron (40 micrograms/kg) (n = 103) with alizapride (12 mg/kg) plus dexamethasone (8 mg) (n = 94) while the second compared granisetron (40 micrograms/kg) (n = 143) with metoclopramide (7 mg/kg) plus dexamethasone (12 mg) (n = 141). Granisetron, unlike alizapride or metoclopramide is a specific 5-HT3 antagonist. The percentage of complete responders (patients with no vomiting and no worse than mild nausea) over the 5-day treatment period was higher for granisetron than for alizapride/dexamethasone (54% vs. 42.7%) (P = 0.121) or for metoclopramide/dexamethasone (46.8% vs. 43.9%). The percentage of complete responders in the first 24 h was significantly higher for granisetron (90.3%) than for alizapride/dexamethasone (65.9%) (P less than 0.001) or for metoclopramide/dexamethasone (87.4% vs. 67.9% P less than 0.0001). Granisetron was also superior to both comparators in terms of the time to the first episode of moderate/severe nausea and to less than a complete response. Significantly fewer granisetron patients were withdrawn than in the alizapride/dexamethasone group (P = 0.017) or the metoclopramide/dexamethasone group (P less than 0.0001). In both studies more comparator patients were withdrawn due to lack of efficacy and adverse events. Significantly fewer granisetron patients experienced adverse events than in either the alizapride/dexamethasone group (47.6% vs. 61.7%, P = 0.047) or the metoclopramide/dexamethasone group (60.8% vs. 77.3% P = 0.003). Granisetron patients experienced a significantly higher occurrence of constipation in both studies (10.7% vs. 3.2% and 12.6% vs. 2.8%). Headache and fever were also more frequent in the granisetron group, while extrapyramidal effects, reported by 5.3% of the alizapride/dexamethsone group and 20.6% of the metoclopramide/dexamethasone group, were not reported in any granisetron patients.

Tropisetron plus haloperidol to ameliorate nausea and vomiting associated with high-dose alkylating agent cancer chemotherapy

Tropisetron is a novel antiserotoninergic drug with potent and specific activity against cancer chemotherapy-induced emesis. High-dose cyclophosphamide or high-dose melphalan are chemotherapeutic regimens associated with severe nausea and vomiting refractory to current antiemetic medications. We compared in a randomised open label study the antiemetic efficacy of tropisetron and alizapride in a first group of 32 consecutive patients treated with high-dose alkylating agent chemotherapy with or without autologous bone marrow transplantation. Tropisetron was more effective than alizapride in reducing vomiting episodes. In the first 24 h of treatment the median number of episodes in patients treated with tropisetron was 5 compared with 9 episodes in the alizapride group (P = 0.005). In the 72 h study period the median number of emetic episodes was 6 in the tropisetron group and 12 in the alizapride group (P = 0.004). In a second group of 26 consecutive patients, a combination of tropisetron plus haloperidol, a dopamine antagonist, was employed for prevention of emesis. This combination was more effective than tropisetron as single agent in preventing emetic episodes, as the median number of emetic episodes in the 72 h of observation was only 3, while they were 6 in the tropisetron group. The side-effects of tropisetron were mild and reversible upon discontinuation of the drug. We conclude that tropisetron is an effective antiemetic drug when employed in high-dose alkylating agent chemotherapy, and that its activity is potentiated by the association with haloperidol.

A prospective randomized double-blind crossover study comparing the antiemetic activity of alizapride and metoclopramide in patients receiving cisplatin chemotherapy

We designed a double-blind randomized crossover study to compare the antiemetic activity and toxicity of high-dose intravenous alizapride (3.5 mg/kg) versus high-dose intravenous metoclopramide (1 mg/kg) both combined with intravenous methylprednisolone in 40 untreated cancer patients submitted to cisplatin chemotherapy alone. The mean number of vomiting episodes (3.6 vs. 1.0), length of vomiting (209.8 vs. 80.9 min), and rate of complete prevention of vomiting (25% vs. 68.4%) at first cycle were in favor of metoclopramide, with a statistically significant difference. This difference was not statistically significant in the second cycle after crossover. Toxicity of both treatments was mild and diarrhea was more frequent in the alizapride-treated patients. Preference expressed by the patients was also in favor of metoclopramide. We conclude that alizapride offers less antiemetic protection than metoclopramide in patients receiving cisplatin chemotherapy. Further use of alizapride in such patients is not recommended.