Alfredo V Chua1, Aylmer Rex B Hernandez2, Irisyl O Real2. 1. Division of Medical Oncology, Department of Medicine, University of the Philippines - Philippine General Hospital, Taft Avenue, Ermita, Manila, Philippines. avchua@up.edu.ph. 2. Division of Medical Oncology, Department of Medicine, University of the Philippines - Philippine General Hospital, Taft Avenue, Ermita, Manila, Philippines.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare the efficacy of transdermal granisetron versus oral granisetron in controlling chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in patients with cancer METHODS: Data sources were CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Clinicaltrials.gov , and Google Scholar. Inclusion criteria included randomized controlled trials comparing transdermal versus oral granisetron in patients with CINV. For data extraction, two authors independently analyzed the methodological quality and extracted data. A random effects model was used to estimate the risk ratio (RR) or odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence interval (CI). RESULTS: Three studies (1086 patients) were included. Oral granisetron is superior (OR 0.77; 95% CI 0.60 to 0.99) to its transdermal form in achieving complete control of CINV in patients receiving chemotherapy. As for the risk of constipation (RR 1.32; 95% CI 0.73 to 2.40) and QTc prolongation (RR 0.17; 95% CI 0.02 to 1.40) as adverse effects, no statistically significant difference was observed between the two routes. CONCLUSION: Oral granisetron is better in achieving complete control of CINV in patients receiving chemotherapy. As for the risk of constipation and QTc prolongation as adverse effects, there was no statistically significant difference between the two routes.
PURPOSE: To compare the efficacy of transdermal granisetron versus oral granisetron in controlling chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in patients with cancer METHODS: Data sources were CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Clinicaltrials.gov , and Google Scholar. Inclusion criteria included randomized controlled trials comparing transdermal versus oral granisetron in patients with CINV. For data extraction, two authors independently analyzed the methodological quality and extracted data. A random effects model was used to estimate the risk ratio (RR) or odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence interval (CI). RESULTS: Three studies (1086 patients) were included. Oral granisetron is superior (OR 0.77; 95% CI 0.60 to 0.99) to its transdermal form in achieving complete control of CINV in patients receiving chemotherapy. As for the risk of constipation (RR 1.32; 95% CI 0.73 to 2.40) and QTc prolongation (RR 0.17; 95% CI 0.02 to 1.40) as adverse effects, no statistically significant difference was observed between the two routes. CONCLUSION: Oral granisetron is better in achieving complete control of CINV in patients receiving chemotherapy. As for the risk of constipation and QTc prolongation as adverse effects, there was no statistically significant difference between the two routes.
Entities:
Keywords:
Chemotherapy-induced; Granisetron; Meta-analysis; Nausea and vomiting; Transdermal