A phase II trial of olanzapine, dexamethasone, and palonosetron for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting: a Hoosier oncology group study

Olanzapine Plus Triple Antiemetic Therapy for the Prevention of Carboplatin-Induced Nausea and Vomiting: A Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Phase III Trial

PURPOSE

We evaluated the efficacy and safety of antiemetic therapy with olanzapine, a neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist (RA), a 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 (5-HT3) RA, and dexamethasone for preventing chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in patients receiving carboplatin-containing chemotherapy.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Chemotherapy-naïve patients scheduled to receive carboplatin (AUC ≥5) were randomly assigned to receive either olanzapine 5 mg once daily (olanzapine group) or placebo (placebo group) in combination with aprepitant, a 5-HT3 RA, and dexamethasone. The primary end point was the complete response (CR; no vomiting and no rescue therapy) rate in the overall phase (0-120 hours). Secondary end points included the proportion of patients free of nausea and safety.

RESULTS

In total, 355 patients (78.6% male, median age 72 years, 100% thoracic cancer), including 175 and 180 patients in the olanzapine and placebo groups, respectively, were evaluated. The overall CR rate was 86.9% in the olanzapine group versus 80.6% in the placebo group. The intergroup difference in the overall CR rate was 6.3% (95% CI, -1.3 to 13.9). The proportions of patients free of chemotherapy-induced nausea in the overall (88.6% in the olanzapine group v 75.0% in the placebo group) and delayed (89.7% v 75.6%, respectively) phases were significantly higher in the olanzapine group than in the placebo group (both P < .001). Somnolence was observed in 43 (24.6%) and 41 (22.9%) patients in the olanzapine and placebo groups, respectively, and no events were grade ≥3 in severity.

CONCLUSION

The addition of olanzapine was not associated with a significant increase in the overall CR rate. Regarding the prevention of nausea, adding olanzapine provided better control in patients receiving carboplatin-containing chemotherapy, which needs further exploration.

A re-consideration of neural/receptor mechanisms in chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting: current scenario and future perspective

The neural mechanisms and the receptors behind the course of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) are well described and considered mechanistically multifactorial, whereas the neurobiology of nausea is not completely understood yet. Some of the anti-neoplastic medications like cisplatin result in biphasic vomiting response. The acute phase of vomiting is triggered mainly via the release of serotonin from the enterochromaffin (EC) cells in the gastrointestinal tract (GIT) and results in stimulation of dorsal vagal complex (DVC) of the vomiting center and the vomiting is initiated by downward communication to the gut via vagal efferents. Agonism of 5HT3 receptors is majorly involved in the mediation of the acute phase. Therefore, antagonists at 5HT3 receptors are effective in the management of acute-phase vomiting episodes. Likewise, Dopamine type 2 (D2) receptors, dopamine neurotransmitter, Muscarinic receptors (M3), GLP1 receptors, and histaminergic receptors (H1) are also implicated in the vomiting act as well. In continuation, Cannabinoid type 1 (CB1) receptors are also recommended and included in the guidelines as agonism of presynaptically located CB1 receptors inhibits the release of excitatory neurotransmitters responsible for vomiting initiation. The delayed phase involves the release of "Substance P" in the gut and results in the stimulation of neurokinin-1 (NK1) receptors centrally in the area postrema (AP) and nucleus tractus solitarius (NTS), subsequently the vomiting response. The current understanding is the existence of overlapping mechanisms of neurotransmitters, serotonin, dopamine, and substance P throughout the time course of CINV. Furthermore, the emetic neurotransmitters are released via calcium ion (Ca++)-dependent mechanisms, implicating the molecular targets of intracellular Ca++ signaling in emetic circuitry. The current review entails the neurobiology of nausea and vomiting induced by cancer chemotherapeutic agents and the recent approaches in the management.

Slow Uptake of an Effective Therapy: Patterns of Olanzapine Prescribing for Those Receiving Highly Emetogenic Chemotherapy

PURPOSE

For the past 5 years, most major antiemesis guidelines have included olanzapine-containing regimens among the recommended options for prophylaxis with highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC). We analyzed the uptake of olanzapine in clinical practice and the changing composition of multidrug antiemetic regimens.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis was performed using an OptumLabs deidentified database of medical and pharmacy claims, which was filtered for patients starting HEC in the interval of 2006 to Q2 of 2021. Descriptive statistics were used to analyze patient characteristics and year-by-year antiemetic prescribing patterns, coinciding with cycles 1 and 2 of chemotherapy.

RESULTS

A total of 63,154 distinct patients were included. The median age was 58 years (range, 18-88). Breast (45.2%) and hematologic (20.8%) cancers were the most common diagnoses. In 2016, olanzapine was prescribed to 1.4% of patients with cycle 1 of HEC. Prescriptions increased modestly each year, and by 2021, 13.9% of patients received olanzapine with their first cycle of chemotherapy. An additional 5.7% of patients received olanzapine for breakthrough symptoms or enhanced prophylaxis during cycle 2. In 2021, more than three-quarters of patients were prescribed antiemetics in a guideline-concordant manner, with an olanzapine-containing quadruplet (12.2%), an NK1-receptor antagonist triplet (64.5%), or an olanzapine triplet (suppressed for small sample size).

CONCLUSION

Despite inclusion in major antiemesis guidelines, there has been relatively slow uptake of olanzapine for prophylaxis with HEC. This finding highlights the challenges of disseminating information and keeping prescribing systems updated with the newest evidence in supportive oncology.

Premedications for Cancer Therapies: A Primer for the Hematology/Oncology Provider

Chemotherapeutic agents and radiation therapy are associated with numerous potential adverse events (AEs). Many of these common AEs, namely chemotherapy- or radiation-induced nausea and vomiting, hypersensitivity reactions, and edema, can lead to deleterious outcomes (such as treatment nonadherence or cessation, or poor clinical outcomes) if not prevented appropriately. The occurrence and severity of these AEs can be prevented with the correct prescribing of prophylactic medications, often called "premedications." The advanced practitioner in hematology/oncology should have a good understanding of which chemotherapeutic agents are known to place patients at risk for these adverse events as well as be able to determine appropriate prophylactic medications to employ in the prevention of these adverse events. While several guidelines and literature exist regarding best practices for prophylaxis strategies, differences among guidelines and quality of data should be explored in order to accurately implement patient-specific recommendations. Herein, we review the existing literature for prophylaxis and summarize best practices.

Prevention of Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting in the Older Patient: Optimizing Outcomes

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) are still two of the most feared side effects of cancer therapy. Although major progress in the prophylaxis of CINV has been made during the past 40 years, nausea in particular remains a significant problem. Older patients have a lower risk of CINV than younger patients, but are at a higher risk of severe consequences of dehydration and electrolyte disturbances following emesis. Age-related organ deficiencies, comorbidities, polypharmacy, risk of drug–drug interactions, and lack of compliance all need to be addressed in the older patient with cancer at risk of CINV. Guidelines provide evidence-based recommendations for the prophylaxis of CINV, but none of these guidelines offer specific recommendations for older patients with cancer. This means that the recommendations may lead to overtreatment in some older patients. This review describes the development of antiemetic prophylaxis of CINV focusing on older patients, summarizes recommendations from antiemetic guidelines, describes deficiencies in our knowledge of older patients, summarizes necessary precautions, and suggests some future perspectives for antiemetic research in older patients.

The Balance Between the Effectiveness and Safety for Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting of Different Doses of Olanzapine (10 mg Versus 5 mg): A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

INTRODUCTION

The aim of this study is to rigorously review the efficacy and safety of olanzapine in chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) settings including (1) at 5- and 10-mg doses, and (2) the setting of highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) and moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC).

METHODS

Embase, Pubmed, and Cochrane Library were searched from the establishment of the database through April 18, 2021. The primary efficacy endpoints were the rate of complete response (CR; no emesis and no rescue), in the acute (0-24 h post-chemotherapy), delayed (24-120 h post-chemotherapy), and overall (0-120 h post-chemotherapy) phases. The secondary efficacy endpoints were the rates of complete control (CC, no nausea, and no emesis), for each phase. Safety endpoints were the rate of somnolence, as assessed by Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) criteria. The Mantel-Haenszel, random, or fixed-effect analysis model was used to compute risk ratios and accompanying 95% confidence intervals for each endpoint. For endpoints that statistically favored one arm, absolute risk differences were computed to assess whether there is a 10% or greater difference, used as the threshold for clinical significance by MASCC/ESMO.

RESULT

Nine studies reported the use of 10 mg olanzapine to prevent CINV; three studies reported the use of 5 mg olanzapine to prevent CINV. When olanzapine was administered at 10 mg for HEC patients, the six endpoints were statistically and clinically better than the control group. For MEC patients, four out of six endpoints were better than the control group. When olanzapine is administered at 5 mg for MEC patients, four endpoints have statistical and clinical advantages. The sedative effects of 10 and 5 mg olanzapine were statistically more significant than those of the control group. The sedative effect of the 10-mg olanzapine group was more significant than that of the 5-mg olanzapine group, both statistically and clinically.

CONCLUSION

5 mg olanzapine may be as effective as 10 mg olanzapine for patients with HEC and MEC, and its sedative effect is lower than 10 mg olanzapine. Fewer studies on 5 mg olanzapine have led to uncertain data. In the future, more randomized controlled trials of 5 mg olanzapine are needed to study the balance between the effectiveness and safety of olanzapine.

Efficacy and Safety of Adding Olanzapine to the Standard Preventive Regimen for Chemotherapy-induced Nausea and Vomiting in Children: A Randomized Double-blind Controlled Trial

This study aimed to assess the additive value of olanzapine to a combination of ondansetron and dexamethasone to prevent chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in pediatric patients. A total of 40 patients between 4 to 18 years of age were enrolled in this randomized clinical trial. Both groups received a combination of ondansetron and dexamethasone, and 0.14 mg/kg olanzapine or matched placebo were administered for olanzapine and control groups, respectively. The primary end points were complete response and lack of nausea as far as three days after chemotherapy evaluated by the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Effects (CTCAE) v5.0 and the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer (MASCC) Anti-emesis Tool (MAT). Side effects of olanzapine were also analyzed. In patients receiving the standard regimen of ondansetron and dexamethasone, nausea was observed in 10.5% and 21% of patients according to MAT and CTCAE scales, respectively. In the olanzapine group, 37.5% (MAT scale) and 31.3% (CTCAE scale) of patients developed nausea. Complete response was observed in 84% (MAT scale) and 94.7% (CTCAE scale) of patients in the placebo group receiving ondansetron and dexamethasone. In comparison, it was observed in 87.5% (MAT scale) and 81.25% (CTCAE scale) for patients allocated to the olanzapine group. Neither acute nor delayed CINV was statistically different between placebo and olanzapine groups. The frequency of adverse effects was higher in the olanzapine group. Adding olanzapine to the standard regimen of CINV prophylaxis was only unhelpful in pediatric patients receiving moderately emetogenic chemotherapy but also associated with a higher rate of minor side effects.

Low-Dose Olanzapine Plus Granisetron and Dexamethasone for Carboplatin-Induced Nausea and Vomiting in Patients with Thoracic Malignancies: A Prospective Multicenter Phase II Trial

BACKGROUND

Olanzapine is an inexpensive and durable agent for the treatment of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting and is also superior to neurokinin-1 receptor antagonists in the control of nausea. This study aimed to investigate the efficacy and safety of a low dose of 5 mg olanzapine plus granisetron and dexamethasone for treatment of carboplatin (CBDCA)-induced nausea and vomiting in patients with thoracic malignancies.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We conducted a prospective, open-label, single-arm, multicenter, phase II trial in four centers in Japan. Registered patients were scheduled to receive area under the curve (AUC) ≥5 mg/mL per minute of CBDCA and had never received moderately to highly emetogenic chemotherapy. Patients received olanzapine 5 mg/day orally after supper for 4 days, in combination with granisetron and dexamethasone. Primary endpoint was complete response (CR; no emesis and no use of rescue medication) rate during the overall phase (0-120 hours).

RESULTS

Between February 2018 and June 2020, 51 patients were enrolled, and 50 patients were evaluated. The CR rates in the overall (0-120 hours), acute (0-24 hours), and delayed phases (24-120 hours) were 94.0%, 100%, and 94.0%, respectively. No grade 3 or higher adverse effects of olanzapine were observed.

CONCLUSION

Prophylactic antiemetic therapy with a low dose of 5 mg olanzapine plus granisetron and dexamethasone showed durable efficacy with an acceptable safety profile. This three-drug combination appears to be a reasonable treatment approach in patients with thoracic malignancies receiving an AUC ≥5 mg/mL per minute of CBDCA-based regimen. Clinical trial identification number: UMIN000031267.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

The results of this phase II trial indicated that the prophylactic administration of low-dose of 5 mg olanzapine combined with granisetron and dexamethasone has promising activity with acceptable safety profile in patients with thoracic malignancy receiving high-dose carboplatin chemotherapy.

Low-dose olanzapine, sedation and chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting: a prospective randomized controlled study

Aims: Comparison of efficacy, safety and sedation between two doses of olanzapine in the control of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV). Patients & methods: A prospective, randomized, double-blind, controlled study was conducted, enrolling 68 patients receiving a single-day cycle of high and moderately emetogenic chemotherapy. Patients received either of olanzapine 5 mg or 10 mg from day 1 through 3 in addition to ondansetron and dexamethasone. Control of CINV, nausea, sedation, quality of life (QoL) and adverse events were compared. Results: Nausea, emesis control and improvement of QoL were similar in both groups. Sedation severity was 133% higher with 10 mg olanzapine. Conclusions: Lower dose olanzapine is effective to control CINV with significantly reduced sedation.

Optimizing antiemetic treatment for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in Japan: Update summary of the 2015 Japan Society of Clinical Oncology Clinical Practice Guidelines for Antiemesis

Patients with cancer should appropriately receive antiemetic therapies against chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV). Antiemetic guidelines play an important role in managing CINV. Accordingly, the first Japanese antiemetic guideline published in 2010 by the Japan Society of Clinical Oncology (JSCO) has considerably aided Japanese medical staff in providing antiemetic therapies across chemotherapy clinics. With the yearly advancements in antiemetic therapies, the Japanese antiemetic guidelines require revisions according to published evidence regarding antiemetic management worldwide. A revised version of the first antiemetic guideline that considered several upcoming evidences had been published online in 2014 (version 1.2), in which several updated descriptions were included. The 2015 JSCO clinical practice guideline for antiemesis (version 2.0) (in Japanese) has addressed clinical antiemetic concerns and includes four major revisions regarding (1) changes in emetogenic risk categorization for anti-cancer agents, (2) olanzapine usage as an antiemetic drug, (3) the steroid-sparing method, and (4) adverse drug reactions of antiemetic agents. We herein present an English update summary for the 2015 JSCO clinical practice guideline for antiemesis (version 2.0).

Olanzapine for the prophylaxis and rescue of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting: a systematic review, meta-analysis, cumulative meta-analysis and fragility assessment of the literature

INTRODUCTION

The aim of this study is to rigorously review the efficacy and safety of olanzapine in defined hematology oncology settings including (1) the setting of highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) and moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC) settings (2) at 5 mg and 10 mg doses, and (3) for response rates for use in the acute, delayed, and overall settings post-MEC and HEC.

METHODS

Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched through April 23, 2020. The primary efficacy endpoints were the rate of complete response, in the acute (0-24 h post-chemotherapy), delayed (24-120 h post-chemotherapy), and overall (0-120 h post-chemotherapy) phases. The secondary efficacy endpoints were the rates of no nausea and no emesis, for each phase. Safety endpoints were the rate of no serious adverse events (i.e., no grade 3 or 4 toxicities), as assessed by Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) criteria. The Mantel-Haenszel, random-effects analysis model was used to compute risk ratios and accompanying 95% confidence intervals for each endpoint. For endpoints that statistically favored one arm, absolute risk differences were computed to assess whether there is a 10% or greater difference, used as the threshold for clinical significance by MASCC/ESMO. Fragility indices were also calculated for each statistically significant endpoint, to quantitatively assess the robustness of the summary estimate. A cumulative meta-analysis was conducted for each efficacy meta-analysis with more than 5 studies, also using the Mantel-Haenszel random-effects analysis model.

RESULTS

Three studies reported on olanzapine for the rescue of breakthrough chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV); 22 studies reported on olanzapine in the prophylactic setting. For studies reporting on HEC patients, olanzapine-containing regimens were statistically and clinically superior in seven of nine efficacy endpoints in the prophylaxis setting. When olanzapine is administered at a 10-mg dose, it is statistically and clinically superior to control patients in eight of nine endpoints among adults. Olanzapine may be effective in the MEC setting and when administered at 5-mg doses, but the paucity of data leads to notable uncertainty.

CONCLUSION

Further RCTs are needed in the setting of MEC patients and administration of olanzapine at a lower 5-mg dose, which may be given to reduce the sedative effect of olanzapine at 10 mg.

Efficacy of Olanzapine for High and Moderate Emetogenic Chemotherapy in Children

This study was conducted to investigate the safety and efficacy of olanzapine for high and moderate emetogenic chemotherapy in children and young adults. We retrospectively reviewed the records of pediatric patients (n = 13) with cancer who had been administered olanzapine as an anti-emetic drug (AED) during a high and moderate emetogenic chemotherapy block from January 2018 to March 2020. Patients were administered other prophylactic AEDs according to practice guidelines. The mean age of the patients was 14.1 ± 5.5 years. The total number of chemotherapy cycles was 41. Twenty-one (51.2%) chemotherapy blocks were high emetogenic chemotherapy and 20 (48.8%) blocks were moderate emetogenic chemotherapy. Olanzapine was used for prophylaxis in 20 (48.8%) blocks of chemotherapy and rescue in 21 (51.2%). Of the 41 cycles, a complete response to olanzapine was achieved in 31 (75.6%), partial response in 6 (14.6%), and no response in 4 (9.8%). The mean dose was 0.07 ± 0.04 mg/kg/dose and 2.50 ± 1.37 mg/m²/dose. Adverse effects included somnolence, hyperglycemia, fatigue, and disturbed sleep. Our findings indicate that olanzapine was effective and safe for treating chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in children. A prospective controlled study is needed to confirm these findings.

Management of cisplatin-associated toxicities in bladder cancer patients

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Cisplatin remains the treatment cornerstone for bladder cancer, either in neoadjuvant or in metastatic (cisplatin-gemcitabine or dose-dense methotrexate, vinblastine, and doxorubicin). Timely and adequate management of cisplatin's adverse events is important in order to avoid dose reductions, treatment delays, or cessation. Over the last years, several randomized studies and updated guidelines have been published on this subject.

RECENT FINDINGS

The incidence, physiopathology, risk factors, preventive treatment, and optimal management of such complications will be presented, with special focus on cisplatin-associated nausea and vomiting, acute kidney injury (AKI), hypomagnesemia, neurotoxicity, and ototoxicity.

SUMMARY

Optimal prevention of cisplatin-associated nausea and vomiting requires an aggressive approach with the use of a four-drug prophylactic regimen (NK1 receptor antagonist, 5-HT3 receptor antagonist, dexamethasone, olanzapine). The use of intensive hydration before and after cisplatin infusion has been the mainstay of AKI prevention. The management of hypomagnesemia and neurotoxicity remains largely symptomatic. In an adult population, no therapy has yet demonstrated benefits in the prevention or treatment of platinum-related ototoxicity.

A randomized study of olanzapine-containing versus standard antiemetic regimens for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in Chinese breast cancer patients

OBJECTIVES

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) are distressing symptoms. This randomized study evaluated the antiemetic efficacies of standard antiemetic regimen with/without olanzapine.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Eligible patients were chemotherapy-naive Chinese breast cancer patients who were planned for (neo)adjuvant doxorubicin/cyclophosphamide. Antiemetic regimen for all studied population included aprepitant, ondansetron and dexamethasone; patients were randomized to Olanzapine (with olanzapine) or Standard arms (without olanzapine). Patients filled in self-reported diaries and completed visual analogue scales for nausea, as well as Functional Living Index-Emesis questionnaires. Blood profiles including fasting glucose and lipids were monitored.

RESULTS

120 patients were randomized. In Cycle 1 doxorubicin/cyclophosphamide, the Olanzapine arm had significantly higher rates of "Complete Response" than the Standard arm: 65.0% vs 38.3% in the overall period (p = 0.0035), 70.0% vs 51.7% in the acute period (p = 0.0397) and 92.9% vs 74.2% in the delayed period (p = 0.0254). Olanzapine arm also had significantly higher rates of "No significant nausea" and "No nausea" during all 3 time-frames and better QOL. Similar findings were also revealed throughout multiple cycles. Pre-study abnormalities in glucose and lipids occurred in 39.7% and 34.2% of the studied population respectively; there were no differences in these parameters between the two arms at end-of-study assessment.

CONCLUSION

The addition of olanzapine to standard aprepitant-based antiemetic regimen provides clinically meaningful improvement in controlling CINV. This was associated with a positive impact on QOL and tolerable toxicity profiles among Chinese breast cancer patients receiving doxorubicin/cyclophosphamide chemotherapy. Further studies on metabolic profiles of breast cancer patients are warranted.

Efficacy and safety of 5 mg olanzapine combined with aprepitant, granisetron and dexamethasone to prevent carboplatin-induced nausea and vomiting in patients with gynecologic cancer: A multi-institution phase II study

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to investigate the efficacy and safety of prophylactic administration of 5 mg olanzapine (OLZ) combined with neurokinin 1 receptor antagonist (NK₁RA), 5-hydroxytryptamine type-3 receptor antagonist (5-HT₃RA), and dexamethasone (DEX) to prevent nausea and vomiting in carboplatin (CBDCA) combination therapy for patients with gynecological cancer.

METHODS

We conducted a single-arm, multi-institution, phase II study. Gynecological cancer patients scheduled to receive AUC ≥4 mg/mL/min CBDCA were enrolled. All patients received 5 mg OLZ (once daily after supper on days 1-4) combined with NK₁RA, 5-HT₃RA, and DEX. The primary end point was complete response (CR; no emesis and rescue therapy) during overall phase (120 h after the start of carboplatin administration).

RESULTS

Between May 2018 and June 2019, 60 patients were enrolled from 3 institutions in Japan. A total of 57 patients who met the criteria were included in the efficacy and safety analysis. The CR rate for the overall phase was 78.9%. Acute (0-24 h) and delayed phases (24-120 h) were 96.5% and 80.7%, respectively. Somnolence was observed in 73.7% patients. However, somnolence of grade 2 or higher was observed in only 3.5% of cases. There were no grade 3 or 4 toxicities associated with OLZ.

CONCLUSIONS

Preventive use of OLZ combined with standard triplet therapy had promising activity with manageable safety, suggesting that this combination could be an effective standard treatment option for patients with AUC ≥4 mg/mL/min CBDCA combination therapy.

Olanzapine for the Prevention of Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting: A Comparative Study From Sudan

Purpose

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is a distressing adverse effect. Neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist (NK1RA)–containing regimens are the standard regimens for CINV prophylaxis in patients with cancer receiving highly or moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC or MEC). NK1RA agents are expensive and were not registered in Sudan. Recently, regimens containing olanzapine, the available and affordable medication in Sudan, were introduced as another option. This study aimed to compare the efficacy of an olanzapine-containing regimen with the antiemetic regimen that was currently used in our institute for CINV prophylaxis in HEC/MEC settings.

Patients and Methods

The study prospectively compared an olanzapine-containing regimen (acute phase: olanzapine, ondansetron, dexamethasone; delayed phase: olanzapine, ondansetron) with an ondansetron/dexamethasone regimen (acute phase: ondansetron, dexamethasone; delayed phase: ondansetron) in adult patients with cancer receiving HEC or MEC. The study outcomes were complete response (CR; no emesis and no rescue medications) and nausea control (no nausea), which were assessed in the acute (0 to 24 hours), delayed (24 to 120 hours), and overall (0 to 120 hours) phases.

Results

The study included 131 patients (olanzapine-containing: 50 patients; ondansetron/dexamethasone: 81 patients). CR and nausea control were higher in the olanzapine-containing than in the ondansetron/dexamethasone regimen (CR: acute phase, 86% v 71.6%; P = .086; delayed phase, 72% v 30.9%; P < .001; overall phase, 66% v 25.9%; P < .001; nausea control: acute phase, 86% v 74.1%; P = .127; delayed phase, 76% v 34.6%; P < .001; overall phase, 72% v 29.6%; P < .001). The major toxicity of olanzapine was grade 1 and 2 sedation or drowsiness (25 patients).

Conclusion

An olanzapine-containing regimen has better efficacy for prevention of CINV in the HEC/MEC setting. Oncologists working in a limited-resource setting should be familiar with olanzapine-containing regimens, because NK1RA agents are not affordable and not easily available.

Olanzapine-containing antiemetic therapy for the prevention of carboplatin-induced nausea and vomiting

PURPOSE

There remains an unmet clinical need for the control of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV), particularly in the prevention of nausea and the delayed phase control. We evaluated the efficacy and safety of antiemetic therapy with olanzapine, a neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist, a 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 (5-HT₃) receptor antagonist and dexamethasone in patients receiving carboplatin-containing chemotherapy. Olanzapine inhibits signalling via multiple neurotransmitter receptors involved in CINV.

METHODS

Chemotherapy-naïve patients with lung cancer who received carboplatin-containing chemotherapy were enrolled in this phase-II study. Patients received olanzapine, aprepitant, a 5-HT₃ receptor antagonist and dexamethasone. The primary endpoint was the complete response rate (no vomiting and no rescue therapy) during 120 h after administration of chemotherapy agents.

RESULTS

Thirty-three patients received olanzapine-containing antiemetic therapy. The overall complete response rate was 93.3% (95% confidence interval, 80.4-98.3%). The frequency of nausea was 15.2% in the delayed phase and 18.2% in the overall phase. Somnolence was observed in 16 patients.

CONCLUSION

Adding olanzapine to antiemetic therapy with aprepitant, a 5-HT₃ receptor antagonist and dexamethasone improved CINV control in patients receiving carboplatin-containing chemotherapy.

Low-dose of olanzapine has ameliorating effects on cancer-related anorexia

Background

Olanzapine (OLZ) has become well-known for its antiemetic effects on chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting. However, it remains unclear whether OLZ also has efficacy for treating cancer-related anorexia. This study, therefore, retrospectively examined whether or not OLZ administration affects the food intake in anorexic cancer patients who exhibit neither nausea nor vomiting.

Methods

Eighty patients prescribed OLZ were extracted from 951 inpatients who consulted with our palliative care team at Chiba University Hospital from April 2008 to March 2016. Their food intake described on a nursing record was compared before and after OLZ administration. The observation period was 3 days before and after the start of OLZ treatment, because most inpatients whose food intake increased were discharged in 3 days.

Results

In those 80 patients, the average dose of OLZ for 3 days was 2.28±0.87 (mean±SD) mg/day. First, the food intake in 80 patients was significantly higher after than before starting OLZ, and the relative change in food intake was 149% on average (P<0.0001, Student’s paired t-test). Second, OLZ increased the food intake even in 40 out of 80 patients without nausea or vomiting, and the relative change in food intake was 143% on average (P<0.001, Student’s paired t-test). Third, the average food intake increased in 13 out of 40 patients who were prescribed 1.5 mg/day of OLZ, and the relative change in food intake was 124% on average (P<0.01, Student’s paired t-test). There was no significant difference in food intake between a dose of 1.5 mg/day and a dose of >1.5 mg/day of OLZ (P=0.18, Welch’s unpaired t-test).

Conclusion

We have herein reported OLZ’s ameliorating efficacy in cancer-related anorexia at the low dose of 1.5 mg/day. Although our study has many limitations, low-dose OLZ can be a promising treatment for cancer-related anorexia.

Practical Perspectives in the Treatment of Nausea and Vomiting

Nausea and vomiting result from complex interactions between afferent and efferent pathways of the gastrointestinal tract, central nervous system, and autonomic nervous system. Afferent pathways from the vagus nerve, vestibular system, and chemoreceptor trigger zone project to nucleus tractus solitarius, which in turn relays signals to the central pattern generator to initiate multiple downstream pathways resulting in symptoms of nausea and vomiting. There is increasing evidence that the central pathway of chronic nausea is different from that of acute nausea and vomiting-and closely resembles that of neuropathic pain. This improved understanding of chronic nausea has resulted in a paradigm shift with regard to management strategy. Although conventional therapies such as antiemetics and prokinetics are commonly used to manage acute nausea and vomiting, they are historically not as effective in treating chronic nausea. Recently, neuromodulator agents, such as tricyclic antidepressants, gabapentin, olanzapine, mirtazapine, and benzodiazepines, and cannabinoids have been shown to be efficacious in the treatment of nausea and vomiting, and may be useful in the treatment of chronic symptoms. There is a need to study these agents, especially in the management of chronic functional nausea. Improved understanding of the central and peripheral circuitry of nausea and vomiting symptoms will allow for enhanced utilization of the currently available medications, and the development of novel therapeutic options.

Olanzapine-Based Triple Regimens Versus Neurokinin-1 Receptor Antagonist-Based Triple Regimens in Preventing Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting Associated with Highly Emetogenic Chemotherapy: A Network Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

The current antiemetic prophylaxis for patients treated with highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) included the olanzapine-based triplet and neurokinin-1 receptor antagonists (NK-1RAs)-based triplet. However, which one shows better antiemetic effect remained unclear.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We systematically reviewed 43 trials, involving 16,609 patients with HEC, which compared the following antiemetics at therapeutic dose range for the treatment of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting: olanzapine, aprepitant, casopitant, fosaprepitant, netupitant, and rolapitant. The main outcomes were the proportion of patients who achieved no nausea, complete response (CR), and drug-related adverse events. A Bayesian network meta-analysis was performed.

RESULTS

Olanzapine-based triple regimens showed significantly better no-nausea rate in overall phase and delayed phase than aprepitant-based triplet (odds ratios 3.18, 3.00, respectively), casopitant-based triplet (3.78, 4.12, respectively), fosaprepitant-based triplet (3.08, 4.10, respectively), rolapitant-based triplet (3.45, 3.20, respectively), and conventional duplex regimens (4.66, 4.38, respectively). CRs of olanzapine-based triplet were roughly equal to different NK-1RAs-based triplet but better than the conventional duplet. Moreover, no significant drug-related adverse events were observed in olanzapine-based triple regimens when compared with NK-1RAs-based triple regimens and duplex regimens. Additionally, the costs of olanzapine-based regimens were obviously much lower than the NK-1RA-based regimens.

CONCLUSION

Olanzapine-based triplet stood out in terms of nausea control and drug price but represented no significant difference of CRs in comparison with NK-1RAs-based triplet. Olanzapine-based triple regimens should be an optional antiemetic choice for patients with HEC, especially those suffering from delayed phase nausea.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

According to the results of this study, olanzapine-based triple antiemetic regimens were superior in both overall and delayed-phase nausea control when compared with various neurokinin-1 receptor antagonists-based triple regimens in patients with highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC). Olanzapine-based triplet was outstanding in terms of nausea control and drug price. For cancer patients with HEC, especially those suffering from delayed-phase nausea, olanzapine-based triple regimens should be an optional antiemetic choice.

A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled proof of concept study to evaluate samidorphan in the prevention of olanzapine-induced weight gain in healthy volunteers

Antipsychotic medications are associated with weight gain and adverse metabolic effects that complicate the treatment and management of schizophrenia. Olanzapine (OLZ) in particular is associated with significant weight gain and adverse metabolic effects. The present Phase 1, proof of concept, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study investigated the safety and effect on weight of a combination of OLZ (10mg) and the opioid modulator samidorphan (SAM; 5mg) in comparison to OLZ alone in healthy, male normal weight volunteers. Altogether, 106 male subjects with stable body weight and BMI 18-25kg/m² were randomized to OLZ alone, OLZ+SAM, SAM alone, or placebo in a 2:2:1:1 ratio. The primary efficacy endpoint, mean (SD) body weight change from baseline to last assessment in the 3-week treatment period, was significantly less for OLZ+SAM vs. OLZ alone subjects [+2.2 (1.4) kg vs. +3.1 (1.9) kg; respectively; p=0.02]. In contrast, there was no significant difference in weight from baseline for either SAM or placebo [+0.1 (1.0) kg and +0.8 (1.4) kg, respectively]; p=0.09. Overall, OLZ+SAM compared to OLZ alone had similar safety and tolerability. In addition, less nausea was observed in subjects given OLZ+SAM compared to SAM alone. Thus, OLZ+SAM may offer effective treatment of schizophrenia with less weight gain and metabolic risk. Additional research exploring additional doses over longer durations in psychiatric populations is warranted.

Clinical Update on Palonosetron in the Management of Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting

The need to control chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting is continuously stimulating research to find better options for the optimal antiemetic care. Palonosetron is different from conventional serotonin receptor antagonists not only by the fact of having a longer half-life but also by higher binding affinity for serotonin receptors. It is the first agent in the class which is approved for preventing both delayed and acute emesis induced by moderately emetogenic chemotherapy. Recent studies using palonosetron-based antiemetic regimens, as well as in the clinical setting of multiple-day chemotherapy, have been reported. Palonosetron plus dexamethasone given as a pre-treatment infusion was effective for preventing acute and delayed emesis after moderately emetogenic chemotherapy. Palonosetron in combination with dexamethasone and aprepitant was highly effective in preventing emesis in the days following administration of moderately emetogenic chemotherapy. Treatment was well tolerated, with no unexpected adverse events. Multiple-day dosing of palonosetron plus dexamethasone was safe and effective for prevention of emesis induced by 5-day cisplatin-based chemotherapy. There was no evidence of cumulative toxicity when palonosetron was given three times over 5 days. Further evidence from ongoing clinical trials with palonosetron with or without dexamethasone will be available soon. Palonosetron represents an useful addition to the therapeutic armamentarium for the management of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting. Further studies are needed to assess the effectiveness of palonosetronin combination with dexamethasone compared with that of older serotonin receptor antagonists combined with dexamethasone. However, palonosetron may offer advantages of convenience over the short-acting older antagonists due to its ability to be given as a single intravenous dose prior to chemotherapy.

Effectiveness of olanzapine in patients who fail therapy with aprepitant while receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy

Chemotherapy-induced nausea-vomiting (CINV) compromises the quality of life of patients with cancer. We present data on the effectiveness of olanzapine after failure of aprepitant in patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC). A single-center prospective study was conducted, where patients ≥ 18 years who failed aprepitant, palonosetron, dexamethasone (APD) received olanzapine, palonosetron and dexamethasone (OPD) in the subsequent cycle of HEC. Failure of APD was defined as occurrence of ≥ grade 2 acute and/or delayed nausea ± vomiting. Response rates were compared with what was achieved in their previous cycle with the use of APD in the acute (0-24 h), delayed (24-120 h) and overall (0-120 h) periods after the start of HEC. Impact on life was assessed using the MD Anderson Symptom Inventory (MDASI). Fifty-five patients failed APD and received OPD in the subsequent cycle; 54 were evaluable for response. Complete response rate for OPD versus APD is 80 versus 20% (acute period), 90 versus 18% (delayed period) and 74 versus 5% (overall period), and no nausea rate for OPD versus APD is 57 versus 13% (acute), 59 versus 15% (delayed) and 48 versus 0% (overall period), p < 0.001 for all comparisons. MDASI scores showed significant improvement after switching to OPD. A mild increase in drowsiness noted in patients receiving OPD did not affect daily life in most patients. In patients receiving HEC and failing CINV prophylaxis with APD, switching to OPD regimen in the subsequent cycle greatly improves control of vomiting, increases "no nausea" rates and significantly reduces symptom severity scores.

A double-blind randomized phase II dose-finding study of olanzapine 10 mg or 5 mg for the prophylaxis of emesis induced by highly emetogenic cisplatin-based chemotherapy

PURPOSE

The aim of this phase II study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of two doses (10 and 5 mg) of olanzapine in combination with standard antiemetic treatment (aprepitant, palonosetron, and dexamethasone) for patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC).

METHODS

A multi-institutional, double-blind, randomized phase II, dose-finding study of olanzapine was performed in patients with a malignant solid tumor who were receiving HEC with cisplatin (≥ 50 mg/m²). Patients were randomly assigned either olanzapine 10 or 5 mg orally on days 1-4, combined with standard antiemetic treatment. The primary endpoint was a complete response (CR; no emesis and no use of rescue medications) in the delayed phase (24-120 h after the start of cisplatin treatment).

RESULTS

153 patients were randomized to the 10 mg group (n = 76) or the 5 mg group (n = 77). The CR rate in the delayed phase was 77.6% (80% CI: 70.3-83.8, P = 0.01) in the 10 mg group and 85.7% (80% CI: 79.2-90.7, P < 0.001) in the 5 mg group (P value for H ₀: complete response rate ≤ 65%). The most common adverse event was somnolence, which had an incidence of 53.3 and 45.5% in the 10 and 5 mg olanzapine groups, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Both doses of 10 and 5 mg olanzapine provided a significant improvement in delayed emesis. A dose of 5 mg olanzapine was determined as the recommended dose for a further phase III study based on higher CR and lower somnolence rates.

CLINICAL TRIAL INFORMATION

UMIN000014214.

New options and controversies in the management of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting

PURPOSE

An expanding array of options for prevention and treatment of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV), including regimens containing olanzapine or recently approved neurokinin 1 (NK₁) receptor antagonists, are reviewed.

SUMMARY

Up to 80% of patients receiving chemotherapy have CINV. Current practice guidelines recommend that patients treated with highly emetogenic chemotherapy also receive a 3-drug antiemetic regimen initiated on the day of and continued for 3 days after chemotherapy administration, with the most commonly used 3-drug regimen consisting of an NK₁ receptor antagonist, a 5-hydroxytryptamine type 3 (5-HT₃) receptor antagonist, and dexamethasone. Developments in the area of CINV management in recent years include the use of olanzapine in combination with a 5-HT₃ antagonist and dexamethasone; Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval of the NK₁ receptor antagonist rolapitant, which provides a longer duration of effect than aprepitant; FDA approval of a combination product containing palonosetron and the NK₁ receptor antagonist netupitant; and revisions of U.S. practice guidelines ending palonosetron's status as the preferred 5-HT₃ antagonist for prevention of CINV associated with moderately or highly emetogenic chemotherapy.

CONCLUSION

Newer therapeutic options for the management of CINV are equivalent to standard-of-care regimens in terms of efficacy and toxicity. While the NK₁ receptor antagonist rolapitant and a product combining palonosetron and netupitant have potential advantages over standard therapy in terms of convenience or pharmacologic properties, their relatively high costs must be considered.

Antiemetic therapy for non-anthracycline and cyclophosphamide moderately emetogenic chemotherapy

Although antiemetic management in cancer therapy has improved, chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting remain common and troubling adverse events. Chemotherapeutic agents are classified based on their emetogenic effects, and appropriate antiemetics are recommended according to this categorization. Chemotherapy categorized as moderately emetogenic is associated with a wide spectrum of emetic risks. Combined anthracycline and cyclophosphamide regimens have been recently reclassified as highly emetogenic chemotherapy regimen. This review focuses on antiemetic pharmacotherapy in patients receiving non-anthracycline and cyclophosphamide-based moderately emetogenic chemotherapy regimens. Combination therapy with a 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 receptor agonist, preferably palonosetron, and dexamethasone is the standard therapy in moderately emetogenic chemotherapy, although triple therapy with add-on neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist is used as an alternative treatment strategy. Among moderately emetogenic chemotherapy regimens, carboplatin-containing chemotherapy has considerable emetic potential, particularly during the delayed phase. However, the additional of a neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist to the standard antiemetic therapy prevents carboplatin-induced nausea and vomiting. For regimens including oxaliplatin, the benefit of adding neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist requires further clarification.

Efficacy and safety of olanzapine for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Olanzapine is an anti-psychotic drug that has been used for preventing and treating Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting (CINV). This study aimed to systematically review and meta-analyze the efficacy and safety of olanzapine for prophylaxis and treatment of CINV.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic literature search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, SCOPUS, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials-CENTRAL up to July 15, 2016. All observational and intervention studies were included, but only the intervention studies were pooled for meta-analysis. The efficacy outcome was the proportion of patients achieving complete response (CR) - no emesis and no rescue therapy, in the acute, delayed, and overall phases. The safety outcomes were the adverse events associated with olanzapine according to Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE).

RESULTS

Sixteen studies were eligible: 15 clinical trials and 1 observational study. Nine of the interventional studies were pooled for meta-analysis. The CR of olanzapine was superior to other anti-emetic regimens, in both the delayed and overall phases (RR=1.27, 95% CI 1.07-1.49, RR=1.32, 95% CI 1.08-1.62, respectively). However, olanzapine was not better than standard CINV prophylaxis of the nausea and emesis outcome in the acute phase. Drowsiness and constipation were the most reported adverse events. No grade 3 or 4 adverse events were reported.

CONCLUSION

Olanzapine is effective and safe at reducing during the delayed and overall phase of the CINV prevention. Other regimens might be added, in cases of CINV during the acute phase of CINV.

Palonosetron, aprepitant, and dexamethasone for prevention of nausea and vomiting after high-dose melphalan in autologous transplantation for multiple myeloma: A phase II study

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is a significant side effect in multiple myeloma (MM) patients receiving high-dose melphalan treatment followed by autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT). We evaluated the efficacy and safety of a triple antiemetic combination of palonosetron, aprepitant, and low-dose dexamethasone in 24 MM patients who received melphalan conditioning (100 mg/m² on days 1-2) before ASCT (on day 4). Intravenous palonosetron (0.75 mg on day 1), oral aprepitant (125 mg on day 1; 80 mg on days 2-4), and intravenous dexamethasone (6.6 mg on days 1-4) were administered for prevention of CINV. Complete response (no emesis and no rescue antiemetic) and complete control (no emesis, no rescue antiemetic, and no more than mild nausea) rates were 75 and 68% during the overall phase (0-120 h), while they were 88 and 86% in the acute phase (0-48 h), 75 and 68% in the delayed phase (48-120 h), and 67 and 59% in the extended phase (120-168 h), respectively. There were no serious adverse events related to the antiemetic therapy. In conclusion, the three-antiemetic regimen consisting of palonosetron, aprepitant, and dexamethasone was safe and effective for controlling CINV due to high-dose melphalan treatment, especially during the delayed phase.

State of the Art Antiemetic Therapy for Cancer Patients

Nausea and vomiting are common in cancer patients. The most common cause of nausea and vomiting is the administration of cytotoxic chemotherapy. Apart from chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV), biological agents may also cause these symptoms. In this review, discussion will be focused on management of nausea and vomiting due to antineoplastic therapies. The cornerstone of effective management of nausea and vomiting secondary to these antineoplastic drugs is the prevention with the use of appropriate guideline-directed combination antiemetic regimen. Type 3 serotonin receptor antagonists (5HT3RAs), neurokinin-1 receptor antagonists (NK1RAs), and dexamethasone are the backbone antiemetic drugs. In recent years, newer drugs and preparations have been introduced for clinical use and include second-generation 5HT3RA, palonosetron; granisetron transdermal patch; the recently introduced NK1RA rolapitant; and the novel oral combined drug NEPA (netupitant plus palonosetron); and last but not least, the atypical antipsychotic olanzapine.

Central Aspects of Nausea and Vomiting in GI Disorders

OPINION STATEMENT

Nausea and vomiting result from continuous interactions among gastrointestinal, central nervous system, and autonomic nervous system. Despite being closely associated, central pathways of nausea and vomiting appear to be at least partly different and nausea is no longer considered only a penultimate step of vomiting. Although our understanding of central pathways of nausea has improved over the last one decade, it is still very basic. Afferent pathways from gastrointestinal tract via vagus, vestibular system, and chemoreceptor trigger zone project to nucleus tractus solitarius which, in turn, relays the signal to central pattern generator initiating multiple downstream pathways. This central nausea pathway appears to be under constant modulation by autonomic nervous system and cerebral cortex. There is also some evidence that central pathway of chronic nausea is different from that of acute nausea and closely resembles that of neuropathic pain. This improved understanding has modified the way we can approach the treatment of acute and chronic nausea. While conventional therapies such as antiemetics (antiserotoninergic, antihistaminic, antidopaminergic) and prokinetics are commonly used to manage acute nausea, they are not as effective in improving chronic nausea. Recently, neuromodulators such as tricyclic antidepressants, gabapentin, olanzapine, benzodiazepines, and cannabinoids have been shown to have antinausea effect. There is a need to study the utility of these drugs in managing chronic functional nausea. Improving our understanding of central and peripheral circuitry of nausea will allow us to better utilize the currently available drugs and develop new therapeutic options.

Role of olanzapine in chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting on platinum-based chemotherapy patients: a randomized controlled study

PURPOSE

Even with the use of modern antiemetic drugs, chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is still a cause of great distress to the patients. Olanzapine, primarily marketed as an antipsychotic, was found to reduce nausea and vomiting in some chemotherapy patients. But it was never tested in Indian population with a diverse genetic background. The present study aims to evaluate the role of olanzapine in CINV in patients receiving platinum-based chemotherapy.

METHODS

The study was a randomized, controlled, assessor-blinded study on 100 chemotherapy-naïve consenting patients receiving any one from cisplatin, carboplatin or oxaliplatin. The control group (n = 50) received palonosetron and dexamethasone in the approved therapeutic dose from the day 1 of chemotherapy. The test group (n = 50) received additional olanzapine 10 mg/day from day 1 for five consecutive days. CINV and quality of life (QoL) were assessed.

RESULTS

Vomiting was significantly less among the olanzapine-treated patients. Control of delayed emesis was significantly better in this group (complete response among 96 vs. 42 % in the control group, p value <0.0001). Incidence and severity of nausea was significantly less in this group. Failure of anti-CINV measure was 4 % in this group compared to 26 % of the patients of the control group during overall days 1-5. Though sedation was more in these olanzapine-treated patients, there was no dose-limiting adverse event. Quality of life was also better among the olanzapine-treated patients.

CONCLUSION

Olanzapine was found to be effective as add-on in the control of CINV.

Corticosteroids, the oldest agent in the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting: What about the guidelines?

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) remains one of the most disturbing side effects of cancer treatment. Research in antiemetic therapy has progressed gradually since the early eighties, and the development of antiemetic agents continues. This review focuses on the current management of CINV based on the most recent guidelines, and adherence to the latter is examined more carefully. Setrons (5HT3 receptor antagonists), corticosteroids, and NK-1 receptor antagonists are the cornerstones of antiemetic therapy. Corticosteroids are one of the oldest agents in the prevention of CINV. They are highly effective, increase the effect of other antiemetic agents, and are cost-effective. The latest developed 5HT3 receptor antagonist palonosetron led to an update of the guidelines of CINV. Other types include benzodiazepines, cannabinoids, and olanzapine. Various factors contribute to the overall risk of developing CINV, such as patient characteristics, emetogenic potency of the chemotherapeutic agents, and correct prevention of CINV. Current guidelines determine which is the right preventive regimen for each cancer patient at risk for experiencing CINV. Adherence to these guidelines and implementation in daily practice seem to be below the optimal level. In Belgium, authorities use the guidelines as a base for reimbursement and this has increased the level of implementation.

Olanzapine combined with normal antiemetic drugs in patients on solid tumor chemotherapy: Antiemetic effect and impact on quality of life

AIM: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of olanzapine for prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in patients receiving highly or moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC or MEC), and to evaluate the impact of olanzapine on quality of life (QOL) in cancer patients on chemotherapy.

METHODS: One hundred and twenty patients receiving highly or moderately emetogenic chemotherapy were randomly assigned to a study group and a control group, with 60 cases in each group. Routine antiemetics were used in the control group, and olanzapine (2.5 mg, bid, p.o) was add in the study group. All patients were asked to fill the observation form of CINV once a day, and they were also instructed to fill the EORTC QLQ-C30 questionnaire during the period of chemotherapy. Primary endpoints were complete response (CR) and effective response (ER) in the acute and delayed periods. Secondary endpoints were QOL during chemotherapy, drug safety and toxicity.

RESULTS: Complete response rates for acute nausea and vomiting in patients with highly and moderately emetogenic chemotherapy were improved by 10.6% (48.5% vs 37.9%, P = 0.01) and 17.8% (63.0% vs 45.2%, P = 0.008), respectively. Effective response rates for acute nausea and vomiting in patients with highly and moderately emetogenic chemotherapy were improved by 22.0% (90.9% vs 68.9%, P = 0.00) and 24.9% (92.6% vs 67.7%, P = 0.001), respectively. Complete response rates for delayed nausea and vomiting in patients with highly and moderately emetogenic chemotherapy were improved by 14.8% (35.5% vs 20.7%, P = 0.04) and 14.4% (37.0% vs 22.6 %, P = 0.02), respectively. Effective response rates for delayed nausea and vomiting in patients with highly and moderately emetogenic chemotherapy were improved by 29.6% (84.8% vs 55.2%, P = 0.001) and 29.8% (81.4% vs 51.6%, P = 0.002), respectively. All patients were evaluable for QOL. When comparing the study group with the control group in QOL, significant differences were seen in global health status, emotional functioning, social functioning, nausea and vomiting, insomnia and appetite loss in favour of the study group. Both treatments were well tolerated.

CONCLUSION: Olanzapine can improve the complete response and effective response for nausea and vomiting in patients receiving highly or moderately emetogenic chemotherapy compared with the standard antiemesis therapy, as well as improve the QOL of cancer patients on chemotherapy. Olanzapine is a safe and efficient drug for prevention of CINV.

Efficacy of olanzapine for the prophylaxis and rescue of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV): a systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

Olanzapine is a potent antipsychotic medication that inhibits a wide variety of receptors. It has been used in trials for the prophylaxis and rescue of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV). This study systematically investigates the efficacy of olanzapine in relation to other antiemetics in the prophylaxis and rescue of CINV.

METHODS

A literature search of Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL was conducted to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing olanzapine to other standard antiemetics for either prevention or rescue. The primary endpoints were the percentage of patients achieving no emesis or no nausea, in the acute, delayed, and overall phases.

RESULTS

Ten RCTs in the preventative setting and three RCTs in the breakthrough setting were identified. Subgroup analysis demonstrated a similar degree of benefit from a 5- and 10-mg dose of olanzapine for the no emesis endpoint in the overall phase. In the prophylaxis setting, olanzapine was statistically superior in five of six endpoints and clinically superior in four of six endpoints. In the breakthrough setting, olanzapine was statistically and clinically superior in the only endpoint analyzed: no emesis.

CONCLUSION

Olanzapine is more efficacious than other standard antiemetics for the rescue of CINV and its inclusion improves control in the prevention setting. Given the possible reduction in side effects, the use of a 5-mg dose of olanzapine should be considered. Future RCTs should compare the 5-mg versus the 10-mg dosages further and report on the efficacy and percentage of patients developing side effects. Further analyses should be done without the influence of corticosteroids.

Efficacy and safety of olanzapine for the prophylaxis of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) as reported in phase I and II studies: a systematic review

INTRODUCTION

Olanzapine is an atypical antipsychotic drug that inhibits serotonergic, dopaminergic, alpha-1 adrenergic, histaminic, and muscarinic receptors. Several phase I and II trials have been published documenting the use of olanzapine in controlling chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV). This review aims to summarize all phase I and II trials that reported on olanzapine for the prophylaxis of CINV.

METHODS

A literature search was conducted in Ovid MEDLINE from 1946 to July week 1 2015, Embase Classic and Embase from 1947 to 2015 week 28, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials up until June 2015. Phase I and II trials reporting on olanzapine for the prophylaxis for CINV were included if they reported on at least one of four primary endpoints: complete response (CR), complete control (CC), no nausea, and no emesis. Other endpoints of interest included the safety of olanzapine as measured by the M.D. Anderson Symptom Inventory.

RESULTS

Across the seven included studies, there were a total of 201 patients. The CR across four studies was 97.2, 83.1, and 82.8 % for the acute, delayed, and overall phases, respectively. The CC for acute, delayed, and overall phases was 92.5, 87.5, and 82.5 %, respectively. The overall no nausea rate was 92.7, 71.8, and 70.6 % for the acute, delayed, and overall phases, respectively. The overall no emesis rates for the acute, delayed, and overall phases were 100, 94.5, and 90.4 %, respectively. Fatigue, drowsiness, and disturbed sleep were common side effects.

CONCLUSION

Olanzapine is efficacious and safe when used as a prophylaxis for CINV.

Treatment of Breakthrough and Refractory Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting

Despite significant progress in the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) with the introduction of new antiemetic agents, 30-50% of patients receiving moderately or highly emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC or HEC) and guideline directed prophylactic antiemetics develop breakthrough CINV. International guidelines recommend the treatment of breakthrough CINV with an agent from a drug class that was not used in the prophylactic antiemetic regimen and recommend using the breakthrough medication continuously rather than using it on an as needed basis. There have been very few studies on the treatment of breakthrough CINV. A recent double-blind, randomized, phase III study suggested that olanzapine may be an effective agent for the treatment of breakthrough CINV. Refractory CINV occurs when patients develop CINV during subsequent cycles of chemotherapy when antiemetic prophylaxis has not been successful in controlling CINV in earlier cycles. Patients who develop refractory CINV should be considered for a change in their prophylactic antiemetic regimen. If significant anxiety exists, a benzodiazepine may be added to the prophylactic regimen. If a refractory patient is receiving HEC, olanzapine may be added to the prophylactic regimen. If the patient is receiving MEC, olanzapine or an NK-1 receptor antagonist may be added to the prophylactic regimen.

Olanzapine for preventing nausea and vomiting induced by moderately and highly emetogenic chemotherapy

Nausea and vomiting are common adverse events in chemotherapy. In spite of the serious effects on the quality of life and further treatment, they remain overlooked by physicians, and no standard treatment has been developed. Neurokinin-1 (NK-1) receptor antagonists and palonosetron are the major agents in the standard regimen for treating moderately and highly emetogenic chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV). However, NK-1 receptor antagonists first became commercially available at the end of 2013 and palonosetron has not been extensively applied in China. Olanzapine was recommended as a therapy for moderate and severe CINV in antiemesis-clinical practice guidelines in oncology in 2014 for the first time. It is an atypical antipsychotic agent, which can block multiple receptors on neurotransmitters. During more than 10 years, olanzapine has demonstrated significant effects in preventing CINV and treating breakthrough and refractor CINV, which was observed in case reports, precise retrospective studies, and phase I, II and III clinical trials, with no grade 3 to 4 adverse events. In particular, it is superior to aprepitant and dexamethasone in delayed nausea and vomiting. Therefore, this compound is worthy of further investigation.

Acute Poisoning with Dapsone and Olanzapine: Severe Methemoglobinemia and Coma with a Favourable Outcome / Острое Отравление Медикаментами Dapsone И Olanzapine: Тяжёлая Метгемоглобинемия И Кома С Благоприятным Исходом

Dapsone is a drug commonly used in the treatment of leprosy. In Europe it is rarely prescribed, mostly for the treatment of skin diseases such as dermatitis herpetiformis. Poisoning with dapsone is rare and reports of such cases are of interest for toxicological practice. We describe the only acute dapsone poisoning in a caseload series of 21000 intoxications treated in the Clinical Toxicology Clinic at St George University Hospital in Plovdiv, Bulgaria between 1999 and 2013.

We report on a 36-year-old woman who attempted deliberate self-poisoning with an ingestion of approximately 4.5 g of dapsone and 0.3 g of olanzapine. On admission, the patient was in a state of severe intoxication and comatose. On admission to hospital 9 hours after the ingestion, the methemoglobin level was 51.7%. The patient recovered 8 days later. She received complex treatment including intubation, ventilation, repeated gastric lavage, hemodialysis, blood exchange transfusion and antidote treatment with methylene blue. She was discharged in good clinical condition with minimal organ damage such as mild toxic hepatitis.

A review of olanzapine as an antiemetic in chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting and in palliative care patients

Olanzapine is an atypical antipsychotic agent that blocks multiple neuronal receptors involved in the nausea and vomiting pathways. It has therefore been studied for the prevention and treatment of chemotherapy-induced emesis and in patients in palliative care presenting nausea and vomiting refractory to standard antiemetics. Some studies have shown that olanzapine was not inferior to aprepitant in the prophylaxis of highly and moderately emetogenic chemotherapy and that it increased the rate of complete response when added to a combination of a 5-HT3 antagonist, aprepitant and dexamethasone. These studies present so many shortcomings, however, that they do not permit us to draw any firm conclusions. Oral olanzapine showed superior antiemetic efficacy to metoclopramide as rescue treatment to control breakthrough emesis induced by chemotherapy. However, an oral formulation is not appropriate because in patients with vomiting or severe nausea the mere ingestion of an oral drug could induce emesis. Finally, in palliative care olanzapine could control or reduce the intensity of nausea and vomiting refractory to standard antiemetics.

Olanzapine for treatment and prevention of acute chemotherapy-induced vomiting in children: a retrospective, multi-center review

BACKGROUND

This retrospective review provides preliminary data regarding the safety and efficacy of olanzapine for chemotherapy-induced vomiting (CIV) control in children.

PROCEDURE

Children <18 years old who received olanzapine for acute chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) control from December 2010 to August 2013 at four institutions were identified. Patient characteristics, chemotherapy, antiemetic prophylaxis, olanzapine dosing, CIV control, liver function test results and adverse events were abstracted from the health record. Toxicity was graded using CTCAEv4.03.

RESULTS

Sixty children (median age 13.2 years; range: 3.10-17.96) received olanzapine during 158 chemotherapy blocks. Olanzapine was most often (59%) initiated due to a history of poorly controlled CINV. The mean initial olanzapine dose was 0.1 mg/kg/dose (range: 0.026-0.256). Most children who received olanzapine beginning on the first day of the chemotherapy block experienced complete CIV control throughout the acute phase (83/128; 65%). There was no association between the olanzapine dose/kg and complete CIV control (OR 1.01; 95% CI: 0.999-1.020; P = 0.091). Sedation was reported in 7% of chemotherapy blocks and was significantly associated with increasing olanzapine dose (OR: 1.17; 95% CI: 1.08-1.27; P = 0.0001). Of the 25 chemotherapy blocks where ALT and/or AST were reported more than once, grade 1-3 elevations were observed in five. The mean weight change in 31 children who received olanzapine during more than one chemotherapy block was 0% (range: -22 to +18).

CONCLUSION

Olanzapine may be an important option to improve CIV control in children. Prospective controlled evaluation of olanzapine for CINV prophylaxis in children is warranted.

QoL evaluation of olanzapine for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting comparing with 5-HT3 receptor antagonist

This study evaluated the efficacy of olanzapine in preventing chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) and improving the quality of life (QoL) of patients with cancer during chemotherapy. Two hundred twenty-nine patients with cancer who received chemotherapy from January 2008 to August 2008 were enrolled, and they were randomised to receive olanzapine or a 5-HT3 receptor antagonist. The patients completed a CINV questionnaire once daily on days 1-5 and a QoL questionnaire on days 0 and 6. The complete response (CR) rates for nausea (76.85% versus 46.2%) and vomiting (84.3% versus 67.6%) were significantly higher in the olanzapine group than in the 5-HT3 receptor antagonist group for delayed CINV but not for acute CINV. The CR rates for nausea (76.85% versus 44.44%) and vomiting (85.95% versus 67.59%) were also significantly higher in the olanzapine group for the 5 days post-chemotherapy. After chemotherapy, global health status, emotional functioning, and insomnia were improved in the olanzapine group but worsened in the 5-HT3 receptor antagonist group, whereas cognitive functioning and appetite loss were unchanged. Moreover, olanzapine significantly improved global health status, emotional functioning, social functioning, fatigue, nausea/vomiting, insomnia, and appetite loss. Olanzapine improved the QoL of patients with cancer during chemotherapy, in part by reducing the incidence of delayed CINV.

Palonosetron for the treatment of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting

INTRODUCTION

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is associated with a significant deterioration in quality of life. The emetogenicity of the chemotherapeutic agents, repeated chemotherapy cycles, and patient risk factors significantly influence CINV. The introduction of 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 (5-HT3) receptor antagonists has been a major factor in the improvement of the prevention of chemotherapy-induced acute and delayed emesis. Palonosetron , a second-generation 5-HT3 receptor antagonist with a different half-life, a different binding capacity, and a different mechanism of action than the first-generation 5-HT3 receptor antagonists appears to be the most effective agent in this drug class.

AREAS COVERED

Palonosetron's chemistry, pharmacodynamics, pharmacokinetics, metabolism, clinical efficacy, including comparison with other antiemetics, role in controlling nausea, potential role in multi-day chemotherapy and bone marrow transplantation, and overall safety are discussed.

EXPERT OPINION

The clinical data in the literature have established palonosetron as the 5-HT3 receptor antagonist of choice in terms of efficacy and safety for the prevention of CINV for patients receiving moderately or highly emetogenic chemotherapy. Three international guidelines have listed palonosetron as the preferred 5-HT3 receptor antagonist. Due to its higher efficacy, the use of palonosetron may be more cost effective compared to the generic first-generation 5-HT3 receptor antagonists. Clinical organizations' pharmacy and formulary committees should consider efficacy when making recommendations for agents for the prevention of CINV.

Palonosetron in the management of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in patients receiving multiple-day chemotherapy

Prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is a key component of treatment for patients with cancer. Guidelines are available to assist prescribers in the management of CINV associated with single-day chemotherapy regimens. However, currently there are no clear guidelines for management of CINV in patients receiving multiple-day chemotherapy regimens. Serotonin (5-HT₃) receptor antagonists are a mainstay in preventing CINV, and palonosetron, given its longer half-life and duration of action relative to other 5-HT₃ receptor antagonists, may be a useful option for managing CINV in multiple-day chemotherapy. Here we provide an overview of CINV and CINV treatment options, with a focus on palonosetron. We describe existing challenges in managing CINV, and discuss two patients receiving multiple-day chemotherapy, in whom CINV was managed successfully with palonosetron.