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

Effects of olanzapine in the improvement of body weight and appetite in patients with cancer or receiving chemotherapy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to assess the effects of olanzapine in the improvement of body weight and appetite in patients with cancer or receiving chemotherapy through a systematic review and meta-analysis.

METHODS

We searched the following databases from their inception to April 23, 2024: Embase, PubMed, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library. The mean difference (MD) and risk ratios were used to calculate by random effects models. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients with > 5% weight gain.

RESULTS

Seventeen studies with 3457 participants were included. For primary outcomes, 1 study with 124 participants showed olanzapine increased the proportion of patients with > 5% weight gain compared with placebo (60% vs. 9%, P < 0.001). Versus active controls (3 studies, 439 participants), no significant difference in the proportion of patients with > 5% weight gain (RR = 1.69, 95%CI: 0.91 to 3.13, I2 = 27%, P = 0.10), with moderate-quality evidence. Olanzapine increased appetite scores compared to both placebo (1 study, 112 participants; MD = 3, 95%CI: 2.3 to 3.7, P < 0.001) and active controls (2 studies, 106 participants; MD = 4.96, 95%CI: 4.61 to 5.30, I2 = 0%, P < 0.01). For mean weight change, olanzapine showed no significant differences versus placebo (2 studies, 164 participants, MD = 2.78 kg, 95%CI: - 1.60 to 7.17, I2 = 48%, P = 0.21) or active controls (2 studies, 480 participants, MD = 0.44 kg, 95%CI: - 1.04 to 1.91, I2 = 58%, P = 0.56).

CONCLUSIONS

Olanzapine appears to be a potential option for improving appetite and weight gain in cancer patients. Future trials need to focus on the optimal target dose and use durations of olanzapine. Registered: https://archive.org/details/osf-registrations-kpv4h-v .

A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase II study of olanzapine-based prophylactic antiemetic therapy for delayed and persistent nausea and vomiting in patients with HER2-positive or HER2-low breast cancer treated with trastuzumab deruxtecan: ERICA study (WJOG14320B)

BACKGROUND

Nausea and vomiting are common adverse events associated with trastuzumab deruxtecan (T-DXd). We evaluated the efficacy of an olanzapine-based triplet regimen for preventing nausea and vomiting in patients receiving their first cycle T-DXd.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This multi-institutional, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled (ERICA) phase II study enrolled patients with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-positive/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-low metastatic breast cancer receiving their first cycle of T-DXd. Patients were randomized to olanzapine 5 mg or placebo once daily (1 : 1 ratio) from day 1 to day 6, plus a 5-hydroxytryptamine type 3 receptor antagonist and dexamethasone 6.6 mg intravenously or 8 mg orally on day 1. The total observation period was 504 h (21 days) from the first T-DXd administration. The primary endpoint was complete response (CR), defined as no emetic events and no rescue medications, in the delayed phase (24-120 h after T-DXd), with the type I error rate of 0.2 (one-sided) for the comparison. Secondary endpoints included no nausea rate in the delayed and persistent phases (120-504 h), adverse event by Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) and patient-reported outcomes version of the CTCAE (PRO-CTCAE).

RESULTS

In total, 168 patients were enrolled at 43 sites in Japan (November 2021-September 2023) with 162 patients (olanzapine, n = 80; placebo, n = 82) included in the per protocol set. The primary endpoint was met as the delayed phase CR rate was significantly greater with olanzapine than placebo (70.0% versus 56.1%, P = 0.047). Efficacy was maintained in the persistent phase (63.9% versus 44.4%). No nausea rate was also greater with olanzapine (delayed phase: 57.5% versus 37.8%; persistent phase: 51.4% versus 31.9%). CR rates in the delayed phase favored olanzapine across subgroups. Appetite loss was also decreased with olanzapine. Hyperglycemia and somnolence were mostly of low-grade severity.

CONCLUSION

Olanzapine 5 mg for 6 days with 5-hydroxytryptamine type 3 receptor antagonist and dexamethasone appears effective for T-DXd-treated patients to prevent delayed and persistent nausea and vomiting.

2023 updated MASCC/ESMO consensus recommendations: prevention of nausea and vomiting following high-emetic-risk antineoplastic agents

PURPOSE

This systematic review updates the MASCC/ESMO recommendations for high-emetic-risk chemotherapy (HEC) published in 2016-2017. HEC still includes cisplatin, carmustine, dacarbazine, mechlorethamine, streptozocin, and cyclophosphamide in doses of > 1500 mg/m2 and the combination of cyclophosphamide and an anthracycline (AC) in women with breast cancer.

METHODS

A systematic review report following the PRISMA guidelines of the literature from January 1, 2015, until February 1, 2023, was performed. PubMed (Ovid), Scopus (Google), and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews were searched. The literature search was limited to randomized controlled trials, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses.

RESULTS

Forty-six new references were determined to be relevant. The main topics identified were (1) steroid-sparing regimens, (2) olanzapine-containing regimens, and (3) other issues such as comparisons of antiemetics of the same drug class, intravenous NK1 receptor antagonists, and potentially new antiemetics. Five updated recommendations are presented.

CONCLUSION

There is no need to prescribe steroids (dexamethasone) beyond day 1 after AC HEC, whereas a 4-day regimen is recommended in non-AC HEC. Olanzapine is now recommended as a fixed part of a four-drug prophylactic antiemetic regimen in both non-AC and AC HEC. No major differences between 5-HT3 receptor antagonists or between NK1 receptor antagonists were identified. No new antiemetic agents qualified for inclusion in the updated recommendations.

Multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase II study of prophylactic olanzapine for patients with metastatic breast cancer receiving T-DXd treatment: protocol for the ERICA study (WJOG14320B)

INTRODUCTION

The antibody-drug conjugate trastuzumab deruxtecan (T-DXd) has led to a change in the clinical management of breast cancer. Nausea and vomiting are the most common adverse events of T-DXd, which cannot be completely alleviated by standard prophylactic regimens. Olanzapine is particularly effective in preventing delayed nausea caused by chemotherapy. In this study, we will evaluate the efficacy of olanzapine in managing persistent nausea and vomiting during T-DXd treatment.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

The ERICA study is a multicentre, placebo-controlled, double-blind, randomised phase II study with the aim to evaluate the antiemetic effects of the prophylactic olanzapine (5 mg orally, on days 1-6) or placebo combined with a 1,5-hydroxytryptamine-3 (5-HT₃)-receptor antagonist and dexamethasone in patients with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-positive metastatic breast cancer undergoing T-DXd treatment. For a period of 22 days from the day of T-DXd treatment, patients will document their experience in an electronic symptom diary daily during observational periods. The primary endpoint is the complete response rate, defined as no vomiting and no rescue medications during the 'delayed phase' of 24-120 hours post-T-DXd administration. In addition, we define 120-504 hour as the 'persistent phase' and 0-504 hours as the 'overall phase' for secondary endpoint analysis. We have estimated that a total sample size of at least 156 patients is needed to allow a power of 80% at a one-sided significance level of 20% in this study. The target sample size is set to 166 to account for possible case exclusions.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The study protocol is approved by the West Japan Oncology Group protocol review committee and the SHOWA University Clinical Research Review Board. The study results will be presented at international conferences and published in a peer-reviewed journal.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

jRCTs031210410.

Efficacy and Safety of Olanzapine in Children Receiving Highly Emetogenic Chemotherapy: A Randomized, Double-blind Placebo-controlled Phase 3 Trial

BACKGROUND

In this trial, we evaluated the safety and efficacy of olanzapine in children receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In this study, patients aged 3 to 18 years were randomly assigned to either the olanzapine group or the placebo group. All patients received intravenous ondansetron and dexamethasone 30 minutes before highly emetogenic chemotherapy, followed by oral ondansetron for 48 hours. Participants in the olanzapine group received olanzapine once daily on days 1 and 2, while those in the control group received a placebo in the same dosage and schedule. The primary objective was: (a) to compare the complete control rates of vomiting in the delayed phase and (b) to compare the complete control rates of vomiting in acute and overall phases. The secondary objective was to evaluate the safety of olanzapine and the need for rescue medications.

RESULTS

A total of 128 patients were randomly assigned either to the olanzapine group (n=63) or the control group (n=65). Complete control of vomiting between olanzapine and placebo group was 73% versus 48% ( P =0.005) in the delayed phase, 60% versus 54% ( P =0.46) in the acute phase, and 48% versus 34% ( P =0.117) in the overall phase, respectively. Grades 1 and 2 sedation was greater in the olanzapine group (46% vs. 14%; P <0.001). A significantly higher proportion of patients in the placebo group required rescue medications for vomiting compared with in the olanzapine group ( P =0.025).

CONCLUSIONS

Olanzapine significantly improved complete control of vomiting in the delayed phase. A considerably lesser proportion of patients in the olanzapine group needed rescue medications.

Cost-effectiveness of palonosetron and dexamethasone-based triple and quadruple regimens in preventing highly emetogenic chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting

OBJECTIVE

Cost-effectiveness analyses that consider all currently used antiemetics in the case of emetogenic chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) have not been performed yet. We aim to compare the cost-effectiveness of olanzapine (OLA), or/and neurokinin-1 receptor antagonists (NK-1-RAs), in combination with palonosetron (PAL) and dexamethasone (DEX) in preventing highly emetogenic CINV.

METHODS

Two decision analytic models were constructed. The first model was based on overall complete response (CR); the second model was based on rate of absence of nausea. Four antiemetic regimens PAL + DEX, NK-1-RAs + PAL + DEX, OLA + PAL + DEX, and PAL + NK-1-RA + DEX + OLA were compared in terms of cost, overall CR and rate of absence of nausea. Base case incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) estimates were calculated. The study was from the US payer perspective.

RESULTS

In terms of CR, the PAL + NK-1-RA + DEX + OLA was associated with the highest gains in the percentage of CR among all treatment regimens at base case ICERs of $4220 versus PAL + DEX, $4656 versus NK-1-RA + PAL + DEX, $16,471 versus OLA + PAL + DEX. In term of rate of absence of nausea, the PAL + NK-1-RA + DEX + OLA was associated with the highest rate of absence of nausea among all the treatment regimens at base case ICERs of $2291 versus PAL + DEX, $1304 versus NK-1-RA + PAL + DEX, $2657 versus OLA + PAL + DEX.

CONCLUSION

from an economic perspective, our study revealed that whether to use overall CR or/and rate of absence of nausea as determinants in the antiemetic decision for the CINV patients, the CR-based-, and rate of absence of nausea-based cost-effectiveness analyses, showed negotiable ICER estimates for the treatment PAL + NK-1-RA + DEX + OLA over the combinations PAL + DEX, NK-1-RA + PAL + DEX, and OLA + PAL + DEX regimens.

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.

Supportive care for the prevention of nausea, vomiting and anorexia in a phase 1B study of selinexor in advanced cancer patients: an exploratory study

INTRODUCTION

Clinical observations of cancer patients treated with selinexor have reported high incidence of nausea and anorexia. The study objective was to investigate the adoption of prophylactic olanzapine for the prevention of nausea, vomiting and anorexia in cancer patients receiving selinexor and standard chemotherapy.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed supportive care interventions in patients receiving selinexor and recorded frequency of adverse events (NCI-CTAE). Association between categorical variables were analyzed using Fisher's exact tests; repeated measures analysis was performed to assess weight changes over time.

RESULTS

Of 124 evaluable patients, 83 (66.9%) were female, 93 were white (75.0%), and the most common cancer was ovarian (N = 30, 24.2%). One hundred and four patients (83.9%) received olanzapine, of which 93 (89.4%) were prophylactically treated, the majority (86.5%) receiving low 2.5 mg daily dose. Other anti-emetics included ondansetron in 90 patients (72.6%), dexamethasone prescribed in 50 patients (40.3%) and metoclopramide in 49 patients (39.5%), while aprepitant/fosaprepitant (N = 2, 1.6%) were prescribed infrequently. Cancer patients receiving prophylactic olanzapine (N = 93) compared to patients who never received olanzapine (N = 20) had more Grade 1 + anorexia (31.2% vs 20.0%), less nausea (53.8% vs 70.0%), less vomiting (33.3% vs 40.0%), and increased hyperglycemia (29.0% vs 10.0%), but differences were non-statistically significant. In addition, there was minimal weight loss over time in both groups and no statistically significant differences in weight loss between groups.

CONCLUSION

Prophylactic olanzapine decreased nausea, vomiting and maintained weight over 3 months but did not prevent anorexia in patients receiving selinexor and chemotherapy. Low dose olanzapine was well tolerated but associated with hyperglycemia.

Olanzapine combined with 5-hydroxytryptamine type 3 receptor antagonist (5-HT3 RA) plus dexamethasone for prevention and treatment of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in high and moderate emetogenic chemotherapy: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

We performed a pooled analysis to evaluate the efficacy and adverse events (AEs) of olanzapine combined with dexamethasone plus 5-hydroxytryptamine type 3 receptor antagonist (5-HT3 RA) compared with 5-HT3 RA plus dexamethasone for the prevention and treatment of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in high and moderate emetogenic chemotherapy based on randomised controlled trials (RCTs). PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, the Cochrane Library, China Biomedical Literature database (CBM), WanFang Database, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), and Chinese Science and Technology Periodical Database (VIP) (from their inception to April 2019) were searched to capture relevant articles. Relative risk with 95% confidence intervals for CINV and AEs were all extracted or calculated. Eleven studies with 1107 cancer patients were involved in this review. The pooled RR of delayed CINV (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.38 to 0.66; p<0.01) were significantly decreased in the olanzapine group. The occurrence of insomnia was also statistically decreased, as was the rate of acute CINV (RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.48 to 0.75; p<0.01). However, only the percentages of CINV III and CINV IV were significantly decreased in the acute and delayed phases. Subgroup analysis demonstrated that the efficacy was not statistically significantly different between 5 mg and 10 mg olanzapine. Olanzapine significantly decreased the occurrence of CINV III and IV and insomnia in high and moderately emetogenic chemotherapy. Compared with 10 mg per day, 5 mg oral olanzapine may be more appropriate for patients with cancer.

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.

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 quality of life improvement among patients with malignant tumor: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Cancer patients always experience an ongoing deterioration in health-related quality of life (HRQoL). There is a strengthening awareness of health care professionals of taking HRQoL, which is a patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), into consideration when they make an adequate selection in clinical practice. Olanzapine, an antipsychotic agent, has been demonstrated to be a safe and effective agent in improving cancer-related symptoms.

AIM

To review the efficacy and safety of olanzapine in improving HRQoL among adults with malignant tumor.

METHODS

Eligible studies were retrieved from an electronic database search of the Cochrane, Medline, CINAHL plus, Pubmed, Embase, PsycINFO, Web of Science, and Scopus. The methodological quality of selected studies was evaluated, and the relevant data were extracted and synthesized.

RESULTS

While studies differed in target population, olanzapine-based treatment regimen, and HRQoL measurement tools, results have shown that olanzapine has a positive impact on cancer patients' general HRQoL status, functional outcomes, and/or symptoms improvement. Besides, no serious toxicities attributable to olanzapine were observed in all studies included.

CONCLUSION

While further studies are needed especially which adopted the HRQoL as primary outcome through comprehensive measures, olanzapine could still be recommended in the palliative care.

Expert Consensus on Effective Management of Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting: An Indian Perspective

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is one of the most common and feared side effects in cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy. Scientific evidence proves its detrimental impact on a patient's quality of life (QoL), treatment compliance, and overall healthcare cost. Despite the CINV-management landscape witnessing a radical shift with the introduction of novel, receptor-targeting antiemetic agents, this side effect remains a chink in the armor of a treating oncologist. Though global guidelines acknowledge patient-specific risk factors and chemotherapeutic agent emetogenic potential in CINV control, a "one-fit-for-all" approach cannot be followed across all geographies. Hence, in a pioneering attempt, India-based oncologists conveyed easily implementable, region-specific, consensus-based statements on CINV prevention and management. These statements resulted from integrating the analysis of scientific evidence and guidelines on CINV by the experts, with their clinical experience. The statements will strengthen decision-making abilities of Indian oncologists/clinicians and help in achieving consistency in CINV prevention and management in the country. Furthermore, this document shall lay the foundation for developing robust Indian guidelines for CINV prevention and control.

Mirtazapine, a dopamine receptor inhibitor, as a secondary prophylactic for delayed nausea and vomiting following highly emetogenic chemotherapy: an open label, randomized, multicenter phase III trial

Background We examined the efficacy of mirtazapine in preventing delayed nausea and vomiting following highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC). Patients and methods Patients who had experienced delayed emesis and would be subsequently scheduled for at least three more cycles of the same chemotherapy were randomly assigned to either a mirtazapine (15 mg daily on days 2-4) or a control group. In addition, both groups received a standard triplet regimen comprising aprepitant, a 5-HT3 receptor antagonist, and dexamethasone (7.5 mg on days 2-4). The chemotherapy regimens were either an epirubicin plus cyclophosphamide regimen or cisplatin-containing regimens. The primary end point was a complete response (no emesis and no rescue treatment) to the delayed phase (25-120 h post-chemotherapy) during Cycle 1. The impact on quality of life (QOL) was assessed using the Functional Living Index-Emesis (FLIE) questionnaire. Results Of 95 enrolled patients, 46 were assigned to the mirtazapine group and 49 to the control group. The complete response rate in the delayed phase during Cycle 1 was significantly higher with mirtazapine than in the control group (78.3% versus 49.0%, P = 0.003). The main adverse effects of mirtazapine were mild to moderate somnolence and weight gain. Mean total FLIE scores were similar between the two arms. Conclusions This is the first randomized prospective study to show that adding mirtazapine has a substantial and statistically significant benefit with good tolerance in patients with breast cancer who have experienced delayed emesis following the same prior HEC. (Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02336750).

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 of olanzapine, neurokinin-1 receptor antagonists, and thalidomide in combination with palonosetron plus dexamethasone in preventing highly emetogenic chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting: a Bayesian network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Olanzapine, neurokinin-1-receptor-antagonists (NK-1-RA), and thalidomide added to palonosetron + dexamethasone (PALO-DEX) have been evaluated in separate studies as prophylaxis for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) due to highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC). We conducted a Bayesian network meta-analysis to compare the prophylactic efficacy of these agents in combination with PALO-DEX.

METHODS

PubMed, Medline/Ovid, Embase, and Clinicaltrials.gov were searched from inception through 22 Mar 2018. Study quality was assessed using the Cochrane methodology. A Bayesian network meta-analysis using random-effects models was used to asses complete response (CR) and rate of no nausea (RNN) in acute, delayed, and overall phases and were expressed as odds ratios (OR) and 95% credible interval (95% CrI). Ranking probabilities of treatments were calculated using the surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) to identify the probability of a given treatment as the best option against the worst option.

RESULTS

Nine RCTs involving two thousand nine hundred fifty-nine patients were included. The olanzapine-based regimen showed greater CR in the acute, delayed, and overall-phases versus the PALO-DEX regimen (OR = 3.97, 95% CrI = 1.02-19.13; OR = 5.62, 95% CrI = 1.66-28.58; OR = 4.79, 95% CrI = 1.40-24.02, respectively). Additionally, it showed greater RNN than the NK-1-RA-based and the PALO-DEX regimens in the delayed phase only (OR = 2.90, 95% CrI = 1.34-5.15; OR = 4.53, 95% CrI = 1.89-10.55, respectively). Olanzapine-, NK-1-RA-, and thalidomide-based regimens did not differ in CR in the three phases. SUCRA probabilities ranked the olanzapine-based regimen as the best option in terms of CR and RNN, while ranking the NK-1-RA-based regimens as the second best option in terms of CR throughout the three phases.

CONCLUSION

Based on the data included in the analyses, there is insufficient evidence to support adding thalidomide or NK-1-RA to PALO-DEX in preventing CINV induced by HEC. However, adding olanzapine to PALO-DEX achieves better CR and RNN. Olanzapine side-effects and the absence of direct comparisons explain why some guidelines are cautious in suggesting the use of olanzapine.

Olanzapine for the prevention and treatment of cancer-related nausea and vomiting in adults

BACKGROUND

Olanzapine as an antiemetic represents a new use of an antipsychotic drug. People with cancer may experience nausea and vomiting whilst receiving chemotherapy or radiotherapy, or whilst in the palliative phase of illness.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy and safety of olanzapine when used as an antiemetic in the prevention and treatment of nausea and vomiting related to cancer in adults.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE and Embase for published data on 20th September 2017, as well as ClinicalTrials.gov and World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform for unpublished trials. We checked reference lists, and contacted experts in the field and study authors.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of olanzapine versus any comparator with or without adjunct therapies for the prevention or treatment, or both, of nausea or vomiting in people with cancer aged 18 years or older, in any setting, of any duration, with at least 10 participants per treatment arm.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard Cochrane methodology. We used GRADE to assess quality of evidence for each main outcome. We extracted data for absence of nausea or vomiting and frequency of serious adverse events as primary outcomes. We extracted data for patient perception of treatment, other adverse events, somnolence and fatigue, attrition, nausea or vomiting severity, breakthrough nausea and vomiting, rescue antiemetic use, and nausea and vomiting as secondary outcomes at specified time points.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 14 RCTs (1917 participants) from high-, middle- and low-income countries, representing over 24 different cancers. Thirteen studies were in chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting. Oral olanzapine was administered during highly emetogenic (HEC) or moderately emetogenic (MEC) chemotherapy (12 studies); chemoradiotherapy (one study); or palliation (one study). Eight studies await classification and 13 are ongoing.The main comparison was olanzapine versus placebo/no treatment. Other comparisons were olanzapine versus NK1 antagonist, prokinetic, 5-HT3 antagonist or dexamethasone.We assessed all but one study as having one or more domains that were at high risk of bias. Eight RCTs with fewer than 50 participants per treatment arm, and 10 RCTs with issues related to blinding, were at high risk of bias. We downgraded GRADE assessments due to imprecision, inconsistency and study limitations.Olanzapine versus placebo/no treatmentPrimary outcomesOlanzapine probably doubles the likelihood of no nausea or vomiting during chemotherapy from 25% to 50% (risk ratio (RR) 1.98, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.59 to 2.47; 561 participants; 3 studies; solid tumours; HEC or MEC therapy; moderate-quality evidence) when added to standard therapy. Number needed to treat for additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) was 5 (95% CI 3.3 - 6.6).It is uncertain if olanzapine increases the risk of serious adverse events (absolute risk difference 0.7% more, 95% CI 0.2 to 5.2) (RR 2.46, 95% CI 0.48 to 12.55; 7 studies, 889 participants, low-quality evidence).Secondary outcomesFour studies reported patient perception of treatment. One study (48 participants) reported no difference in patient preference. Four reported quality of life but data were insufficient for meta-analysis.Olanzapine may increase other adverse events (RR 1.71, 95% CI 0.99 to 2.96; 332 participants; 4 studies; low-quality evidence) and probably increases somnolence and fatigue compared to no treatment or placebo (RR 2.33, 95% CI 1.30 to 4.18; anticipated absolute risk 8.2% more, 95% CI 1.9 to 18.8; 464 participants; 5 studies; moderate-quality evidence). Olanzapine probably does not affect all-cause attrition (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.73; 943 participants; 8 studies; I² = 0%). We are uncertain if olanzapine increases attrition due to adverse events (RR 3.00, 95% CI 0.13 to 70.16; 422 participants; 6 studies). No participants withdrew due to lack of efficacy.We are uncertain if olanzapine reduces breakthrough nausea and vomiting (RR 0.38, 95% CI 0.10 to 1.47; 501 participants; 2 studies; I² = 54%) compared to placebo or no treatment. No studies reported 50% reduction in severity of nausea or vomiting, use of rescue antiemetics, or attrition.We are uncertain of olanzapine's efficacy in reducing acute nausea or vomiting. Olanzapine probably reduces delayed nausea (RR 1.71, 95% CI 1.40 to 2.09; 585 participants; 3 studies) and vomiting (RR 1.28, 95% CI 1.14 to 1.42; 702 participants; 5 studies).Subgroup analysis: 5 mg versus 10 mgPlanned subgroup analyses found that it is unclear if 5 mg is as effective an antiemetic as 10 mg. There is insufficient evidence to exclude the possibility that 5 mg may confer a lower risk of somnolence and fatigue than 10 mg.Other comparisonsOne study (20 participants) compared olanzapine versus NK1 antagonists. We observed no difference in any reported outcomes.One study (112 participants) compared olanzapine versus a prokinetic (metoclopramide), reporting that olanzapine may increase freedom from overall nausea (RR 2.95, 95% CI 1.73 to 5.02) and overall vomiting (RR 3.03, 95% CI 1.78 to 5.14).One study (62 participants) examined olanzapine versus 5-HT3 antagonists, reporting olanzapine may increase the likelihood of 50% or greater reduction in nausea or vomiting at 48 hours (RR 1.82, 95% CI 1.11 to 2.97) and 24 hours (RR 1.36, 95% CI 0.80 to 2.34).One study (229 participants) compared olanzapine versus dexamethasone, reporting that olanzapine may reduce overall nausea (RR 1.73, 95% CI 1.37 to 2.18), overall vomiting (RR 1.27, 95% CI 1.10 to 1.48), delayed nausea (RR 1.66, 95% CI 1.33 to 2.08) and delayed vomiting (RR 1.25, 95% CI 1.07 to 1.45).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is moderate-quality evidence that oral olanzapine probably increases the likelihood of not being nauseous or vomiting during chemotherapy from 25% to 50% in adults with solid tumours, in addition to standard therapy, compared to placebo or no treatment. There is uncertainty whether it increases serious adverse events. It may increase the likelihood of other adverse events, probably increasing somnolence and fatigue. There is uncertainty about relative benefits and harms of 5 mg versus 10 mg.We identified only RCTs describing oral administration. The findings of this review cannot be extrapolated to provide evidence about the efficacy and safety of any injectable form (intravenous, intramuscular or subcutaneous) of olanzapine.

Olanzapine with ondansetron and dexamethasone for the prevention of cisplatin-based chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in lung cancer

Olanzapine is an atypical antipsychotic that has shown efficacy for the treatment of nausea, anxiety, and insomnia. This study was conducted to evaluate the efficacy of olanzapine (5 mg) combined with 5-HT3 receptor antagonists and dexamethasone for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in lung patients receiving cisplatin-based (25 mg/m2 d1-3) highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC).Olanzapine (5 mg) was administered a day prior to cisplatin administration and continued on days 1 to 5. We evaluated complete response (CR) rate and rates of no nausea and no vomiting in 3 periods. In addition, Self-Rating Anxiety Scale (SAS), Self-rating Depression Scale (SDS), and The Functional Living Index-Emesis (FLIE) questionnaire were also assessed.A total of 40 lung cancer patients were included. CR for acute, delayed, and over all phases were 82.5%, 75.0%, and 70.0%, respectively. The rate of no nausea in the acute phase was 70.0% and 62.5% in delayed phase. The rate of no vomiting in the acute phase was 85.0%, and 77.5% in delayed phase. The rate of no nausea and no vomiting in the overall phase were 57.5% and 75.0%, respectively. The median SAS and SDS score were 37.9 and 41.6 in pre-chemotherapy, respectively. Up to day 6 after chemotherapy treatment, the median SAS and SDS score were 36.9 and 42.0, respectively. The median FLIE score was 111.7. The main side effects were grade 1 somnolence (35.0%) and mild constipation (52.5%).Around 5 mg olanzapine may be used as a potential, safe, and cost-beneficial alternative to prevent nausea and vomiting for HEC, particular for multiday chemotherapy regimen.

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.

Cisplatin-induced gastrointestinal toxicity: An update on possible mechanisms and on available gastroprotective strategies

Cisplatin (cis-diamminedichloroplatinum [II], CP) is most widely prescribed in chemotherapy and efficaciously treats diverse human cancers, with remission rates > 90% in testicular cancers. However, clinical use of CP is associated with numerous untoward side effects, in particular, at the gastrointestinal level that reduces the therapeutic efficacy of CP and often results in withdrawal of its clinical usage in long term cancer chemotherapy. Substantial strides have been made to identify effective protective strategies against CP-induced nephrotoxicity, hepatotoxicity and ototoxicity. Unfortunately, very limited studies have focused on CP-induced gastrointestinal toxicity and advances in developing potent gastroprotective strategies/agents are still lacking. The current article reviews the metabolism and pharmacokinetics of CP, mechanisms underlying CP-induced gastrointestinal toxicity and lastly displays the potential approaches including plant-derived agents (phytochemicals) utilized to counteract CP-induced gastrointestinal dysfunction. Furthermore, the gastroprotective agents described in the experimental literature have shown partial protection against CP-induced intestinal damage. This stresses the need to ascertain new information on the underlying mechanism and to discover novel combinatorial strategies for the abrogation of CP-induced gastrointestinal toxicity.

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in patients with advanced lung cancer during the first-line treatment: assessment by physicians, nurses, and patients from an Italian multicenter survey

PURPOSE

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) still represents a common side-effect of chemotherapy, and often, its perception differs between patients and healthcare professionals. The aim of this study was to evaluate the agreement on the perception of CINV and other items among clinicians, patients, and nurses.

METHODS

This observational prospective study was part of an evaluation program promoted by the Women Against Lung Cancer in Europe (WALCE) Onlus. From August 2015 to February 2016, a survey was administered in 11 oncologic institutions to 188 stage IV lung cancer patients and to their oncologists and nurses during first-line chemotherapy. Our survey investigated 11 aspects: anxiety, mood, weakness, appetite, nausea, vomiting, pain, drowsiness, breath, general condition, and trust in treatments. These items were assessed through Numerical Rating Scale at four consecutive evaluations: at T0 (immediately prior to the first cycle), at T1 (immediately prior to the second cycle), at T2 (immediately prior to the third cycle), and at T3 (immediately prior to the fourth cycle). Clinician versus patient (CvP), nurse versus patient (NvP), and clinician versus nurse (CvN) agreements were estimated applying Weighted Cohen's kappa. A multivariate logistic model and generalized equation estimates were applied to evaluate factors possibly influencing CINV development.

RESULTS

The incidence of patients reporting CINV varied from 40% at T0 to 71% at T3. Both CvP and NvP agreement on the investigated items were mainly moderate, slightly increasing over time, and becoming substantial for some items, in particular for NvP. Pre-chemotherapy anxiety in its mild, moderate, and severe manifestations, as well as mild, moderate, and severe anxiety experienced after chemotherapy start, exposed patients to a higher risk of anticipatory and acute/delayed CINV, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite clinical staff awareness of patients' status and perceptions, CINV still represents a clinical problem. This study confirms that particular attention should be paid to anxiety due to its key role in CINV development.

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.

Olanzapine for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting: systematic review and meta-analysis

Background:

Chemotherapy induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) remains the most distressing event in patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) or moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC).

Objective:

Therefore, this meta-analysis was conducted to evaluate the efficacy of olanzapine containing regimen in preventing acute, delayed and overall phases of CINV.

Methods:

PubMed, EBSCO, and Cochrane central register of controlled trials electronic databases were searched to identify RCTs that compared the effects of olanzapine with non-olanzapine regimen in preventing CINV. Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) that compared olanzapine containing regimen with non-olanzapine regimen were included. The primary outcomes were the percentage of patients achieving no vomiting or no nausea in acute, delayed and overall phases.

Results:

13 RCTs that enrolled 1686 participants were included in this meta-analysis. 852 patients were assigned to olanzapine and 834 patients were assigned to non-olanzapine regimen (other standard antiemetic regimen). The percentages of no emesis achieved were 87.5%, 76.2%, 73.6% in olanzapine versus 76.7%, 61.8%, and 56.4% in non-olanzapine regimen in acute, delayed and overall phases, respectively. The percentages of no nausea were 82%, 64.3%, 61.6% in olanzapine group versus 71.3%, 41.8%, and 40.6% in non-olanzapine group in acute, delayed and overall phases, respectively. In general, olanzapine containing regimen achieved statistical superiority to non-olanzapine regimen in no vomiting endpoint in acute phase (OR 2.16; 95%CI 1.60 to 2.91, p<0.00001; I-square=5%; p=0.40), delayed phase (OR 2.28; 95%CI 1.1.46 to 3.54, p=0.0003; I-square=65%; p=0.001) and overall phase (OR 2.48; 95%CI 1.59 to 3.86, p<0.0001; I-square=69%; p< 0.0001).

Conclusion:

The current meta-analysis showed that olanzapine was statistically and clinically superior to non-olanzapine regimen in preventing CINV in most domains of the parameters.

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.