The Safety of Olanzapine in Young Children: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Anti-Emetics in Children Receiving Chemotherapy for Solid Tumors and Leukemia: Pharmacology and Optimization of Therapy for Nausea and Vomiting

The management of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in children remains challenging due to differences in the chemotherapy regimens, their relative emetogenicity compared to that in adults and differences in drug metabolism and the available formulations. The common four classes of anti-emetics used for the treatment and prophylaxis of CINV in children include dexamethasone, neurokinin-1 receptor antagonists, 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 receptor antagonists (5HT3RAs), and olanzapine. The appropriate dose of dexamethasone for CINV prophylaxis in children is unknown, with a significant variability in dosage ranging between 6 and 32 mg/m2/day. The dose of dexamethasone is decreased by 30% when this drug is combined with (fos)aprepitant in children, in contrast to a decrease of 50% required in adults. The use of aprepitant in younger children (<12 years) is often hampered by the non-availability of oral suspension formulations in many countries; alternatively, 80 mg capsules are administered for 1-3 days in certain institutes to children weighing between 15 and 40 kg. Among the different 5HT3RAs, palonosetron is comparatively metabolized faster in children than in adults, requiring a higher dosage for similar efficacy to that achieved in adults. Olanzapine is a newer agent, used in doses between 0.1 and 0.14 mg/kg/day in children, with good anti-emetic efficacy, but has sedation and hyperglycemia as concerning adverse effects. Drug interactions between anti-emetics and between anti-emetics and chemotherapy/supportive agents (azole antifungals, cyclosporine, arsenic trioxide), especially QTc prolongation, should be considered during prescription.

Efficacy and Safety of Olanzapine for the Prevention of Chemotherapy-induced Nausea and Vomiting in Children: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) remain the most distressing event in patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) and moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC). This meta-analysis was conducted to evaluate the efficacy and safety of olanzapine containing regimen in preventing CINV in children on HEC and MEC. We searched PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane central register of controlled trials electronic databases to identify randomized clinical trials that compared 2 groups who either got olanzapine (olanzapine group) or placebo/no olanzapine (control group) for the prevention of CINV in children. The primary outcome was to determine the efficacy of olanzapine (complete response). The secondary outcomes were nausea control, the need for rescue medications, and adverse events of olanzapine. Three randomized clinical trials (n=394 patients) were included in this meta-analysis (olanzapine group, n=194, and placebo/control group, n=200). The pooled analysis of this meta-analysis found that olanzapine had a higher complete response in all phases of emesis in the HEC group and only in the acute phase in HEC/MEC groups compared with the control group. Olanzapine had higher nausea control in all phases of HEC but no nausea control in HEC/MEC. Olanzapine also reduced the need for rescue medications. A significant number of patients in the olanzapine group experienced somnolence (grades 1 and 2), but none of the participants discontinued the study due to side effects. In conclusion, this meta-analysis showed that olanzapine significantly prevented CINV in HEC. There was also a lesser need for rescue medications in the olanzapine group. Somnolence was higher in the olanzapine group, but it was clinically insignificant.

Prevention of acute and delayed chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in pediatric cancer patients: A clinical practice guideline

This clinical practice guideline provides recommendations for preventing acute and delayed phase chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in pediatric patients. The recommendations are based on two systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials evaluating interventions to prevent (1) acute phase CINV and (2) delayed phase CINV. Recommendations for acute phase and delayed phase CINV prophylaxis are made for patients receiving chemotherapy of varying emetogenicity, as well as for patients not able to receive dexamethasone or a neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist. Evidence gaps, including antiemetic safety and optimal dosing, were identified.

[Antineoplastic drug-induced nausea and vomiting in pediatric onco-hematology: 2022: Guidelines from the supportive care committee of the French Society of Childhood Cancer (SFCE)]

Nausea and vomiting induced by cancer treatment (CINV) remain one of the most common and feared side effects in children despite the use of new drugs to prevent them. The existing recommendations for the prophylaxis and treatment of CINV are based on adult patients in Anglo-Saxon societies. Based on a recent review of the literature, we focused on specific pediatric issues in order to offer recommendations validated by the supportive care committee of the French society for childhood cancer.

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.

A review of key strategies to address the shortage of analgesics and sedatives in pediatric intensive care

IMPORTANCE

Targeted analgosedation is a challenge in critically ill children, and this challenge becomes even more significant with drug shortages.

OBSERVATIONS

Published guidelines inform the provision of analgosedation in critically ill children. This review provides insights into general approaches using these guidelines during drug shortages in Pediatric Intensive Care Units as well as strategies to optimize both pharmacological and non-pharmacological approaches in these situations.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Considering that drug shortages are a recurrent worldwide problem, this review may guide managing these drugs in critically ill children in situations of scarcity, such as in pandemics or disasters.

Treatable Hyperkinetic Movement Disorders Not to Be Missed

Hyperkinetic movement disorders are characterized by the presence of abnormal involuntary movements, comprising most notably dystonia, chorea, myoclonus, and tremor. Possible causes are numerous, including autoimmune disorders, infections of the central nervous system, metabolic disturbances, genetic diseases, drug-related causes and functional disorders, making the diagnostic process difficult for clinicians. Some diagnoses may be delayed without serious consequences, but diagnosis delays may prove detrimental in treatable disorders, ranging from functional disabilities, as in dopa-responsive dystonia, to death, as in Whipple's disease. In this review, we focus on treatable disorders that may present with prominent hyperkinetic movement disorders.

Coadministration of metformin prevents olanzapine-induced metabolic dysfunction and regulates the gut-liver axis in rats

OBJECTIVE

Olanzapine is widely prescribed for patients with mental disorders; however, it may induce metabolic dysfunction. Metformin is an efficient adjuvant for preventing olanzapine-induced metabolic dysfunction in clinical practice. Although the mechanism of how metformin prevents this metabolic dysfunction remains unknown, changes in the gut-liver axis are considered a potential explanation.

METHODS

Forty-eight male rats were gavaged with olanzapine and/or metformin for 35 consecutive days. Body weight, food intake, and water intake were measured daily. Histopathological and biochemical tests were performed to evaluate the metabolic dysfunction. The 16S rRNA obtained from fecal bacterial DNA was assessed.

RESULTS

Olanzapine treatment increased the body weight, blood glucose and triglyceride levels, and the number of adipocytes in the liver. While coadministration of metformin, there was a dose-dependent reverse of the abnormal changes induced by olanzapine treatment. Both olanzapine and metformin treatments altered the composition of the gut microbiota. Bacteroides acidifaciens and Lactobacillus gasseri were possibly played a positive role in metformin-mediated olanzapine-induced metabolic dysfunction prevention.

CONCLUSION

Metformin prevented olanzapine-induced metabolic dysfunction and regulated the gut microbiota in a dose-dependent manner.

Olanzapine for Prevention of Vomiting in Children and Adolescents Receiving Highly Emetogenic Chemotherapy: Investigator-Initiated, Randomized, Open-Label Trial

PURPOSE

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is a significant toxicity of chemotherapy. Olanzapine is recommended in adult patients for the prevention of CINV but has not been prospectively investigated in children.

METHODS

This investigator-initiated, randomized, open-label trial evaluated olanzapine in children (ages 5-18 years) scheduled to receive the first cycle of highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC). All participants received aprepitant, ondansetron, and dexamethasone during and 2 days after chemotherapy. Participants in the study group additionally received oral olanzapine 0.14 mg/kg/day (rounded to the nearest 2.5 mg; maximum, 10 mg) during the chemotherapy block and 3 days postchemotherapy. The primary objective was to compare complete response (CR) rates (no vomiting and no rescue medication) between the groups in the acute, delayed, and overall periods. Nausea comparison and safety evaluation were secondary and additional objectives, respectively. The collection of outcomes and adverse events was performed daily until the completion of the overall period.

RESULTS

A total of 240 patients underwent randomization. We performed a modified intention-to-treat analysis on 231 patients (116 in the control group and 115 in the study group). A higher proportion of patients in the olanzapine group achieved CR in the acute period (78% v 59%; P = .001), delayed period (74% v 47%; P < .001) and overall period (64% v 38%; P < .001) than in the control group. The proportion of patients with no nausea was significantly higher in the olanzapine group in the acute period (74% v 52%; P < .001), delayed period (74% v 47%; P < .001), and overall period (64% v 37%; P < .001). Grade 1/2 somnolence was greater in the olanzapine group (35% v 11%; P < .001). There was no grade 3/4 somnolence reported.

CONCLUSION

Olanzapine significantly improved CR rates for vomiting in children receiving the first cycle of HEC.

Psychopharmacology in the Pediatric Oncology and Bone Marrow Transplant Units: Antipsychotic Medications Palliate Symptoms in Children with Cancer

Objectives: The present study characterized the psychiatric diagnoses and symptoms that led to the administration of antipsychotic medications in children and adolescents with cancer, and to evaluate the benefits and tolerability of these drugs in a large hospital-based pediatric hematology-oncology practice. Methods: Efficacy and adverse effects of two second-generation antipsychotics were retrospectively analyzed in 43 patients 2.9-19.6 (mean 12.1) years of age. The Clinical Global Impression-Severity (CGI-S) Scale and Improvement (CGI-I) Scale were used to evaluate psychiatric symptom severity before and following treatment, while the incidence of side effects and drug-drug interactions were collected from medical records. Results: Olanzapine was administered to 58% of patients and risperidone to 42%; the choice of drug was at the discretion of the treating psychiatrist. The common psychiatric diagnoses among these patients included adjustment disorder (37%) and medication-induced psychiatric disorders (23%). The most common psychiatric-medical symptoms included irritability/agitation (79%) and depressed mood (74%). CGI-S improved significantly (p < 0.001) between assessments, with no statistically significant difference between olanzapine- and risperidone-treated patients. CGI-I scores at reassessment indicated superiority of olanzapine as compared with risperidone. Adverse effects of treatment were mild. Conclusions: Olanzapine and risperidone can be well tolerated and ameliorate severe psychiatric-medical symptoms in children and adolescents with cancer. The potential palliative benefits of these second-generation antipsychotics (e.g., rapid onset of action, antiemesis, sedation, and appetite stimulation) increase the utility of their use in children treated in oncology and bone marrow transplant units.

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.

Olanzapine versus metoclopramide for the treatment of breakthrough chemotherapy-induced vomiting in children: An open-label, randomized phase 3 trial

BACKGROUND

Breakthrough chemotherapy-induced vomiting (CIV) is defined as CIV occurring after adequate antiemetic prophylaxis. Olanzapine and metoclopramide are two drugs recommended for the treatment of breakthrough CIV in children, without adequate evidence. We conducted an open-label, single-center, phase 3 randomized controlled trial comparing the safety and efficacy of olanzapine and metoclopramide for treating breakthrough CIV.

PROCEDURE

Children aged 5-18 years who developed breakthrough CIV after receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy or moderately emetogenic chemotherapy were randomly assigned to the metoclopramide or olanzapine arm. The primary objective of the study was to compare the complete response (CR) rates between patients receiving olanzapine or metoclopramide for treating breakthrough CIV during 72 hours after the administration of the study drug. Secondary objectives were to compare CR rates for nausea and toxicities between the two arms.

RESULTS

Eighty patients were analyzed (39 in the olanzapine arm and 41 in the metoclopramide arm). CR rates were significantly higher in the olanzapine arm compared with the metoclopramide arm for vomiting (72% vs 39%, P = 0.003) and nausea (59% vs 34%, P = 0.026). Seven patients in the metoclopramide arm crossed over to the olanzapine arm and none crossed over in the olanzapine arm (P < 0.001). The mean nausea score in the olanzapine arm was significantly lower than the metoclopramide arm after the initiation of the rescue antiemetic (P = 0.01). Hyperglycemia and drowsiness were more commonly seen in the olanzapine arm.

CONCLUSION

Olanzapine is superior to metoclopramide for the treatment of breakthrough CIV in children. Drowsiness and hyperglycemia need to be monitored closely in children receiving olanzapine for breakthrough CIV.

Update on the Pharmacological Treatment of Tics with Dopamine-Modulating Agents

More than 40 years of research and clinical practice have proven the effectiveness of dopamine receptor antagonists in the pharmacological treatment of tics. A blockade of the striatal dopamine-D2 receptors is mainly responsible for their tic-reducing effect. A broad spectrum of dopamine-modulating agents, such as typical and atypical antipsychotics, but also dopamine receptor agonists are used with an immanent discord between experts about which of them should be considered as first choice. The present Review outlines the state of the art on pharmacological treatment of tics with dopamine-modulating agents by giving an systematic overview of studies on their effectiveness and a critical discussion of their specific adverse effects. It is considered as an update of a previous review of our research group published in 2013. The Review closes with a description of the current resulting treatment recommendations including the results of a first published revised survey on European expert's prescription preferences. Based on the enormously growing evidence on its effectiveness and safety, aripiprazole currently seems to be the most promising agent in the pharmacological treatment of tics. Furthermore, benzamides (especially tiapride), which are commonly used in Europe, have proven their excellent effectiveness-tolerability profile over decades in clinical practice and are therefore also highly recommended for the treatment of tics. Nevertheless, pharmacological treatment of tics remains an indiviual choice depending on each patient's own specific needs.

Management of Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting in Pediatric Patients

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is associated with a significant deterioration in quality of life and is perceived by patients as a major adverse effect of the treatment. This review summarizes the safety and efficacy of current antiemetic agents for the prevention of CINV in children. Information on antiemetic prophylaxis for CINV in children was obtained from a literature review of current peer-reviewed articles and recent international guidelines. The literature review and the international antiemetic guidelines provide recommendations for use of specific antiemetics in children based on the emetogenicity of the chemotherapy. 5-Hydroxytryptamine-3 (5-HT₃) receptor antagonists have been safe and effective in the prevention of acute emesis with a few patients experiencing mild headache. No adequate studies have been conducted to date for specific recommendations for the prevention of delayed nausea and vomiting in children. The neurokinin (NK)-₁ receptor antagonist aprepitant has been approved by the US FDA for use in children of a specific age and weight. No studies for the NK₁ receptor antagonists netupitant and rolapitant in children have been conducted. Olanzapine, an antipsychotic, has been shown to be safe and effective in preventing nausea and emesis in adult patients receiving chemotherapy. Its use in children has been limited to children with poor control of CINV; more studies are necessary in this population. In conclusion, practitioners should follow international antiemetic guidelines to provide patients with the specific antiemetics in the recommended dose for the highest possible quality of care.

Activating and Tranquilizing Effects of First-Time Treatment with Aripiprazole, Olanzapine, Quetiapine, and Risperidone in Youth

OBJECTIVE

To assess activating and tranquilizing effects of second-generation antipsychotics (SGAs) in youth.

METHODS

As part of the naturalistic inception cohort study, "Second-generation Antipsychotic Treatment Indication, Effectiveness and Tolerability in Youth (SATIETY)," subjective ratings of activating and tranquilizing symptoms were obtained monthly for 3 months from antipsychotic-naïve youth initiating SGAs using the Treatment Emergent Symptoms Scale (TESS). Discontinuation rates, and TESS-reported symptom rates, and severity were related to clinical and treatment parameters. Two compound measures of TESS were defined: presence of any daytime activating (ACTIVATION+) and sedating symptoms (SEDATION+).

RESULTS

In 327 antipsychotic-naïve youth originally initiating the four studied SGAs, discontinuation due to sedation was marginally highest with quetiapine (13.0%) followed by olanzapine (7.3%), risperidone (4.2%), and aripiprazole (2.0%) (p = 0.056). Two hundred fifty-seven antipsychotic-naïve youth (13.8 ± 3.6 years, male = 57.8%) initiated aripiprazole (n = 40), olanzapine (n = 45), quetiapine (n = 36), or risperidone (n = 135) and completed ≥1 postbaseline follow-up visit. Baseline prevalence of ACTIVATION+ (39.9%) or SEDATION+ (54.1%) did not differ between SGAs. Rates of both compound measures changed significantly over time (decrease for ACTIVATION+, p = 0.0002; increase for SEDATION+, p < 0.0001) with slight differences between SGAs, explained by lower rates of ACTIVATION+ with olanzapine (p = 0.002) and slightly higher rates of ACTIVATION+ with aripiprazole (p = 0.018) during follow-up, and lower rates of SEDATION+ with aripiprazole (p = 0.018). All four SGAs reduced insomnia (p = 0.001) and increased hypersomnia (p < 0.001). Postbaseline prevalence of drowsiness, the most frequent, but mild TESS complaint was 85%, without SGA differences. Younger age was associated with activating symptoms, higher age with sedating symptoms, and lower baseline functioning increased both. Psychomotor retardation rates were high in subjects with schizophrenia-spectrum disorders, whereas stimulant comedication was associated with psychomotor activation, regardless of diagnosis.

CONCLUSIONS

Although small SGA-specific differences in activating/sedating compound side effect measures were noted, independent predictors of single TESS ratings included clinical parameters, rather than specific SGAs, suggesting a need for carefully individualized treatment strategies.

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.