Olanzapine for the prevention and treatment of chronic nausea and chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting

Integrating nutrition, physical exercise, psychosocial support and antiemetic drugs into CINV management: The road to success

Over the years, advancements in antiemetic drugs have improved chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) control. However, despite the antiemetics therapies, in a relevant number of adult patients (∼30 %), CINV is still persistent, leading to several complications, such as electrolyte imbalances, anorexia, and treatment discontinuation. Supportive care interventions have gained credibility in cancer care, helping to improve patients' psycho-physical condition, quality of life, and managing symptoms, including CINV. Physical exercise and tailored nutritional counseling have demonstrated benefits in reducing the severity of nausea and vomiting. Psychological intervention has been postulated as a key approach in controlling anticipatory nausea/vomiting, as well as acupuncture/acupressure has been shown to decrease nausea and vomiting after chemotherapy treatments. In the current review, we aim to provide a clinical update on current prophylactic and delayed antiemetic guidelines for CINV and an overview of the non-pharmacological interventions tested for alleviating CINV in patients with cancer.

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.

Olanzapine as Antiemetic Prophylaxis in Moderately Emetogenic Chemotherapy: A Phase 3 Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance

The role of olanzapine has not been adequately evaluated in moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC) regimens with or without neurokinin-1 receptor antagonists.

Objective

To evaluate whether addition of olanzapine to an MEC regimen reduces nausea, vomiting, and use of nausea rescue medications among patients with solid malignant tumors.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This multicenter, open-label phase 3 randomized clinical trial included patients aged 18 years or older with solid malignant tumors who were receiving oxaliplatin-, carboplatin-, or irinotecan-based chemotherapy. The trial was conducted at 3 institutes in India from March 26, 2019, to August 26, 2023; the final cutoff date for analysis was September 10, 2023.

Exposure

Patients were randomized 1:1 to dexamethasone, aprepitant, and palonosetron with olanzapine (experimental group) or without olanzapine (observation group). The experimental group received 10 mg of olanzapine orally once at night on days 1 through 3 of the chemotherapy regimen.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary end point was complete response (CR), defined as the proportion of patients with no vomiting, no significant nausea (scored as <5 on a visual analog scale of 1 to 100), and no use of rescue medications for nausea. Secondary end points included the proportion of patients experiencing nausea and chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV), receiving rescue medications, and experiencing adverse events.

Results

A total of 560 patients (259 [64%] male; median age, 51 years [range, 19-80 years]) were randomized. The analysis included 544 patients with evaluable data (274 assigned to olanzapine and 270 to observation). Baseline characteristics were evenly matched between the 2 groups. The proportion of patients with CR was significantly greater in the group with (248 [91%]) than without (222 [82%]) olanzapine in the overall 120-hour treatment period (P = .005). Likewise, there were significant differences between the olanzapine and observation groups for nausea control (264 [96%] vs 234 [87%]; P < .001) and CINV (262 [96%] vs 245 [91%]; P = .02) during the overall assessment period, and the proportion of patients receiving rescue medications significantly increased in the observation group (30 [11%]) compared with the olanzapine group (11 [4%]) (P = .001). Grade 1 somnolence was reported by 27 patients (10%) following administration of chemotherapy and olanzapine and by no patients in the observation group.

Conclusions and Relevance

In this randomized clinical trial, the addition of olanzapine significantly improved CR rates as well as nausea and vomiting prevention rates in chemotherapy-naive patients who were receiving MEC regimens containing oxaliplatin, carboplatin, or irinotecan. These findings suggest that use of olanzapine should be considered as one of the standards of care in these chemotherapy regimens.

Trial Registration

Clinical Trials Registry-India (CTRI) Identifier: CTRI/2018/12/016643.

Management of Refractory Functional Gastrointestinal Disorders: What Role Should Psychiatrists Have?

Currently, it has been stated that psychiatric and psychological problems are equally paramount aspects of the clinical modulation and manifestation of both the central nervous and digestive systems, which could be used to restore balance. The present narrative review aims to provide an elaborate description of the bio-psycho-social facets of refractory functional gastrointestinal disorders, psychiatrists' role, specific psychiatric approach, and the latest psychiatric and psychological perspectives on practical therapeutic management. In this respect, "psyche," "psychiatry," "psychology," "psychiatrist," "psychotropic," and "refractory functional gastrointestinal disorders" (as the keywords) were searched in relevant English publications from January 1, 1950, to March 1, 2024, in the PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar databases. Eventually, the narrative technique was adopted to reach a compelling story with a high level of cohesion through material synthesis. The current literature recognizes the brain-gut axis modulation as a therapeutic target for refractory functional gastrointestinal disorders and the bio-psycho-social model as an integrated framework to explain disease pathogenesis. The results also reveal some evidence to affirm the benefits of psychotropic medications and psychological therapies in refractory functional gastrointestinal disorders, even when psychiatric symptoms were absent. It seems that psychiatrists are required to pay higher levels of attention to both the assessment and treatment of patients with refractory functional gastrointestinal disorders, accompanied by educating and training practitioners who take care of these patients.

Antiemetic effects of sclareol, possibly through 5-HT3 and D2 receptor interaction pathways: In-vivo and in-silico studies

BACKGROUND

Emesis is a complex physiological phenomenon that serves as a defense against numerous toxins, stressful situations, adverse medication responses, chemotherapy, and movement. Nevertheless, preventing emesis during chemotherapy or other situations is a significant issue for researchers. Hence, the majority view contends that successfully combining therapy is the best course of action. In-vivo analysis offers a more comprehensive grasp of how compounds behave within a complex biological environment, whereas in-silico evaluation refers to the use of computational models to forecast biological interactions.

OBJECTIVES

The objectives of the present study were to evaluate the effects of Sclareol (SCL) on copper sulphate-induced emetic chicks and to investigate the combined effects of these compounds using a conventional co-treatment approach and in-silico study.

METHODS

SCL (5, 10, and 15 mg/kg) administered orally with or without pre-treatment with anti-emetic drugs (Ondansetron (ODN): 24 mg/kg, Domperidone (DOM): 80 mg/kg, Hyoscine butylbromide (HYS): 100 mg/kg, and Promethazine hydrochloride (PRO): 100 mg/kg) to illustrate the effects and the potential involvement with 5HT3, D2, M3/AChM, H1, or NK1 receptors by SCL. Furthermore, an in-silico analysis was conducted to forecast the role of these receptors in the emetic process.

RESULTS

The results suggest that SCL exerted a dose-dependent anti-emetic effect on the chicks. Pretreatment with SCL-10 significantly minimized the number of retches and lengthened the emesis tendency of the experimental animals. SCL-10 significantly increased the anti-emetic effects of ODN and DOM. However, compared to the ODN-treated group, (SCL-10 + ODN) group considerably (p < 0.0001) extended the latency duration (109.40 ± 1.03 s) and significantly (p < 0.01) decreased the number of retches (20.00 ± 0.70), indicating an anti-emetic effect on the test animals. In in-silico analysis, SCL exhibited promising binding affinities with suggesting receptors.

CONCLUSION

SCL-10 exerted an inhibitory-like effect on emetic chicks, probably through the interaction of the 5HT3 and D2 receptors. Further studies are highly appreciated to validate this study and determine the precise mechanism(s) behind the anti-emetic effects of SCL. We expect that SCL-10 may be utilized as an antiemetic treatment in a single dosage form or that it may function as a synergist with other traditional medicines.

Modulating MGMT expression through interfering with cell signaling pathways

Guanine O6-alkylating agents are widely used as first-line chemotherapeutic drugs due to their ability to induce cytotoxic DNA damage. However, a major hurdle in their effectiveness is the emergence of chemoresistance, largely attributed to the DNA repair pathway mediated by O6-methylguanine-DNA methyltransferase (MGMT). MGMT plays an important role in removing the alkyl groups from lethal O6-alkylguanine (O6-AlkylG) adducts formed by chemotherapeutic alkylating agents. By doing so, MGMT enables tumor cells to evade apoptosis and develop drug resistance toward DNA alkylating agents. Although covalent inhibitors of MGMT, such as O6-benzylguanine (O6-BG) and O6-(4-bromothenyl)guanine (O6-4-BTG or lomeguatrib), have been explored in clinical settings, their utility is limited due to severe delayed hematological toxicity observed in most patients when combined with alkylating agents. Therefore, there is an urgent need to identify new targets and unravel the underlying molecular mechanisms and to develop alternative therapeutic strategies that can overcome MGMT-mediated tumor resistance. In this context, the regulation of MGMT expression via interfering the specific cell signaling pathways (e.g., Wnt/β-catenin, NF-κB, Hedgehog, PI3K/AKT/mTOR, JAK/STAT) emerges as a promising strategy for overcoming tumor resistance, and ultimately enhancing the efficacy of DNA alkylating agents in chemotherapy.

Pharmacotherapy for gastric and intestinal cramping pain: ‎ current and emerging therapies

INTRODUCTION

Acute gastrointestinal cramping pain (GICP) is a debilitating condition that affects many people worldwide, significantly reducing their quality of life. As such, prompt treatment is crucial.

AREAS COVERED

This article will explore relevant literature from databases such as PubMed, Scopus, Google Scholar, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science. Additionally, we searched ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO ICTRP database for the latest clinical trials.

EXPERT OPINION

Consensus dictates that antispasmodics such as hyoscine-N-butyl bromide and mebeverine should be the primary treatment for GICP. If these prove ineffective, patients can switch to an antispasmodic with a different mode of action or add acetaminophen/NSAIDs for more severe cases. Currently, several antispasmodics are undergoing clinical trials, including drotaverine, alverine, pinaverium, otilonium bromide, fenoverine, tiropramide, otilonium bromide, trimebutine, and peppermint oil. Well-designed head-to-head studies are necessary to evaluate current antispasmodics' safety, efficacy, pharmacokinetic, and pharmacoeconomics profiles. Recent studies have shown that fixed-dose combinations of antispasmodics + NSAIDs or two different antispasmodics can improve patient compliance and synergistically reduce GICP. Therefore, it is recommended that the global availability and accessibility of these products be enhanced.

Olanzapine treatment effectively relieves breakthrough chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting: a real-world experience

BACKGROUND

Olanzapine treatment prevents chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC). However, its role in the secondary prevention of breakthrough CINV in real-world cancer care should be further evaluated.

METHOD

We conducted a retrospective study on patients receiving olanzapine to prevent breakthrough CINV refractory to standard antiemetic therapy. The major outcome was improvement in CINV, defined as any downgrade in CINV symptoms, according to the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events. Comprete response was defined as no symptoms in CINV, i.e., Grade 0. These outcomes were compared in the HEC versus non-HEC groups and the standard- (5 or 10 mg/day) versus low- (2.5 mg/day) dose groups. The other outcome measurement was adverse events (AEs).

RESULTS

We analyzed 127 patients, including 92 women, with a median age of 50 years (range: 19-89 years). Baseline CINV severity was grade 1, 2, and 3 in 18%, 69%, and 13% of the patients, respectively. After prophylaxis with olanzapine at doses of 2.5, 5, or 10 mg/day, improvement was observed in 105 (83%) patients, with a complete response in 42 patients (33%). The improvement and complete remission rates for the HEC (n = 96) and non-HEC (n = 31) groups were 86% and 71% (p = 0.048) versus 38% and 19% (p = 0.062), respectively. The rates for the standard- (n = 98) and low- (n = 29) dose groups were 86% and 82% (p = 0.568) versus 28% and 52% (p = 0.015), respectively. Thirty-four patients (27%) experienced olanzapine-related AEs, mainly somnolence (n = 28). Grade 3 or higher AEs were not observed.

CONCLUSION

Our study results support the clinical application of olanzapine for the secondary prevention of breakthrough CINV.

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.

Effects of Ketanserin, M100907 and Olanzapine on hallucinogenic like action induced by 2,5-dimethoxy-4-methylamphetamine

2,5-dimethoxy-4-methylamphetamine (DOM) is a kind of hallucinogen of phenylalkylamine. Psychedelic effects mainly include audiovisual synesthesia, complex imagery, disembodiment etc. that can impair control and cognition leading to adverse consequences such as suicide. By now, there are no specific drugs regarding the management of classic hallucinogen use clinically. We evaluated the effects of three 5-HT 2A receptor antagonists ketanseirn, M100907 and olanzapine on hallucination-like behavior in therapeutic and preventive administration with male C57BL/6J mice. Two models were used to evaluate the therapeutic potential of antagonists, one is head-twitch response (HTR) and the other is locomotion. Effects of ketanserin, M100907 and olanzapine on DOM-induced HTR were studied in preventive and therapeutic administration, respectively. In the preventive administration, the ID 50 values of ketanseirn, M100907 and olanzapine were 0.4 mg/kg, 0.005 mg/kg and 0.25 mg/kg. In the therapeutic administration, the ID 50 values of ketanseirn, M100907 and olanzapine were 0.04 mg/kg, 0.005 mg/kg and 0.03 mg/kg. Secondly, locomotor activity induced by DOM was performed to further evaluate the efficacy of three compounds. In locomotion, M100907(0.005 mg/kg) whenever in preventive or therapeutic administration, reduced the increase of movement distance induced by DOM. Although ketanserin (0.4 mg/kg) in the preventive administration also decreased the movement distance induced by DOM, it was alone administrated to influence the locomotor activity. Through HTR and locomotion, we compared the efficacy and latent side effects of ketanserin, M100907 and olanzapine against hallucinogenic like action induced by DOM. Our study provided additional experimental evidence on specific therapeutic drugs against hallucinogenic behavior induce by representative hallucinogen DOM.

RNA sequencing least shrew (Cryptotis parva) brainstem and gut transcripts following administration of a selective substance P neurokinin NK1 receptor agonist and antagonist expands genomics resources for emesis research

The least shrew is among the subset of animals that are capable of vomiting and therefore serves as a valuable research model for investigating the biochemistry, molecular biology, pharmacology, and genomics of emesis. Both nausea and vomiting are associated with a variety of illnesses (bacterial/viral infections, bulimia, exposure to toxins, gall bladder disease), conditions (pregnancy, motion sickness, emotional stress, overeating) and reactions to drugs (chemotherapeutics, opiates). The severe discomfort and intense fear associated with the stressful symptoms of nausea and emesis are the major reason for patient non-compliance when being treated with cancer chemotherapeutics. Increased understanding of the physiology, pharmacology and pathophysiology underlying vomiting and nausea can accelerate progress for developing new antiemetics. As a major animal model for emesis, expanding genomic knowledge associated with emesis in the least shrew will further enhance the laboratory utility of this model. A key question is which genes mediate emesis, and are they expressed in response to emetics/antiemetics. To elucidate the mediators of emesis, in particular emetic receptors, their downstream signaling pathways, as well as the shared emetic signals, we carried out an RNA sequencing study focused on the central and peripheral emetic loci, the brainstem and gut. Thus, we sequenced RNA extracted from brainstem and gut tissues from different groups of least shrews treated with either a neurokinin NK1 receptor selective emetic agonist, GR73632 (5 mg/kg, i.p.), its corresponding selective antagonist netupitant (5 mg/kg, i.p.), a combination of these two agents, versus their corresponding vehicle-pretreated controls and drug naïve animals. The resulting sequences were processed using a de novo transcriptome assembly and used it to identify orthologs within human, dog, mouse, and ferret gene sets. We compared the least shrew to human and a veterinary species (dog) that may be treated with vomit-inducing chemotherapeutics, and the ferret, another well-established model organism for emesis research. The mouse was included because it does not vomit. In total, we identified a final set of 16,720 least shrew orthologs. We employed comparative genomics analyses as well as gene ontology enrichment, KEGG pathway enrichment and phenotype enrichment to better understand the molecular biology of genes implicated in vomiting.

Olanzapine for the Prevention and Treatment of Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting: A Review to Identify the Best Way to Administer the Drug

Common treatment methods for malignant tumors include surgery, chemotherapy, radiotherapy, immunotherapy, targeted therapy, etc., among which chemotherapy plays an important role. However, chemotherapy brings corresponding side effects while killing tumor cells, and nausea and vomiting are the most common adverse reactions induced by chemotherapy. It not only affects the patient's appetite, resulting in malnutrition and electrolyte disturbances, but also reduces the patient's compliance with treatment, which further aggravates the disease. Thus, it is important to quickly prevent and cure nausea and vomiting induced by chemotherapy (CINV). In addition, with the continuous development of medicine, more and more antiemetic drugs have been developed. At present, the most common antiemetic agents for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting are NK-1R antagonists, 5-HT3R antagonists, and dexamethasone. Surprisingly, olanzapine, often used as a psychotropic drug, has been found to be an effective antiemetic and is similar to other regimens on the safety of medicine. However, although there are numerous studies on the antiemetic effects of olanzapine, its comprehensive application remains unclear. Therefore, this review will elaborate the antiemetic effect of olanzapine in terms of the antiemetic mechanism and the safety, economic cost, dose, administration time, and drug delivery aspects.

Olanzapine 5 mg for Nausea and Vomiting in Patients with Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma Receiving Cisplatin-Based Concurrent Chemoradiotherapy

Purpose

To explore the efficacy and safety of adding olanzapine (5 mg or 10 mg) to 5-hydroxytryptamine type 3 receptor antagonists (5-HT₃ RA), neurokinin-1 receptor antagonists (NK1 RA), and dexamethasone for nausea and vomiting in patients with nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC) receiving cisplatin-based concurrent chemoradiotherapy.

Methods

Patients receiving olanzapine 5 mg or 10 mg combined with 5-HT₃ RA, NK1 RA, and dexamethasone during the cisplatin-based concurrent chemoradiotherapy were included. The primary endpoint was the complete response (CR) (no vomiting) rate, and the secondary endpoint was the incidence of no nausea.

Results

A total of 150 chemotherapy cycles were administrated for 88 patients (75 in the olanzapine 5 mg group and 75 in the olanzapine 10 mg group). The proportions of CR in the olanzapine 5 mg group were comparable to those in the olanzapine 10 mg group in acute (93.3% vs. 94.7%, P = 0.731), delayed (76% vs. 78.7%, P = 0.697), and overall phase (73.3% vs. 77.3%, P = 0.570). Moreover, no nausea rates were also comparable between the two groups in acute (76% vs. 78.7%, P = 0.697), delayed (54.7% vs. 60%, P = 0.509), and overall period (50.7% vs. 57.3%, P = 0.111). Regarding the adverse effects, the incidence of somnolence in the 10 mg group (58.6%) was significantly higher than that in the 5 mg group (41.3%) (P = 0.034), while constipation (20.0% vs. 24.0%, P = 0.554) and hiccups (9.3% vs. 10.6%, P = 0.785) rates were comparable in two groups.

Conclusions

Patients receiving olanzapine plus standard antiemetic therapy has excellent antiemetic effect in NPC patients receiving cisplatin-based concurrent chemoradiotherapy, and patients with olanzapine 5 mg have a similar antiemetic effect and lower adverse effects compared with those with olanzapine 10 mg.

A Comparison of the Efficacy of 5 mg Olanzapine and Aprepitant in the Prevention of Multiple-Day Cisplatin Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting

OBJECTIVE

The significance of this article is to talk about aprepitant and olanzapine 5 mg, compare them, and deeply explore the safety or effectiveness during the whole process of multiple-day cisplatin chemotherapy-induced vomiting and nausea.

METHODS

This trial was randomized and prospective. It is needed to receive cisplatin chemotherapy (25 mg/m2/d) for three days. Its patients would need to choose to use 5 mg olanzapine or aprepitant for this treatment, combined with 5-HT3 receptor antagonist plus dexamethasone. The primary endpoints were the total protection (TP) during the acute phase (AP) (0-24 hours), delayed phase (DP) (25-120 hours), and overall phase (OP) (0-120 h) between the two groups. The secondary endpoints were the complete response (CR) and total control (TC) during the three phases. The first time of the whole process is particularly important and needs to be observed vigorously. However, the time of the patient's first vomiting symptom is also compared accurately by using the Kaplan-Meier curve. The functional life index vomiting (FLIE) was used to calculate and carefully evaluate the serious impact of nausea and vomiting (CINV) induced by the whole chemotherapy process on the quality of life. About olanzapine, its related symptoms and other side effects and aprepitant were also recorded.

RESULTS

(1) The primary endpoint TP rates of the olanzapine and aprepitant groups were similar; for the AP, they were 94.23% (98/104) vs. 95.45% (98/106) P=0.61(P=0.61); for the DP, they were 54.81% (57/104) vs. 54.72% (58/106) (P=0.99), and for the OP, the values were 53.79% (58/105) and 55.31% (56/104), respectively (P=0.99). The secondary endpoints, the TC rates, and CR rates were also comparable in the three phases (P > 0.05). (2) After research and display, the results showed that there was no significant difference between the two groups when they were used for the first time of vomiting and the FLIE index (P > 0.05). (3) The main olanzapine-related adverse event was drowsiness, while that of aprepitant was constipation.

CONCLUSION

The efficacy of 5 mg olanzapine was similar to that of aprepitant, and it also showed an advantageous economic potency ratio in preventing CINV induced by multiple-day cisplatin chemotherapy with increased sedation side effects.

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.

The Contribution of Phospholipase C in Vomiting in the Least Shrew (Cryptotis Parva) Model of Emesis

Gq and Gβγ protein-dependent phospholipase C (PLC) activation is extensively involved in G protein-coupled receptor (GPCR)-mediated signaling pathways which are implicated in a wide range of physiological and pathological events. Stimulation of several GPCRs, such as substance P neurokinin 1-, dopamine D2/3-, histamine H1- and mu-opioid receptors, can lead to vomiting. The aim of this study was to investigate the role of PLC in vomiting through assessment of the emetic potential of a PLC activator (m-3M3FBS), and the antiemetic efficacy of a PLC inhibitor (U73122), in the least shrew model of vomiting. We find that a 50 mg/kg (i.p.) dose of m-3M3FBS induces vomiting in ∼90% of tested least shrews, which was accompanied by significant increases in c-Fos expression and ERK1/2 phosphorylation in the shrew brainstem dorsal vagal complex, indicating activation of brainstem emetic nuclei in m-3M3FBS-evoked emesis. The m-3M3FBS-evoked vomiting was reduced by pretreatment with diverse antiemetics including the antagonists/inhibitors of: PLC (U73122), L-type Ca2+ channel (nifedipine), IP3R (2-APB), RyR receptor (dantrolene), ERK1/2 (U0126), PKC (GF109203X), the serotoninergic type 3 receptor (palonosetron), and neurokinin 1 receptor (netupitant). In addition, the PLC inhibitor U73122 displayed broad-spectrum antiemetic effects against diverse emetogens, including the selective agonists of serotonin type 3 (2-Methyl-5-HT)-, neurokinin 1 receptor (GR73632), dopamine D2/3 (quinpirole)-, and muscarinic M1 (McN-A-343) receptors, the L-type Ca2+ channel (FPL64176), and the sarco/endoplasmic reticulum Ca2+-ATPase inhibitor thapsigargin. In sum, PLC activation contributes to emesis, whereas PLC inhibition suppresses vomiting evoked by diverse emetogens.

Mechanisms of Nausea and Vomiting: Current Knowledge and Recent Advances in Intracellular Emetic Signaling Systems

Nausea and vomiting are common gastrointestinal complaints that can be triggered by diverse emetic stimuli through central and/or peripheral nervous systems. Both nausea and vomiting are considered as defense mechanisms when threatening toxins/drugs/bacteria/viruses/fungi enter the body either via the enteral (e.g., the gastrointestinal tract) or parenteral routes, including the blood, skin, and respiratory systems. While vomiting is the act of forceful removal of gastrointestinal contents, nausea is believed to be a subjective sensation that is more difficult to study in nonhuman species. In this review, the authors discuss the anatomical structures, neurotransmitters/mediators, and corresponding receptors, as well as intracellular emetic signaling pathways involved in the processes of nausea and vomiting in diverse animal models as well as humans. While blockade of emetic receptors in the prevention of vomiting is fairly well understood, the potential of new classes of antiemetics altering postreceptor signal transduction mechanisms is currently evolving, which is also reviewed. Finally, future directions within the field will be discussed in terms of important questions that remain to be resolved and advances in technology that may help provide potential answers.

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.

Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting: Pathogenesis, Recommendations, and New Trends

The significant physical and emotional effects of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) are experienced by cancer patients. Severe symptoms decrease the patient's quality of life and potentially deters further treatment. The five main forms of CINV (i.e., acute, delayed, anticipatory, breakthrough, and refractory) require different treatment regimens, which often include 5-HT3 receptor antagonists, NK1 receptor antagonists, and corticosteroids. Despite a significant amount of research and development of antiemetic agents, management of CINV remains a great challenge with many needs waiting to be adequately addressed, such as controlling non-acute CINV, developing appropriate CINV treatment protocols for multiple-day chemotherapy patients, and providing options for those prone to CINV despite treatment. Further research is required to optimize CINV management for these patients.

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.

Nausea and vomiting during post-transplantation cyclophosphamide administration

Post-transplantation cyclophosphamide (PTCy) is a new method to prevent graft-versus-host disease after allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation. Although the use of dexamethasone is recommended as prophylaxis against chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) for patients who receive high-dose cyclophosphamide, corticosteroids cannot be used during PTCy administration to exploit depletion of alloreactive T cells. Thus, CINV may not be adequately controlled in this situation. We retrospectively examined antiemetic efficacy of the combination of a 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 receptor antagonist (5-HT₃ RA) and a NK₁ receptor antagonist (NK₁ RA) in 36 patients who received PTCy, and compared this efficacy with that of the same combination together with dexamethasone in 27 patients conditioned with cyclophosphamide and total body irradiation (CY/TBI). The proportion of patients who had no vomiting during the acute phase of PTCy administration was 81%, and was lower than 100% in the CY/TBI group (p = 0.02). Our results suggest that prevention of CINV using 5-HT₃ RA and NK₁ RA during PTCy administration is suboptimal and that addition of antiemetic is necessary in patients who receive PTCy.

Premature ageing following allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation

Survivors of hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) have been shown to exhibit both clinical and biological features of accelerated ageing. Most studies used frailty measures, comorbidities for clinical assessment and several biological assessment of premature ageing. However, these tests are less suitable for age determination of individual patients. Recently, DNA methylation has emerged as a novel test to measure cellular age. In the present study, we assessed ageing in a cohort of 26 survivors of allogeneic HCT by frailty tests comprising the handgrip and 6 min walk tests and by biological tests including DNA methylation, telomere length and expression of p16INK^4A and serum levels of IL-6. DNA methylation was evaluated both in blood and buccal epithelial cells. Physiological reserve was markedly reduced in transplant survivors, reflected by 6 min walk test. Increased IL-6 serum levels and p16^ink4A correlated with accelerated ageing. Overall, the measured age of donor blood cells was significantly higher than these blood cells residing in their respective donors, as reflected by DNA methylation and by buccal epithelium methylation status. These clinical and biological observations suggest that allogeneic HCT is associated with accelerated ageing.

Nausea and Vomiting in Advanced Cancer

OPINION STATEMENT

Nausea and vomiting is a common clinical issue in the advanced cancer patient. The etiology may be related to treatment (chemotherapy, radiation, surgery) or non-treatment clinical issues related to the advanced cancer. A very detailed initial assessment of nausea/vomiting is indicated including frequency, duration, intensity, associated activities, and the presence of anorexia or cachexia and is necessary in order to determine a specific etiology which may allow a potentially specific successful intervention. Various international antiemetic guidelines have been developed for the successful prevention of chemotherapy- and radiotherapy-induced nausea and emesis but the treatment of post-chemotherapy nausea/vomiting and of radiation-induced nausea/vomiting has been less successful. Chronic nausea/vomiting in the advanced cancer patient unrelated to treatment remains a significant clinical problem with few successful treatments and interventions. NCCN and ASCO palliative care guidelines provide various treatment suggestions but these are based on empiric evidence with very few clinical trials available to provide demonstrated effective treatments. Recent randomized clinical trials have demonstrated that olanzapine may be an effective agent for the prevention and treatment of chemotherapy-induced nausea and emesis as well as treatment of chronic nausea and vomiting unrelated to treatment.

The safety of rolapitant for the treatment of nausea and vomiting associated with chemotherapy

Introduction: Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting is a significant clinical issue that affects patients' quality of life as well as treatment decisions. Significant improvements in the control of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting have occurred in the past 15 years with the introduction of new antiemetic agents 5-HT3, receptor antagonists, neurokinin-1 receptor antagonists, and olanzapine. Oral (aprepitant, 2003; netupitant, 2014; rolapitant, 2015) neurokinin-1 receptor antagonists have been developed along with intravenous formulations (fosaprepitant, NEPA, rolapitant, HTX-019) for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting.Areas covered: This review presents a description of the safety and efficacy of rolapitant along with a comparison to the other oral and intravenous formulations of the neurokinin-1 receptor antagonists.Expert opinion: Oral rolapitant has been demonstrated in clinical trials to be safe and effective in controlling chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in patients receiving moderately and highly emetogenic chemotherapy. Rolapitant has a longer half-life (180 h) than other commercially available NK-1 receptor antagonists and does not induce or inhibit CYP34A, unlike the other NK-1 receptor antagonists. Future studies may determine if these may be important clinical issues.

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.

Psychotropics, Antidepressants, and Visceral Analgesics in Functional Gastrointestinal Disorders

Purpose of Review

The functional gastrointestinal disorders, or disorders of gut-brain interaction as defined by the Rome IV criteria, are the most common diagnostic entities in gastroenterology. Treatments that address the dysregulation of gut-brain interaction with these disorders are increasingly gaining interest as a better option than for example traditional analgesics, particularly opioids. Antidepressants, antianxiety and antipsychotic medications, and visceral analgesics, now termed neuromodulators, are included in this update addressing the evidence of treatment benefit in disorders of brain-gut interaction.

Recent Findings

By a careful selection based on a multidimensional clinical profile, a decreased symptom burden, particularly regarding abdominal pain, nausea, and vomiting, as well as improved social function and quality of life, can be obtained by use of neuromodulators. There is good evidence for the peripheral neuromodulators from studies in bowel disorders, and the central neuromodulators both from indirect evidence in chronic pain disorders as well as selected disorders of brain-gut interaction.

Summary

Basic knowledge about the pharmacologic properties and clinical use of neuromodulators in disorders of brain-gut interaction improves the treatment outcome and avoids use of traditional analgesics.

Olanzapine plus aprepitant, palonosetron, and dexamethasone for nausea and vomiting in patients with breast cancer receiving anthracycline: A retrospective study

This study aimed to compare the antiemetic efficacy and safety of a four-drug combination with those of a standard three-drug combination in Japanese patients with breast cancer treated with anthracycline. We retrospectively analyzed data from Japanese patients with breast cancer, who had received their first cycle of anthracycline and were treated with aprepitant, palonosetron, and dexamethasone with or without olanzapine. This retrospective observational study was performed at Ehime University Hospital using the electronic medical records. Multivariable and propensity score-adjusted analyses were performed to compare the onset of complete response (CR) failure between the groups. One-hundred and thirty patients were included in this study and the four- and three-drug group had 22 and 108 patients, respectively. Similar to multivariable logistic regression analysis, propensity-adjusted logistic regression analysis revealed that the four-drug group was markedly associated with a decreased odds of CR failure in the overall, acute, and delayed phases (odds ratio [OR]: 0.27, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.10–0.73; OR: 0.28, 95% CI: 0.10–0.76; and OR: 0.15, 95% CI: 0.04–0.57, respectively). Additionally, treatment-related adverse events were well tolerated in both the groups. These findings suggest that the antiemetic efficacy of the four-drug combination is superior to that of the standard three-drug combination.

Olanzapine versus aprepitant for the prophylaxis of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in breast cancer patients receiving doxorubicin-cyclophosphamide regimen: A prospective, nonrandomized, open-label study

OBJECTIVE:

Despite the guideline-directed therapy, complete absence of nausea was noted only in 33% of breast cancer patients on anthracycline-cyclophosphamide regimen. Hence, we sought to compare the efficacy of aprepitant (APT) versus olanzapine (OLP) in preventing chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in breast cancer patients on doxorubicin-cyclophosphamide regimen.

PATIENTS AND METHODS:

A prospective, open-label, nonrandomized study was conducted at the Department of Oncology. Eighty-three patients completed the study with 43 in the APT group and 40 in OLP group. Data about nausea and vomiting were collected using Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer Antiemesis Tool (MAT). The severity of nausea and vomiting was assessed by the MAT and Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) version 4.03, respectively.

RESULTS:

Complete response (no emesis and no rescue medication) was achieved in 81% of the patients in APT group and 85% in the OLP group in the acute period (P = 0.661); 74% of patients in APT group and 85% in OLP group had no nausea during the same period (P = 0.233). Among the OLP patients who had nausea, 67% had moderately severe and 33% had Severe grade, and in the APT group, severity was equally distributed in mild, moderate, and severe grades. Among the patients who had vomiting, severe (CTCAE) vomiting was noticed in 81% of patients who were treated with APT compared to 50% in OLP group.

CONCLUSION:

OLP was found to be an equally effective alternative to APT in the antiemetic prophylaxis of CINV in breast cancer patients receiving chemotherapy with doxorubicin-cyclophosphamide regimen.

A History of Drug Discovery for Treatment of Nausea and Vomiting and the Implications for Future Research

The origins of the major classes of current anti-emetics are examined. Serendipity is a recurrent theme in discovery of their anti-emetic properties and repurposing from one indication to another is a continuing trend. Notably, the discoveries have occurred against a background of company mergers and changing anti-emetic requirements. Major drug classes include: (i) Muscarinic receptor antagonists-originated from historical accounts of plant extracts containing atropine and hyoscine with development stimulated by the need to prevent sea-sickness among soldiers during beach landings; (ii) Histamine receptor antagonists-searching for replacements for the anti-malaria drug quinine, in short supply because of wartime shipping blockade, facilitated the discovery of histamine (H1) antagonists (e.g., dimenhydrinate), followed by serendipitous discovery of anti-emetic activity against motion sickness in a patient undergoing treatment for urticaria; (iii) Phenothiazines and dopamine receptor antagonists-investigations of their pharmacology as "sedatives" (e.g., chlorpromazine) implicated dopamine receptors in emesis, leading to development of selective dopamine (D2) receptor antagonists (e.g., domperidone with poor ability to penetrate the blood-brain barrier) as anti-emetics in chemotherapy and surgery; (iv) Metoclopramide and selective 5-hydroxytryptamine3(5-HT3) receptor antagonists-metoclopramide was initially assumed to act only via D2 receptor antagonism but subsequently its gastric motility stimulant effect (proposed to contribute to the anti-emetic action) was shown to be due to 5-hydroxytryptamine4 receptor agonism. Pre-clinical studies showed that anti-emetic efficacy against the newly-introduced, highly emetic, chemotherapeutic agent cisplatin was due to antagonism at 5-HT3 receptors. The latter led to identification of selective 5-HT3 receptor antagonists (e.g., granisetron), a major breakthrough in treatment of chemotherapy-induced emesis; (v) Neurokinin1receptor antagonists-antagonists of the actions of substance P were developed as analgesics but pre-clinical studies identified broad-spectrum anti-emetic effects; clinical studies showed particular efficacy in the delayed phase of chemotherapy-induced emesis. Finally, the repurposing of different drugs for treatment of nausea and vomiting is examined, particularly during palliative care, and also the challenges in identifying novel anti-emetic drugs, particularly for treatment of nausea as compared to vomiting. We consider the lessons from the past for the future and ask why there has not been a major breakthrough in the last 20 years.

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.

[Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting : Current recommendations for prophylaxis]

The chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is one of the most frequent side effects in cytostatic therapy and a profound challenge during the therapy of cancer patients. Therefore, standardized guideline-orientated prophylaxis is essential and a fundamental contribution for the success of treatment. This review summarizes the current recommendations for CINV of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer (MASCC) and European Society of Medical Oncology (ESMO), the American Society for Clinical Oncology (ASCO), the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) and the S3-guideline Supportive Therapie of the Leitlinienprogramm Onkologie and shall facilitate its use in the daily routine.

Neuromodulators for Functional Gastrointestinal Disorders (Disorders of Gut-Brain Interaction): A Rome Foundation Working Team Report

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Central neuromodulators (antidepressants, antipsychotics, and other central nervous system-targeted medications) are increasingly used for treatment of functional gastrointestinal disorders (FGIDs), now recognized as disorders of gut-brain interaction. However, the available evidence and guidance for the use of central neuromodulators in these conditions is scanty and incomplete. In this Rome Foundation Working Team report, a multidisciplinary team summarized available research evidence and clinical experience to provide guidance and treatment recommendations.

METHODS

The working team summarized the literature on the pharmacology of central neuromodulators and their effects on gastrointestinal sensorimotor function and conducted an evidence-based review on their use for treating FGID syndromes. Because of the paucity of data for FGIDs, we included data for non-gastrointestinal painful disorders and specific symptoms of pain, nausea, and vomiting. This information was combined into a final document comprising a synthesis of available evidence and recommendations for clinical use guided by the research and clinical experience of the experts on the committee.

RESULTS

The evidence-based review on neuromodulators in FGID, restricted by the limited available controlled trials, was integrated with open-label studies and case series, along with the experience of experts to create recommendations using a consensus (Delphi) approach. Due to the diversity of conditions and complexity of treatment options, specific recommendations were generated for different FGIDs. However, some general recommendations include: (1) low to modest dosages of tricyclic antidepressants provide the most convincing evidence of benefit for treating chronic gastrointestinal pain and painful FGIDs and serotonin noradrenergic reuptake inhibitors can also be recommended, though further studies are needed; (2) augmentation, that is, adding a second treatment (adding quetiapine, aripiprazole, buspirone α2δ ligand agents) is recommended when a single medication is unsuccessful or produces side effects at higher dosages; (3) treatment should be continued for 6-12 months to potentially prevent relapse; and (4) implementation of successful treatment requires effective communication skills to improve patient acceptance and adherence, and to optimize the patient-provider relationship.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on systematic and selectively focused review and the consensus of a multidisciplinary panel, we have provided summary information and guidelines for the use of central neuromodulators in the treatment of chronic gastrointestinal symptoms and FGIDs. Further studies are needed to confirm and refine these recommendations.

Outlining migrainous through dihydroergotamine–serotonin receptor interactions using quantum biochemistry

We present the electronic structure of the complex dihydroergotamine–serotonin receptor to unveil new medications to treat migraine and related diseases.

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.

Comparative efficacy and tolerability of antiemetic prophylaxis for adult highly emetogenic chemotherapy: A network meta-analysis of 143 randomized controlled trials

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is one of the commonest side-effects among cancer patients. However, there is lacking of hierarchical evidences comparing different antiemetics against highly emetogenic chemotherapy. Therefore, we conducted a network meta-analysis to investigate their comparative efficacy and tolerability. Randomized controlled trials that compared different antiemetic categories for adult highly emetogenic chemotherapy were included after searching PubMed, Web of Science, Embase and Cochrane Central. Acute-phase no emesis and no nausea were identified as primary endpoints. We made pairwise and hierarchical calculations by random-effects model. Effect sizes were presented by odds ratio and 95% confidential interval. Subgroup analysis was additionally performed. 143 randomized trials were included into pooled analysis, containing 22,776 patients and 18 antiemetic categories. 5-HT₃ RA plus corticosteroid plus NK-1 RA plus other (5CNO) displayed best protection against both acute emesis (SUCRA: 99.7%) and nausea (95.6%). 5CNO (99.7%) and 5-HT₃ RA plus corticosteroid plus other (5CO, 85.3%) topped subgroup hierarchies for no-naivety and anthracycline plus cyclophosphamide (AC)-based studies. On the other hand, 5-HT₃ RA plus dopamine RA plus other (5DO) may be best fit for delayed emesis (92.0%) and nausea (92.7%). Subgroups featuring no-naivety and AC-based trials preferred 5DO (91.9%) and 5CN (88.6%), respectively. In addition, dopamine RA plus other (DO) had the lowest incidence of TRAE in most circumstances, except for AC-based subgroup where corticosteroid plus dopamine RA plus other (CDO) preponderated (69.2%). 5CNO and 5DO should be considered as first-line regimens against highly emetogenic chemotherapy induced acute and delayed CINV, respectively.

Central Neuromodulators for Treating Functional GI Disorders: A Primer

Patients with functional GI disorders (FGIDs) are commonplace in the gastroenterologist's practice. A number of these patients may be refractory to peripherally acting agents, yet respond to central neuromodulators. There are benefits and potential adverse effects to using TCAs, SSRIs, SNRIs, atypical antipsychotics, and miscellaneous central neuromodulators in these patients. These agents can benefit mood, pain, diarrhea, constipation, nausea, sleep, and depression. The mechanisms by which they work, the differences between classes and individual agents, and the various adverse effects are outlined. Dosing, augmentation strategies, and treatment scenarios specifically for painful FGIDs, FD with PDS, and chronic nausea and vomiting syndrome are outlined.

Prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea: the role of neurokinin-1 (NK1) receptor antagonists

Chemotherapy-induced nausea (CIN) has a significant negative impact on the quality of life of cancer patients. The use of 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 (5-HT₃) receptor antagonists (RAs) has reduced the risk of vomiting, but (except for palonosetron) their effect on nausea, especially delayed nausea, is limited. This article reviews the role of NK₁RAs when combined with 5-HT₃RA–dexamethasone in CIN prophylaxis. Aprepitant has not shown consistent superiority over a two-drug (ondansetron–dexamethasone) combination in nausea control after cisplatin– or anthracycline–cyclophosphamide (AC)-based highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC). Recently, dexamethasone and dexamethasone–metoclopramide were demonstrated to be non-inferior to aprepitant and aprepitant–dexamethasone, respectively, for the control of delayed nausea after HEC (AC/cisplatin), and are now recognized in the guidelines. The potential impact of the new NK₁RAs rolapitant and netupitant (oral fixed combination with palonosetron, as NEPA) in CIN prophylaxis is discussed. While the clinical significance of the effect on nausea of the rolapitant–granisetron–dexamethasone combination after cisplatin is not conclusive, rolapitant addition showed no improvement in nausea prophylaxis after AC or moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC). NEPA was superior to palonosetron in the control of nausea after HEC (AC/cisplatin). Moreover, the efficacy of NEPA in nausea control was maintained over multiple cycles of HEC/MEC. Recently, NK₁RAs have been challenged by olanzapine, with olanzapine showing superior efficacy in nausea prevention after HEC. Fixed antiemetic combinations (such as NEPA) or new antiemetics with a long half-life that may be given once per chemotherapy cycle (rolapitant or NEPA) may improve patient compliance with antiemetic treatment.

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.

Efficacy of olanzapine in symptom relief and quality of life in gastric cancer patients receiving chemotherapy

Background:

Considering the incidence and prevalence rates of gastric cancer in Mazandaran Province of Iran, this research was performed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of olanzapine in symptom relief and quality of life (QOL) improvement of gastric patients receiving chemotherapy.

Materials and Methods:

This clinical trial was conducted on thirty new cases of gastric cancer patients whose treatment protocol was planned on chemotherapy and were allocated into two groups by simple random sampling. Intervention group (15 patients) received olanzapine tablets (2.5–10 mg/day) a day before the beginning of chemotherapy; in the 1^st day of chemotherapy to 8 weeks after chemotherapy, besides the routine treatment regimens. The control group received only the routine treatment regimens. The patients were followed for 8 weeks after intervention. All of the patients were assessed with Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) and WHO-QOL-BREF questionnaires; further, Rhodes index was used to evaluate nausea and vomiting (N/V) status.

Results:

All the recruited patients continued the allocated interventions (no lost to follow-up). N/V decreased in the case group, but the difference was not statistically significant (P = 0.438). The patients' appetite and body mass index increased (P = 0.006). Anxiety and depression subscales of HADS had significant differences between the two groups (P < 0.001) in the 4^th and 8^th week after treatment. Among the different subdomains of QOL, only physical health improved significantly after intervention (P < 0.05), but no significant difference was observed in other subdomains and also total QOL score (P > 0.05). No significant increase was observed in fasting and 2-h postprandial blood glucose and lipid profile (P > 0.05).

Conclusion:

Olanzapine can be considered as an effective drug to increase appetite and decrease anxiety and depression in patients with gastric cancer.

Olanzapine for the Prevention of Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting

BACKGROUND

We examined the efficacy of olanzapine for the prevention of nausea and vomiting in patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy.

METHODS

In a randomized, double-blind, phase 3 trial, we compared olanzapine with placebo, in combination with dexamethasone, aprepitant or fosaprepitant, and a 5-hydroxytryptamine type 3-receptor antagonist, in patients with no previous chemotherapy who were receiving cisplatin (≥70 mg per square meter of body-surface area) or cyclophosphamide-doxorubicin. The doses of the three concomitant drugs administered before and after chemotherapy were similar in the two groups. The two groups received either 10 mg of olanzapine orally or matching placebo daily on days 1 through 4. Nausea prevention was the primary end point; a complete response (no emesis and no use of rescue medication) was a secondary end point.

RESULTS

In the analysis, we included 380 patients who could be evaluated (192 assigned to olanzapine, and 188 to placebo). The proportion of patients with no chemotherapy-induced nausea was significantly greater with olanzapine than with placebo in the first 24 hours after chemotherapy (74% vs. 45%, P=0.002), the period from 25 to 120 hours after chemotherapy (42% vs. 25%, P=0.002), and the overall 120-hour period (37% vs. 22%, P=0.002). The complete-response rate was also significantly increased with olanzapine during the three periods: 86% versus 65% (P<0.001), 67% versus 52% (P=0.007), and 64% versus 41% (P<0.001), respectively. Although there were no grade 5 toxic effects, some patients receiving olanzapine had increased sedation (severe in 5%) on day 2.

CONCLUSIONS

Olanzapine, as compared with placebo, significantly improved nausea prevention, as well as the complete-response rate, among previously untreated patients who were receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy. (Funded by the National Cancer Institute; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02116530.).

Cardiotoxicity of antiemetic drugs in oncology: An overview of the current state of the art

PURPOSE

Cardiac complications in cancer patients have been a significant medical problem in the last few years. Cardiosafety profile of most novel approved drugs, in cancer patients, is required by regulatory authorities. Risk of proarrhythmic effect associated with a new drug, in fact, is usually evaluated with specific studies conducted in agreement with ICHE14 guidelines. In this overview, we detailed the cardio safety profile of antiemetic drugs. In particular, we focused on data of 5HT3-RA drugs used for prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in the oncology setting.

METHODS

A literature search was conducted using the PubMed database to identify studies reporting arrhythmic complications of antiemetic drug used in oncology.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSION

Most of the antiemetic drugs have been approved by regulatory authorities when ICHE14 guidelines were not issued, so the cardiotoxicity of those drugs has been defined with the post-marketing authorization pharmacovigilance activity. We reviewed the cardiotoxicity data of major antiemetic and adjuvant agents, providing a general overview and recommendations about their use in medical oncology.

Rolapitant for the treatment of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting is a significant clinical issue which affects patient's quality of life and treatment decisions. Significant improvements in the control of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting have occurred in the past 15 years with the introduction of new antiemetic agents 5-HT3, receptor antagonists, neurokinin-1 (NK-1) receptor antagonists, and olanzapine. Aprepitant was the first NK-1 receptor antagonist introduced (2003) for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in combination with a 5-HT3 receptor antagonist and dexamethasone. A second NK-1 receptor antagonist netupitant was approved for use in October 2014. Phase III clinical trials of an additional NK-1 receptor antagonist rolapitant have been completed, and the data have been submitted for regulatory approval. A description of rolapitant and its role in chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting will be presented, along with a comparison of the other neurolinin-1 receptor antagonists aprepitant and netupitant.

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.

Autophagy involvement in olanzapine-mediated cytotoxic effects in human glioma cells

The aim of this study was to investigate the effects of olanzapine on growth inhibition as well as autophagy in glioma cells in vitro and in vivo. The proliferation of both LN229 and T98 glioma cells, measured by MTT assay, was suppressed in a concentration-dependent and time-dependent manner. Moreover, apoptosis of both cells was significantly increased with the treatment of olanzapine as evidenced by increased Bcl-2 expression, Hoechst 33258 staining and annexinV-FITC/PI staining. Olanzapine treatment also enhanced activation of autophagy with increased expression of LC3-II, expression of protein p62, a substrate of autophagy, being decreased. The growth inhibition by olanzapine in both glioma cell lines could be blocked by co-treatment with 3-MA, an autophagy inhibitor. Furthermore, olanzapine effectively blocked the growth of subcutaneous xenografts of LN229 glioma cells in vivo. The increased level of protein LC3-II and decreased level of p62 followed by a decreased level of Bcl-2, suggesting that autophagy may contribute to apoptosis. In addition, reduced proliferation of glioma cells was shown by a decrease of Ki-67 staining and increased caspase-3 staining indicative of apoptosis in mouse xenografts. These results indicated that olanzapine inhibited the growth of glioma cells accompanied by induction of autophagy and apoptosis both in vitro and in vivo. Olanzapine-induced autophagy plays a tumor-suppressing role in glioma cells.