A phase I trial of olanzapine (Zyprexa) for the prevention of delayed emesis in cancer patients: a Hoosier Oncology Group study

Efficacy of Olanzapine in Addition to Standard Triplet Antiemetic Therapy for Cisplatin-Based Chemotherapy: A Secondary Analysis of the J-FORCE Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance

It is unknown whether olanzapine combined with triplet antemetic therapy is effective for all patients undergoing highly emetogenic chemotherapy. A secondary analysis of randomized clinical trials using olanzapine may provide insight into the effectiveness of olanzapine for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV), including cisplatin.

Objective

To examine the add-on effect of olanzapine according to risk factors for CINV.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This preplanned secondary analysis evaluated results of the J-FORCE trial, a large double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 randomized clinical trial conducted in Japan from February 9, 2017, to July 18, 2018. Participants were enrolled from 26 participating hospitals across Japan and included patients aged 20 to 75 years who had a malignant tumor and were cisplatin-naive. The efficacy analysis population of the J-FORCE trial was analyzed according to allocation adjustment factors (sex [male or female], age [≥55 years or <55 years], and cisplatin dose [≥70 mg/m2 or <70 mg/m2]) and patient-related risk factors (history of motion sickness, drinking habit [defined as alcoholic drinks consumption in excess of occasional drinking], and history of morning sickness during pregnancy). Statistical analysis was performed from February 18 to April 18, 2020.

Interventions

Patients were randomized 1:1 to receive 5 mg of olanzapine or placebo combined with standard triplet antiemetic therapy.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary end point was complete response (CR, defined as no vomiting and no use of rescue medication) in the delayed phase (24-120 hours after cisplatin-based chemotherapy administration). Secondary end points were CR, complete control, and total control in the acute, delayed, and overall phases for 6 CINV risk factors as well as time to treatment failure. The CR point estimates and 95% CIs of the differences between groups were calculated, and a Mantel-Haenszel test was performed.

Results

Of the 705 patients (mean [SD] age, 63.0 [9.2] years; 471 males [66.8%]) included in the efficacy analysis population; 581 patients (82.4%) were 55 years or older, and 526 (74.6%) were treated with a cisplatin dose of 70 mg/m2 or more. Risk difference (RD) for a CR in the delayed phase was significantly greater in the olanzapine group than the placebo group in males (RD, 12.6% [95% CI, 5.0%-20.1%]; P = .001); in females (RD, 14.5% [95% CI, 2.2%-26.3%]; P = .02); in those 55 years or older (RD, 11.1% [95% CI, 3.9%-18.2%]; P = .003) or younger than 55 years (RD, 23.6% [95% CI, 7.3%-38.3%]; P = .005); for a cisplatin dose of 70 mg/m2 or more (RD, 13.5% [95% CI, 5.9%-21.0%]; P < .001); for those without a history of motion sickness (RD, 13.9% [95% CI, 6.9%-20.6%]; P < .001); for those with a drinking habit (RD, 14.9% [95% CI, 6.1%-23.4%]; P = .001) or without a drinking habit (RD, 12.0% [95% CI, 2.5%-21.3%]; P = .01); and for those with a history of morning sickness during pregnancy (RD, 27.2% [9.7%-42.6%]; P = .002). In other subgroups, a delayed CR was higher in the olanzapine group than the placebo group, although not significantly higher.

Conclusions and Relevance

Results of this study suggest a benefit of using 5 mg of olanzapine plus triplet antiemetic therapy to counter CINV regardless of the presence or absence of risk factors.

Trial Registration

University Hospital Medical Information Network Clinical Trials Registry Identifier: UMIN000024676.

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

PURPOSE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

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

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

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

INTRODUCTION

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Olanzapine for the Prevention of Postdischarge Nausea and Vomiting after Ambulatory Surgery: A Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND

Postdischarge nausea and vomiting after ambulatory surgery is a common problem that is not adequately addressed in current practice. This prospective, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, placebo-controlled study was designed to test the hypothesis that oral olanzapine is superior to placebo at preventing postdischarge nausea and vomiting.

METHODS

In a single-center, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial, the authors compared a single preoperative dose of olanzapine 10 mg to placebo, in adult female patients 50 years old or less, undergoing ambulatory gynecologic or plastic surgery with general anesthesia. All patients received standard antiemetic prophylaxis with dexamethasone and ondansetron. The primary composite outcome was nausea and/or vomiting in the 24 h after discharge. Secondary outcomes included severe nausea, vomiting, and side effects.

RESULTS

A total of 140 patients were randomized and evaluable. The primary outcome occurred in 26 of 69 patients (38%) in the placebo group and in 10 of 71 patients (14%) in the olanzapine group (relative risk, 0.37; 95% CI, 0.20 to 0.72; P = 0.003). Severe nausea occurred in 14 patients (20%) in the placebo group and 4 patients (6%) in the olanzapine group (relative risk, 0.28; 95% CI, 0.10 to 0.80). Vomiting occurred in eight patients (12%) in the placebo group and two patients (3%) in the olanzapine group (relative risk, 0.24; 95% CI, 0.05 to 1.10). The median score for sedation (scale 0 to 10, with 10 being highest) in the 24 h after discharge was 4 (interquartile range, 2 to 7) in the placebo group and 6 (interquartile range, 3 to 8) in the olanzapine group (P = 0.023).

CONCLUSIONS

When combined with ondansetron and dexamethasone, the addition of olanzapine relative to placebo decreased the risk of nausea and/or vomiting in the 24 hafter discharge from ambulatory surgery by about 60% with a slight increase in reported sedation.

Should Olanzapine be Advocated Over Conventional Anti-Emetics for the Prevention of Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting? An Updated Meta-Analysis of Randomized Control Trials

Objective:

The aim of this study is to synthesize the evidence about the efficacy of Olanzapine for the prevention of CINV.

Methods:

A computer literature search of PubMed, EBSCO, Ovid, and Cochrane CENTRAL databases has been conducted. Studies were screened for eligibility and data were extracted. The proportion of patients with complete response (CR) and those with no nausea were pooled as risk ratio (RR) in a fixed effect model meta-analysis using Review Manager Version 5.3 for windows.

Results:

Nine randomized controlled trials (n=1572) were pooled in the final analysis. In all studies, olanzapine was given as 10 mg PO. Olanzapine was superior to active control in terms of CR rate in acute phase (RR 1.12, 95% CI [1.02, 1.22], p=0.01]), delayed phase (RR 1.31, 95% CI [[1.10, 1.56], p=0.002), and overall phase (RR 1.30, 95% CI [1.09, 1.55], p=0.004). Rates of no nausea were significantly higher in olanzapine 10 mg group compared to active control group in acute phase (RR 1.20, 95% CI [1.04, 1.38], p=0.01), delayed phase (RR 1.72, 95% CI [1.42, 2.08], p<0.00001), and overall phase (RR 1.57, 95% CI [1.39, 1.77], p <0.00001). The incidence of adverse events was similar in olanzapine and control groups, with the most frequently reported treatment-related emergent adverse events being fatigue, constipation, and headache.

Conclusion:

Olanzapine is a well-tolerated drug for cancer patients and has shown superiority against conventional antiemetics for the prevention of CINV.

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

Purpose

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

Patients and Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusion

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

Practical Perspectives in the Treatment of Nausea and Vomiting

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

What is new in the battle against postoperative nausea and vomiting?

The issue of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) still poses a significant burden on our patients. Although rarely associated with a life-threatening condition, it is consistently considered as one of the most undesirable side effects of surgery and anesthesia. There are well-established risk factors for the development of PONV that include patient-related factors, anesthetic technique, use of volatile anesthetics, use of nitrous oxide, duration of anesthesia, opioid administration, and type of surgery. Because pharmacologic interventions for PONV are not without risks, practitioners must assess patient's risk status from low to high and consider the benefits of treatment. This review summarizes the current state of knowledge related to PONV and provides a practical approach toward risk assessment, prevention, and numerous treatment strategies.

Olanzapine as antiemetic drug in oncology: a retrospective study in non-responders to standard antiemetic therapy

Background The role of olanzapine in the treatment of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in addition to the antiemetic therapeutic combination with aprepitant, setrons, and corticosteroids has not been well defined. Objective To investigate the effectiveness of the addition of olanzapine to a standard triplet therapy for the prevention of CINV in patients who experienced CINV during their first chemotherapy course, despite receiving a well-managed prevention protocol. Setting One comprehensive cancer centre in France. Method In a retrospective study with comparator, patients with a high risk of emesis were assigned to two groups during two different 6-month periods, before and after the introduction of olanzapine in clinical practice, respectively. In the olanzapine group, the antiemetic protocol for the second course of chemotherapy was reinforced by the addition of olanzapine at 5 mg/day from day 1 to 5 in contrast with the control group. Main outcome measure The proportion of patients who experienced neither nausea nor emesis during the delayed phase (24-120 h). Results The 25 patients in each group exhibited comparable characteristics and emetic chemotherapy level. During the first course, no significant difference was observed. During the second course, nausea and vomiting were ameliorated in 12 patients in the olanzapine group and 4 patients in the control group (p < 0.05). Nausea (12 vs. 4, p < 0.05) and vomiting (18 vs. 11, p < 0.05) also significantly improved. In the OLZ group, no adverse event was linked to olanzapine use. Conclusion The addition of olanzapine was observed to effectively restore CINV prevention in patients who did not respond to standard antiemetic therapy.

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

BACKGROUND

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

MATERIALS AND METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

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

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

PURPOSE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

CLINICAL TRIAL INFORMATION

UMIN000014214.

Efficacy of olanzapine for the prophylaxis of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting: a meta-analysis

AIM

The aim of the present study was to evaluate the efficacy of olanzapine for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV).

METHODS

The literature was searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the efficacy of olanzapine for the prophylaxis of CINV using PubMed, Embase, Central, as well as clinicaltrials.gov for unpublished studies. The endpoints of the study were the number of patients who achieved a complete response (CR; no emesis and no rescue) and no nausea in the acute, delayed and overall phases. Two authors independently selected studies, assessed the risk of bias and extracted data. The included RCTs were analysed using RevMan 5.3 provided by the Cochrane Collaboration.

RESULTS

Ten RCTs were identified for the meta-analysis. Compared with other antiemetic agents, olanzapine significantly improved the CR in the delayed and overall phases, but did not enhance the CR in the acute phase. For the control of CINV, olanzapine was better than and comparable with aprepitant in the acute phase and delayed phase, respectively. Compared with placebo, treatment with 5 mg and 10 mg olanzapine exhibited similar efficacy in terms of the CR in the delayed and overall phases.

CONCLUSIONS

Olanzapine is an excellent alternative for the prophylaxis of CINV. Olanzapine 5 mg per day should be recommended as the initial dose because of equivalent efficacy to a 10 mg dose but a lower potential risk of side effects. Further studies are needed to explore the optimal combination of medicines.

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

Background:

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

Objective:

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

Methods:

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

Results:

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

Conclusion:

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

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Central Aspects of Nausea and Vomiting in GI Disorders

OPINION STATEMENT

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

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.).

Olanzapine in the treatment of refractory nausea and vomiting: a case report and review of the literature

The role of olanzapine in chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is supported from randomized controlled trials and national consensus guidelines such as the National Comprehensive Cancer Network. In contrast, the role of olanzapine in refractory non-CINV is limited to case reports/series, retrospective studies, one pilot study, and one randomized controlled trial in patients with major depressive disorder. We present a case of a 36-year-old man with dyskeratosis congenita and refractory non-CINV over several years in which low-dose olanzapine was effective and tolerable. We aim to contribute to the growing evidence supporting the use of olanzapine for refractory non-CINV. Furthermore, we review and summarize the literature regarding olanzapine in the CINV and non-CINV settings.

The Efficacy, Safety, and Cost Benefit of Olanzapine versus Aprepitant in Highly Emetogenic Chemotherapy: A Pilot Study from South India

Background. The efficacy, safety, and cost benefit of olanzapine (OLN) when compared to aprepitant (APR) in the prevention of chemotherapy induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) were evaluated. Methods. A prospective pilot study was done in chemotherapy-naive patients receiving HEC to compare OLN versus APR along with palonosetron and dexamethasone. 100 patients consented to the protocol and were randomized and evaluated for Complete Response (CR) (no emesis, no rescue). Results. CR was 86% for the acute period, 86% for the delayed period, and 80% for the overall period in 50 patients receiving the APD regimen. CR was 84% for the acute period, 88% for the delayed period, and 78% for the overall period for 50 patients receiving the OPD regimen. Patients without nausea were APD: 88% acute, 84% delayed, and 84% overall, and OPD: 84% acute, 88% delayed, and 84% overall. There were no significant grade 3 or 4 toxicities. OPD was comparable to APD in the control of CINV. Conclusion. In this study, there was no significant difference between olanzapine and aprepitant in preventing CINV with highly emetogenic chemotherapy. Olanzapine may thus be used as a potential, safe, and cost beneficial alternative to prevent nausea and vomiting in HEC.

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

PURPOSE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Nausea: a review of pathophysiology and therapeutics

The sensation of nausea is a common occurrence with diverse causes and a significant disease burden. Nausea is considered to function as a protective mechanism, warning the organism to avoid potential toxic ingestion. Less adaptive circumstances are also associated with nausea, including post-operative nausea, chemotherapy-induced nausea, and motion sickness. A common definition of nausea identifies the symptom as a precursor to the act of vomiting. The interaction, though present, does not appear to be a simple relationship. Nausea is unfortunately the 'neglected symptom', with current accepted therapy generally directed at improving gastrointestinal motility or acting to relieve emesis. Improved understanding of the pathophysiological basis of nausea has important implications for exploiting novel mechanisms or developing novel therapies for nausea relief.

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

INTRODUCTION

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

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.

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

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

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

BACKGROUND

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

PROCEDURE

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

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

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

Olanzapine: an antiemetic option for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting

Despite the appropriate use of pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic preventative measures, chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) can be debilitating and can decrease quality of life for many patients. In addition, patients may be unwilling to continue chemotherapy treatment due to the uncontrollable nausea and vomiting associated with their therapy. Refractory CINV can occur at any point in a treatment cycle, despite adequate therapy for acute and delayed CINV. Current prevention strategies include using serotonin (5-HT3) receptor antagonists, corticosteroids, and/or neurokinin-1 receptor antagonists. Unfortunately, more pharmacologic options are needed to treat refractory CINV. The current standard of care for the treatment of refractory CINV includes phenothiazines, metoclopramide, butyrophenones, corticosteroids, cannabinoids, anticholinergics, and 5-HT3 receptor antagonists. Olanzapine, an atypical antipsychotic agent of the thiobenzodiazepine class, has the ability to target many different receptors, making it an attractive antiemetic agent.

A meta-analysis of olanzapine for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is associated with a significant deterioration in quality of life and is one of the reasons for the discontinuation of treatment. Olanzapine is known as an atypical antipsychotic agent, but it has been reported to be effective in treating refractory CINV due to its broad and potent inhibitory activity at multiple receptors involved in the nausea and vomiting pathways. This study was conducted to assess the efficacy of olanzapine for the prevention of CINV after moderately or highly emetogenic chemotherapy. After a search of Medline (Ovid), PubMed, CNKI, Wanfang and Weipu from 1990 to October 2013, all randomised controlled trials of olanzapine for the prevention of CINV were included in this study. The meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 5.0.19 software. 6 studies involving 726 total patients were included, of which 441 were Chinese oncology patients. We found that for both general populations and Chinese populations, antiemetic regimens including olanzapine are more effective at reducing CINV than regimens that do not include olanzapine, especially in the delayed phase of CINV.

Olanzapine for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in patients receiving highly or moderately emetogenic chemotherapy: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study

CONTEXT

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) can severely impair patients' quality of life (QOL). Psychotropics, especially olanzapine, have a strong antiemetic effect.

OBJECTIVES

To determine whether olanzapine could reduce the frequency of CINV and improve patients' QOL during chemotherapy.

METHODS

This was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Forty-four patients scheduled to receive highly or moderately emetogenic chemotherapy were enrolled. All patients received a 5-hydroxytryptamine3 receptor antagonist, steroid, and neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist. Patients were randomly assigned to take 5 mg/day of oral olanzapine (OL group, n = 22) or placebo (control group, n = 22) daily from the day before chemotherapy (Day 0) to Day 5. The primary endpoint was the rate of patients who achieved total control (no vomiting, no use of rescue medications, and maximum nausea of <5/100mm on a visual analogue scale). The secondary endpoint was Functional Living Index-Emesis questionnaire score on Days 0 and 6.

RESULTS

The rate of patients achieving total control was significantly higher in the OL group (86% and 64% in acute and delayed phases, respectively) than in the control group (55% and 23%, P = 0.045, P = 0.014, respectively). Furthermore, the OL group experienced a better QOL than the control group, as reported on the Functional Living Index-Emesis questionnaire (P = 0.0004).

CONCLUSION

The addition of 5mg/day of oral olanzapine to standard therapy can reduce the frequency of CINV and improve QOL of patients receiving highly or moderately emetogenic chemotherapy.

Olanzapine for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting: a systematic review

PURPOSE

Newer drugs incorporated in prophylactic regimens for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) have resulted in significantly reduced rates of this feared complication of cytotoxic chemotherapy. However, both delayed chemotherapy-induced nausea and breakthrough CINV remain difficult areas of management and require novel treatment strategies. Recent randomized trial evidence has suggested that olanzapine, an atypical antipsychotic, may have a role in both the prevention and treatment of CINV. A systematic review was conducted to assess the efficacy of olanzapine in (a) preventing CINV in highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) and moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC) and (b) the treatment of breakthrough CINV. The toxicity of olanzapine in this setting was also reviewed.

METHODS

MEDLINE, Embase and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews databases were searched to identify all randomized clinical trials (RCTs) investigating olanzapine in patients receiving chemotherapy.

RESULTS

A total of 488 patients from three trials of CINV prophylaxis and 323 patients from three trials of breakthrough CINV were included. Regimens including olanzapine were associated with significant improvements in CINV prevention with both HEC and MEC. Single agent olanzapine for breakthrough nausea was superior to standard alternative options.

CONCLUSION

Data from RCTs support the use of an olanzapine containing combination regimen as an option for CINV prophylaxis and single agent olanzapine for the treatment of breakthrough CINV. In the included trials, the short duration of olanzapine appears safe and well tolerated.

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

Olanzapine is an atypical antipsychotic agent of the thiobenzodiazepine class. It blocks multiple neurotransmitter receptors including dopaminergic at D1, D2, D3, D4 brain receptors, serotonergic at 5-HT2a, 5-HT2c, 5-HT3, 5-HT6 receptors, catecholamines at alpha1 adrenergic receptors, acetylcholine at muscarinic receptors, and histamine at H1 receptors. Olanzapine has five times the affinity for 5-HT2 receptors than D2 receptors and has been used to treat schizophrenia and delirium. Olanzapine's activity at multiple receptors, particularly at the D2, 5-HT2c, and 5-HT3 receptors which appear to be involved in nausea and emesis, has prompted its use in the treatment of nausea and vomiting refractory to standard antiemetics. Case reports and formal clinical trials have demonstrated its efficacy in the treatment of chronic nausea, the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and emesis, and the treatment of breakthrough chemotherapy-induced nausea and emesis. Phase II and phase III clinical trials have demonstrated that there is a significant improvement in nausea when olanzapine is added to guideline directed prophylactic antiemetic agents 5-HT3 receptor antagonists and tachykinin NK1 receptor antagonists in patients receiving moderately or highly emetogenic chemotherapy Common side effects of olanzapine when used over a period of months include weight gain as well as an association with the onset of diabetes mellitus, but these effects have not been seen with short term use of daily doses of less than one week.

Opioid induced nausea and vomiting

Opioids are broad spectrum analgesics that are an integral part of the therapeutic armamentarium to combat pain in the palliative care population. Unfortunately, among the adverse effects of opioids that may be experienced along with analgesia is nausea, vomiting, and/or retching. Although it is conceivable that in the future, using combination agents (opioids combined with agents which may nullify emetic effects), currently nausea/vomiting remains a significant issue for certain patients. However, there exists potential current strategies that may be useful in efforts to diminish the frequency and/or intensity of opioid-induced nausea/vomiting (OINV).

Management of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting : focus on newer agents and new uses for older agents

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is associated with a significant deterioration in quality of life. The emetogenicity of the chemotherapeutic agents, repeated chemotherapy cycles, and patient risk factors significantly influence CINV. The use of a combination of a serotonin 5-HT3 receptor antagonist, dexamethasone and a neurokinin 1 (NK1) receptor antagonist has significantly improved the control of acute and delayed emesis in single-day chemotherapy. Palonosetron, a second-generation 5-HT3 receptor antagonist with a different half-life, a different binding capacity and a different mechanism of action than the first-generation 5-HT3 receptor antagonists appears to be the most effective agent in its class. Aprepitant, the first and only agent clinically available in the NK1 receptor antagonist drug class has been used effectively as an additive agent to the 5-HT3 receptor antagonists and dexamethasone to control CINV. Rolapitant and netupitant are other NK1 receptor antagonists that are currently in phase III clinical trials. Despite the control of emesis, nausea has not been well controlled by current agents. Olanzapine, a US-FDA approved antipsychotic, has emerged in recent trials as an effective preventative agent for CINV, as well as a very effective agent for the treatment of breakthrough emesis and nausea. Clinical trials using gabapentin, cannabinoids and ginger have not been definitive regarding their efficacy in the prevention of CINV. Additional studies are necessary for the control of nausea and for the control of CINV in the clinical settings of multiple-day chemotherapy and bone marrow transplantation.

Olanzapine: palliative medicine update

Olanzapine is an atypical antipsychotic agent of the thienobenzodiazepine class. Olanzapine blocks multiple neurotransmitter receptors, including dopaminergic (D(1), D(2), D(3), and D(4)), serotonergic (5-hydroxytryptamine 2A [5-HT(2A)], 5-HT(2C), 5-HT(3), and 5-HT(6)), adrenergic (α(1)), histaminic (H(1)), and muscarinic (M(1), M(2), M(3), and M(4)) receptors. Olanzapine has a high affinity for the 5HT(2A) receptor, which is up to 5 times greater than the dopamine receptor, resulting in less propensity to the development of extrapyramidal side effects. The affinity of olanzapine for multiple receptors has lead to the identification of olanzapine as an important agent in the treatment of delirium, nausea, and vomiting. Olanzapine has been demonstrated to have opioid-sparing properties. Olanzapine is principally metabolized by glucuronidation, with a smaller metabolic contribution from the cytochrome oxidase system. Adverse effects of olanzapine include somnolence, postural hypotension, constipation, dizziness, restlessness, and weight gain. The purpose of this article is to outline the pharmacodynamics, pharmacology, and evidence for the use of olanzapine in palliative care.

Olanzapine for nausea and vomiting

Nausea and vomiting are often encountered in palliative care patients. Multiple medications are available to provide relief. However, several drug combinations are usually used to treat emesis. Current research has identified several receptors that trigger nausea and vomiting, hence the difficulty of using only 1 medication to provide relief. Olanzapine is a drug approved for treatment of schizophrenia and mania. It blocks multiple neurotransmitters dopaminergic, serotonergic, adrenergic (alpha(1)), histaminergic, and muscarinic receptors. Most of these receptors are also involved in causing emesis. Studies have shown that olanzapine could be used to treat nausea and vomiting with promising results.

Optimizing emetic control in children receiving antineoplastic therapy: beyond the guidelines

Existing guidelines for the prevention of antineoplastic chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in children are constrained by the lack of robust evidence. Current guidelines recommend the use of a serotonin 5-HT(3) receptor antagonist plus a corticosteroid to prevent acute CINV. Consequently, antiemetic agents that are recommended for use in adult cancer patients do not appear in the current pediatric guidelines. In addition, there is no information to guide the selection of alternative antiemetic agents for children who either cannot receive the recommended agents or who do not respond adequately to the treatment. Possible barriers to adherence to the pediatric antiemetic selection guidelines that are currently available are discussed, and published pediatric experience with antiemetic agents recommended in the current adult antiemetic selection guidelines (dolasetron, tropisetron, palonosetron, aprepitant) is summarized in this review. The use of novel and emerging antiemetic therapeutic interventions {metopimazine, diphenhydramine (Benadryl)-lorazepam (Avitan)-dexamethasone (Decadron) [BAD], nabilone, acupuncture, midazolam, olanzapine, mirtazapine, gabapentin, droperidol} in children are explored.

Clinical research of Olanzapine for prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting

Background

This study was designed to mainly evaluate the activity and safety of olanzapine compared with 5-hydroxytryptamine3(5-HT₃) receptor antagonists for prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting(CINV) in patients receiving highly or moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC or MEC). The second goal was to evaluate the impact of olanzapine on quality of life (QoL) of cancer patients during the period of chemotherapy.

Methods

229 patients receiving highly or moderately emetogenic chemotherapy were randomly assigned to the test group [olanzapine(O) 10 mg p.o. plus azasetron (A) 10 mg i.v. and dexamethasone (D) 10 mg i.v. on day 1; O 10 mg once a day on days 2-5] or the control group (A 10 mg i.v. and D 10 mg i.v. on day 1; D 10 mg i.v. once a day on days 2-5). All the patients filled the observation table of CINV once a day on days 1-5, patients were instructed to fill the EORTC QLQ-C30 QoL observation table on day 0 and day 6. The primary endpoint was the complete response (CR) (without nausea and vomiting, no rescue therapy) for the acute period (24 h postchemotherapy), delayed period (days 2-5 poschemotherapy), the whole period (days 1-5 postchemotherapy). The second endpoint was QoL during chemotherapy administration, drug safety and toxicity.

Results

229 patients were evaluable for efficacy. Compared with control group, complete response for acute nausea and vomiting in test group had no difference (p > 0.05), complete response for delayed nausea and vomiting in patients with highly emetogenic chemotherapy respectively improved 39.21% (69.64% versus 30.43%, p < 0.05), 22.05% (78.57% versus 56.52%, p < 0.05), complete response for delayed nausea and vomiting in patients with moderately emetogenic chemotherapy respectively improved 25.01% (83.07% versus 58.06%, p < 0.05), 13.43% (89.23% versus 75.80%, p < 0.05), complete response for the whole period of nausea and vomiting in patients with highly emetogenic chemotherapy respectively improved 41.38% (69.64% versus 28.26%, p < 0.05), 22.05% (78.57% versus 56.52%, p < 0.05), complete response for the whole period of nausea and vomiting in patients with moderately emetogenic chemotherapy respectively improved 26.62% (83.07% versus 56.45%, p < 0.05), 13.43% (89.23% versus 75.80%, p < 0.05). 214 of 299 patients were evaluable for QoL. Comparing test group with control group in QoL evolution, significant differences were seen in global health status, emotional functioning, social functioning, fatigue, nausea and vomiting, insomnia and appetite loss evolution in favour of the test group (p < 0.01). Both treatments were well tolerated.

Conclusion

Olanzapine can improve the complete response of delayed nausea and vomiting in patients receiving the highly or moderately emetogenic chemotherapy comparing with the standard therapy of antiemesis, as well as improve the QoL of the cancer patients during chemotherapy administration. Olanzapine is a safe and efficient drug for prevention of CINV.

Antiemetic control: toward a new standard of care for emetogenic chemotherapy

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is associated with a significant deterioration in quality of life. The emetogenicity of the chemotherapeutic agents, repeated chemotherapy cycles, and patient risk factors significantly influence CINV. 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 (5-HT(3)) receptor antagonists plus dexamethasone have significantly improved the control of acute CINV, but delayed CINV remains a significant clinical problem. Two new agents, palonosetron and aprepitant, have been approved for the prevention of both acute and delayed CINV. Palonosetron is a second-generation 5-HT(3) receptor antagonist with a longer half-life and a higher binding affinity than first-generation 5-HT(3) receptor antagonists. Aprepitant is the first agent available in the new drug class of neurokinin-1 (NK-1) receptor antagonists. Casopitant is another NK-1 receptor antagonist that is under review by the FDA after recent completion of Phase III clinical trials. The introduction of these new agents has generated revised antiemetic guidelines for the prevention of CINV. Future studies may consider the use of palonosetron, aprepitant and casopitant with other antiemetic agents (olanzapine, gabapentin, cannabinoids) in moderately and highly emetogenic chemotherapy, as well as in the clinical settings of multiple-day chemotherapy and bone marrow transplantation.