Efficacy of Olanzapine Combined Therapy for Patients Receiving Highly Emetogenic Chemotherapy Resistant to Standard Antiemetic Therapy

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

OBJECTIVE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

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

INTRODUCTION

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

METHODS

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

RESULT

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

CONCLUSION

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

Chemotherapy-induced nausea in a sample of gynaecological cancer patients: assessment issues and personal risk factors evaluation

PURPOSE

Chemotherapy-induced nausea (CIN) is a relevant problem for gynaecological cancer patients. The evaluation of CIN is a key aspect in its management, along with the identification of associated risk factors. The objective of the study was to compare different measurements of nausea and to investigate personal risk factors in CIN development.

METHOD

Eighty-one women treated for gynaecological cancers took part. The presence of CIN was evaluated using the MASCC Antiemesis Tool (MAT) and a patient's report to clinicians at the subsequent chemotherapy cycle. Personal risk factors were assessed using the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory and a self-report questionnaire.

RESULTS

The study shows that the agreement between patients' assessment of CIN with MAT and what they referred to clinicians was only moderate for acute nausea (Cohen's Kappa = 0.55; p < 0.001), while good for delayed nausea (Cohen's Kappa = 0.68; p < 0.001). At multiple logistic regression analysis, younger age, anticipatory nausea, patient medium-high expectations of CIN, and parity emerged as risk factors for the development of acute nausea (p = 0.0087, 0.0080, 0.0122 and 0.0021, respectively). Patient medium-high expectations of CIN and being single resulted to be risk factors for delayed nausea (p = 0.0397 and 0.0024, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings confirm that personal factors contribute to individual differences in the development of CIN; moreover, we highlight the importance of CIN evaluation by clinicians, underlining the need to use reliable instruments.

The use of olanzapine as an antiemetic in palliative medicine: a systematic review of the literature

BACKGROUND

Olanzapine is an atypical antipsychotic that has affinity for many central nervous system receptors. Its efficacy is supported by several studies in the prevention and treatment of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting. No recommendations exist on the antiemetic use of olanzapine in the palliative care setting. The aim of this work is to complete the initial work of Fonte et al. published in 2015, to determine whether the literature supports the use of olanzapine as an antiemetic in palliative situations and, in practice, to propose a therapeutic schema adapted to the palliative setting.

METHODS

Systematic review of the literature according to the PRISMA criteria. We searched the PubMed, Cochrane, RefDoc, EMBase databases and the gray literature databases. The bibliographic search was conducted between November 2016 and August 2017.

RESULTS

Thirteen articles were included: 2 case studies, 3 case series, 3 retrospective studies, 2 prospective studies, 2 literature reviews. All studies concluded on the efficacy of olanzapine as an antiemetic in the palliative care setting. No serious adverse effects were reported. Based on the data from the literature review, we propose a therapeutic scheme adapted to the palliative care context.

CONCLUSION

Action of olanzapine on many receptors and its tolerance profile make it an interesting antiemetic treatment in palliative medicine. But to date, studies are scarce and have a low statistical power. Further investigation is therefore needed to determine the benefit of this treatment in palliative care patients, compared to usual treatments.

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.

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.

Contributions of the Japanese Gynecologic Oncology Group (JGOG) in Improving the Quality of Life in Women With Gynecological Malignancies

The Japanese Gynecologic Oncology Group (JGOG) is leading Japan in the treatment of gynecological malignancies. The JGOG consists of three treatment committees focusing on uterine cervical cancer, endometrial cancer, and ovarian cancer. Each committee makes efforts to improve treatment and diagnosis. In addition, the Supportive and Palliative Care Committee was established in 2015. Novel studies of supportive care and palliative care have been initiated by this committee. Furthermore, surveys about not only treatment results such as overall survival rates but also quality of life (QOL) and cost-effectiveness assessments are performed by the ovarian cancer committee. Improvements of patients' QOL in the treatment of gynecological malignancies were divided into three concepts as follows: QOL associated with cancer treatment, health care after cancer therapy, and progression of cancer. In this review, we report the contributions and future plans for the improvement of QOL in patients with gynecological malignancies.

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.

Effect of Persian Medicine Remedy on Chemotherapy Induced Nausea and Vomiting in Breast Cancer: A Double Blind, Randomized, Crossover Clinical Trial

Background

Chemotherapy induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is a side effect, and has negative effect on quality of life and continuation of chemotherapy. Despite new regimen and drugs, the problems still remain and standard guidelines, effective treatment and supportive care for refractory CINV are still not yet established. Persian medicine, the old Iranian medical school, offer Persumac (prepared from Rhus Coriaria and Bunium Persicum Boiss).

Objective

The specific objectives were to assess the effect of Persumac on the number and severity of nausea and vomiting in refractory CINV in acute and delayed phase.

Methods

This randomized, double blind, crossover clinical trial study was carried out on 93 patients with breast cancer and refractory CINV, who received outpatient high emetogenic chemotherapy in Imam Reza hospital, Mashhad, Iran from October 2015 to May 2016. The study has three stages: in stage I patients received a questionaire and completed it after chemotherapy. In stage II they were randomly divided into intervention group with Persumac and control group with placebo (lactose were used). In stage III, wash out and crossover was conducted. Both groups in all stages received standard antiemetic therapy for CINV. The following were set as the inclusion criteria of the study: female, Age ≥18 years, clinical diagnosis of breast cancer, history of refractory CINV, normal blood tests and at least three courses of chemotherapy remaining. Exclusion criteria of this study were: Total or upper abdominal radiation therapy along with chemotherapy, drugs/therapy for nausea and vomiting not prescribed in this study, hypersensitivity to Sumac or Bunium Persicum, use of sumac and Bunium Persicum in seven days prior to the intervention, clinical diagnosis of digestion disorders, non-chemotherapy induced nausea and vomiting, milk allergy, loss of two consecutive or three intermittent doses of Persumac or placebo. Outcomes were gathered by Persian questionnaire. Number and severity of nausea and vomiting was measured with a self-reporting tool; visual analog scale.

Results

Demographic data and other characters in both groups have no significant diffrence. Eighty of 93 eligible patients in stage I completed the study and in stage II, eleven declined participation for stage III (crossover). P value of carry over, period and treatment effects demonstrated that they had not affected the results before and after crossover. The mean severity of nausea in acute phase was in stage I: 4.83 ± 1.40, stage II: 4.54 ± 2.0 and stage III: 4.15 ± 0.92 in sequence AB (first Persumac and then placebo in crossover), and in sequence BA (first placebo and then Persumac in crossover) was respectively 4.83 ± 1.40, 4.54 ± 2.0, 4.15 ± 0.92 with p value of carry over effect: 0.03 and period effect: 0.22. Except for severity of nausea in acute phase, the mean number and severity of nausea and vomiting scores significantly decreased in acute and delayed phase of CINV.

Conclusion

Persumac may control the refractory CINV. The implicable and clinical importance of this research is that another option exists for refractory CINV. Higher doses, different cancers, patients with more various features, and more complete methodology and tools can provide appropriate designs for new research on this topic.

Trial registration

This trial was registered at the Clinical Trials.gov ID: NCT02787707.

Funding

This study is part of a Ph.D. thesis and under grant; No: 930735 of Research Chancellery of MUMS.