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.

Clinical Observation of Gene Polymorphism of Olanzapine or Aprepitant in Prevention of CINV

Objective

The present study aims to investigate the correlation between the gene polymorphisms of the multidrug resistance protein 1 (ABCB1), the intron region of transcriptional factor (GTF2E1) and catechol-O-methyltransferase (COMT), dopamine receptor (DRD2), and the control of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) by olanzapine or aprepitant in a Chinese population under a fractionated cisplatin dosing pattern.

Methods

Antiemetic treatment with 5 mg of olanzapine or aprepitant triplet therapy was conducted in 210 patients with malignancies receiving cisplatin multi-day chemotherapy. The general data on the patients were collected with the evaluation of the rate of complete protection (TP), complete remission (CR), complete control (TC), and time to first vomiting, the functional living index-emesis (FLIE) scale, and side effects in the acute and delayed phases. The DNA mass spectrometry detected the gene polymorphisms of ABCB1, GTF2E1, COMT, and DRD2, and the correlation with TP was analyzed.

Results

1) There were no statistically significant differences in the TP, CR, TC, time of first vomiting, and FLIE index at different phases between the 5mg of olanzapine group and the aprepitant group (P > 0.05). 2) The main side effect in the olanzapine group was drowsiness (P = 0.00), and in the aprepitant group was constipation (P = 0.02). 3) The distributions of each genotype were in the Hardy–Weinberg (H–W) equilibrium. Univariate analysis showed that in the olanzapine group, delayed-phase TP was correlated with the ABCB1 rs1045642 non-TT (P = 0.01) genotype.

Conclusion

The present study revealed that females and the rs1045642TT genotype were independent risk factors for delayed-phase CINV in the northern Chinese population, which provided a scientific basis for subsequent CINV-related analysis of high-risk factors in Chinese patients.

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.