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

Efficacy of Olanzapine for Symptom Relief in Cancer Patients

Olanzapine is an atypical antipsychotic and is widely used for prophylaxis of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in cancer patients. Previous studies have suggested its potential efficacy for the relief of various symptoms in cancer patients, especially gastrointestinal and psychiatric symptoms. We retrospectively reviewed the prescription of olanzapine to cancer patients at our hospital. Between 2008 and 2020, olanzapine was prescribed to 41 patients for relief of symptoms associated with cancer other than prophylaxis of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting. Of those patients, symptom relief was seen in 53.7%. Notably, olanzapine was effective in 13 of 14 patients with chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting refractory to guideline-recommended prophylaxis. Of 16 patients in whom this symptom was not relieved by olanzapine, 13 (81.3%) continued taking olanzapine even after it was judged ineffective. No treatment-related adverse events were seen in this study. Our observation implies good efficacy of olanzapine for refractory chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting and a tendency to continue olanzapine even in those for whom it was ineffective.

Knowledge, practice and perceived barriers towards chemotherapy induced nausea and vomiting in prophylaxis guideline adherence among nurses in oncology units at selected hospitals, in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, a cross-sectional study

Background

Chemotherapy-induced emesis can be prevented by the use of recommended guidelines for antiemetic regimens but a research study indicates that in Ethiopia the use of standard antiemetic drug guidelines is very limited.

Objectives

To assess knowledge, practice, and perceived barriers towards chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in prophylaxis guideline adherence among nurses in oncology units.

Methods

A cross-sectional study design was conducted among 81 oncology nurses selected in the two public hospitals of Addis Ababa, from March 1 to 30, 2020. The study participants were selected by using the population census method from the source population of nurses in oncology units. Data has collected by using semi-structured questionnaires with the self-administrated method. Data were analyzed by using Statistical Package for the Social Sciences software version 24. Descriptive statistics and logistic regression including bivariate and multivariate were conducted to examine the association between independent and outcome variables. The level of significance was determined at a p-value < 0.05 and a 95% confidence interval.

Result

Seventy-nine nurses participated with a 96% of response rate. All participants were aged greater than 24 with a mean age of 28.8 ± 6 years and nearly two-thirds of the respondents (60.8%) were females. Nurses were not trained in chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting management shows 54.4%. nurses’ knowledge of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting prophylaxis Guidelines was 78.5%. The means score of oncology nurses’ practice toward guideline recommendation was 41.8%. Knowledge of nurses associated with the use of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting prophylaxis guideline recommendations working in the outpatient department, inpatient ward, and chemotherapy administration unit has a significant association with chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting management knowledge. In the multiple logistic regression analysis, nurses who have trained for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting management were 1.64-fold more aware than those who were not trained.

Conclusion

The study reveals that nurses working in the oncology unit of the study hospitals have a poor practice of Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting. Therefore, recommended providing Training for the Nurses working in the oncology unit and encourage them to apply standard guidelines.

Plasma linoelaidyl carnitine levels positively correlated with symptom improvement in olanzapine-treated first-episode drug-naïve schizophrenia

INTRODUCTION

Olanzapine (OLA) is one of the most commonly used second-generation antipsychotics for the treatment of schizophrenia. However, the heterogeneity of therapeutic response to OLA among schizophrenia patients deserves further exploration. The role of carnitine in the clinical response to OLA monotherapy remains unclear.

OBJECTIVES

The current study was designed to investigate whether carnitine and its derivatives are linked to the response to OLA treatment. Drug-naïve first-episode patients with schizophrenia were recruited and treated with OLA for 4 weeks. Psychiatric symptoms were assessed using the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) in pre and post treatment.

RESULTS

After treatment, we found a significant decrease in 2-Octenoylcarnitine levels and a significant increase in linoelaidyl carnitine, 11Z-Octadecenylcarnitine and 9-Decenoylcarnitine levels. Furthermore, baseline linoelaidyl carnitine levels were correlated with the reduction of PANSS positive symptom subscore. Linear regression and logistic regression analyses found that the baseline linoelaidyl carnitine level was a predictive marker for the therapeutic response to OLA monotherapy for 4 weeks.

CONCLUSION

Our pilot study suggests that linoelaidyl carnitine levels at baseline may have a predictive role for the improvement of positive symptoms after OLA monotherapy in the patients with schizophrenia.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of olanzapine-containing antiemetic therapy for the prophylaxis of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) patients

PURPOSE

Olanzapine-containing regimens have been reported to be effective in preventing CINV following highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC), but it is unsure whether it is cost-effective. There has been no cost-effectiveness analysis conducted for olanzapine using costs from the USA. The aim of this study is to determine whether olanzapine-containing antiemetic regimens are cost-effective in patients receiving HEC.

METHODS

A decision tree model was constructed to evaluate the cost and health outcomes associated with olanzapine-containing antiemetic regimens and otherwise-identical regimens. One-way sensitivity analyses were conducted to individually investigate the effect of (i) lower complete response (CR) rates of olanzapine, closer to non-olanzapine-containing regimens; (ii) higher FLIE scores for patients who achieved no/incomplete response, closer to FLIE scores of patients achieving a complete response; (iii) differing costs of olanzapine to reflect different costs per hospitals, globally, due to different insurance systems and drug costs; and (iv) varying costs for uncontrolled CINV, to account for varying durations of chemotherapy and accompanying uncontrolled CINV.

RESULTS

Olanzapine regimens have an expected cost of $325.24, compared with $551.23 for non-olanzapine regimens. Meanwhile, olanzapine regimens have an expected utility/index of 0.89, relative to 0.87 for non-olanzapine regimens. Olanzapine-containing regimens dominate non-olanzapine-containing regimens even if CR of olanzapine-containing regimens fall to 0.63. Only when CR is between 0.60 and 0.62 is olanzapine both more effective and more costly.

CONCLUSION

Olanzapine-containing regimens are both cheaper and more effective in the prophylaxis of CINV in HEC patients, compared with non-olanzapine-containing regimens. Future CINV trial resources should be allocated to understand newer antiemetics and compare them to olanzapine-containing regimens as the control arm. Further analysis should use nationally representative data to examine medication costs by payer type.

Antiemetic prophylaxis with temozolomide: an audit from a tertiary care center

Background

In our previous experience, a significant proportion of patients who received 5-HT₃ antagonist monotherapy with adjuvant temozolomide (150-200 mg/m²) had chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV). This is an audit comparing the multiple antiemetic therapies in the prevention of temozolomide-associated CINV.

Methods

This was a retrospective audit. Adult glioma patients treated with temozolomide at a dose of 150-200 mg/m² between October 2017 and June 2018 were selected for this analysis. Three antiemetic prophylaxis were used in this time period: ondansetron (October 2017 to November 2017), ondansetron + domperidone (December 2017 to February 2018), and ondansetron + olanzapine (March 2018 to June 2018). The rates of nausea and vomiting were compared among the 3 cohorts using the chi-squared test with Bonferroni correction. A P value of less than .016 was considered significant.

Results

A total of 360 patients were selected for this analysis. There were 91 patients in the ondansetron prophylaxis group (25.3%), 113 (31.4%) in the ondansetron plus domperidone group, and 156 (43.3%) in the ondansetron plus olanzapine group. The overall incidence of nausea and vomiting was 25.0% (n = 90) and 7.2% (n = 26). Overall the rates of nausea (P = .052) and vomiting (P = .481) were similar in all 3 cohorts. However, the rates of grade 2 and above nausea (P = .012) and vomiting (P = .015) were significantly lower in the olanzapine group.

Conclusion

The combination of ondansetron with olanzapine leads to a statistically significant decrease in the rate of moderate-to-severe emesis and nausea and needs to be explored in a prospective study.

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.

Low-dose of olanzapine has ameliorating effects on cancer-related anorexia

Background

Olanzapine (OLZ) has become well-known for its antiemetic effects on chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting. However, it remains unclear whether OLZ also has efficacy for treating cancer-related anorexia. This study, therefore, retrospectively examined whether or not OLZ administration affects the food intake in anorexic cancer patients who exhibit neither nausea nor vomiting.

Methods

Eighty patients prescribed OLZ were extracted from 951 inpatients who consulted with our palliative care team at Chiba University Hospital from April 2008 to March 2016. Their food intake described on a nursing record was compared before and after OLZ administration. The observation period was 3 days before and after the start of OLZ treatment, because most inpatients whose food intake increased were discharged in 3 days.

Results

In those 80 patients, the average dose of OLZ for 3 days was 2.28±0.87 (mean±SD) mg/day. First, the food intake in 80 patients was significantly higher after than before starting OLZ, and the relative change in food intake was 149% on average (P<0.0001, Student’s paired t-test). Second, OLZ increased the food intake even in 40 out of 80 patients without nausea or vomiting, and the relative change in food intake was 143% on average (P<0.001, Student’s paired t-test). Third, the average food intake increased in 13 out of 40 patients who were prescribed 1.5 mg/day of OLZ, and the relative change in food intake was 124% on average (P<0.01, Student’s paired t-test). There was no significant difference in food intake between a dose of 1.5 mg/day and a dose of >1.5 mg/day of OLZ (P=0.18, Welch’s unpaired t-test).

Conclusion

We have herein reported OLZ’s ameliorating efficacy in cancer-related anorexia at the low dose of 1.5 mg/day. Although our study has many limitations, low-dose OLZ can be a promising treatment for cancer-related anorexia.

Effectiveness and safety of combined neurokinin-1 antagonist aprepitant treatment for multiple-day anthracycline-induced nausea and vomiting

OBJECTIVE

To assess the safety and efficacy of combined neurokinin-1 antagonist aprepitant treatment for multiple-day anthracycline chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting.

METHODS

One hundred patients with breast cancer from department of Medical Oncology of Ordos Central Hospital from June 2015 to February 2018 were selected and randomize subdivided into 2 groups. All cases received anthracycline (30 mg/m²/d for pirarubicin or 45 mg/m²/d for epirubicin) and cyclophosphamide adjuvant chemotherapy, along with either the standard therapy (dexamethasone and tropisetron) or the combined aprepitant therapy (aprepitant plus dexamethasone and tropisetron). The results of the observation between groups were presented by complete response in the overall phase (OP, 0-120 hours), acute phase (AP, 0-24 hours) and delay phase (DP, 25-120 hours). The Kaplan-Meier curves were plotted to exhibit the first time of vomiting, Functional Living Index-Emesis of patients' quality of life, and therapy-related adverse effects (AEs).

RESULTS

The complete response of OP, AP, and DP were statistically different between aprepitant group and standard group (80.0% vs 48%, P = 0.001; 92.0% vs 74%, P = 0.017; 80.0% vs 48%, P = 0.001). The aprepitant group held a longer time reaching the first emesis after the relevant treatment than the standard group. The Functional Living Index-Emesis increased significantly in the aprepitant group compared with the standard group (24% vs 8.3%, P = 0.029). Fatigue and constipation were the only AEs of aprepitant, since no significant differences were observed in fatigue between the 2 groups (72% vs 70%, P = 0.826), while the incidence of constipation of aprepitant group was higher than the standard group (48% vs 28%, P = 0.039).

CONCLUSION

Combined aprepitant therapy is efficient and safe in the multiple-day anthracycline chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting control and is recommended for the clinical use.

Olanzapine for the prevention and treatment of cancer-related nausea and vomiting in adults

BACKGROUND

Olanzapine as an antiemetic represents a new use of an antipsychotic drug. People with cancer may experience nausea and vomiting whilst receiving chemotherapy or radiotherapy, or whilst in the palliative phase of illness.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy and safety of olanzapine when used as an antiemetic in the prevention and treatment of nausea and vomiting related to cancer in adults.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE and Embase for published data on 20th September 2017, as well as ClinicalTrials.gov and World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform for unpublished trials. We checked reference lists, and contacted experts in the field and study authors.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of olanzapine versus any comparator with or without adjunct therapies for the prevention or treatment, or both, of nausea or vomiting in people with cancer aged 18 years or older, in any setting, of any duration, with at least 10 participants per treatment arm.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard Cochrane methodology. We used GRADE to assess quality of evidence for each main outcome. We extracted data for absence of nausea or vomiting and frequency of serious adverse events as primary outcomes. We extracted data for patient perception of treatment, other adverse events, somnolence and fatigue, attrition, nausea or vomiting severity, breakthrough nausea and vomiting, rescue antiemetic use, and nausea and vomiting as secondary outcomes at specified time points.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 14 RCTs (1917 participants) from high-, middle- and low-income countries, representing over 24 different cancers. Thirteen studies were in chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting. Oral olanzapine was administered during highly emetogenic (HEC) or moderately emetogenic (MEC) chemotherapy (12 studies); chemoradiotherapy (one study); or palliation (one study). Eight studies await classification and 13 are ongoing.The main comparison was olanzapine versus placebo/no treatment. Other comparisons were olanzapine versus NK1 antagonist, prokinetic, 5-HT3 antagonist or dexamethasone.We assessed all but one study as having one or more domains that were at high risk of bias. Eight RCTs with fewer than 50 participants per treatment arm, and 10 RCTs with issues related to blinding, were at high risk of bias. We downgraded GRADE assessments due to imprecision, inconsistency and study limitations.Olanzapine versus placebo/no treatmentPrimary outcomesOlanzapine probably doubles the likelihood of no nausea or vomiting during chemotherapy from 25% to 50% (risk ratio (RR) 1.98, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.59 to 2.47; 561 participants; 3 studies; solid tumours; HEC or MEC therapy; moderate-quality evidence) when added to standard therapy. Number needed to treat for additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) was 5 (95% CI 3.3 - 6.6).It is uncertain if olanzapine increases the risk of serious adverse events (absolute risk difference 0.7% more, 95% CI 0.2 to 5.2) (RR 2.46, 95% CI 0.48 to 12.55; 7 studies, 889 participants, low-quality evidence).Secondary outcomesFour studies reported patient perception of treatment. One study (48 participants) reported no difference in patient preference. Four reported quality of life but data were insufficient for meta-analysis.Olanzapine may increase other adverse events (RR 1.71, 95% CI 0.99 to 2.96; 332 participants; 4 studies; low-quality evidence) and probably increases somnolence and fatigue compared to no treatment or placebo (RR 2.33, 95% CI 1.30 to 4.18; anticipated absolute risk 8.2% more, 95% CI 1.9 to 18.8; 464 participants; 5 studies; moderate-quality evidence). Olanzapine probably does not affect all-cause attrition (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.73; 943 participants; 8 studies; I² = 0%). We are uncertain if olanzapine increases attrition due to adverse events (RR 3.00, 95% CI 0.13 to 70.16; 422 participants; 6 studies). No participants withdrew due to lack of efficacy.We are uncertain if olanzapine reduces breakthrough nausea and vomiting (RR 0.38, 95% CI 0.10 to 1.47; 501 participants; 2 studies; I² = 54%) compared to placebo or no treatment. No studies reported 50% reduction in severity of nausea or vomiting, use of rescue antiemetics, or attrition.We are uncertain of olanzapine's efficacy in reducing acute nausea or vomiting. Olanzapine probably reduces delayed nausea (RR 1.71, 95% CI 1.40 to 2.09; 585 participants; 3 studies) and vomiting (RR 1.28, 95% CI 1.14 to 1.42; 702 participants; 5 studies).Subgroup analysis: 5 mg versus 10 mgPlanned subgroup analyses found that it is unclear if 5 mg is as effective an antiemetic as 10 mg. There is insufficient evidence to exclude the possibility that 5 mg may confer a lower risk of somnolence and fatigue than 10 mg.Other comparisonsOne study (20 participants) compared olanzapine versus NK1 antagonists. We observed no difference in any reported outcomes.One study (112 participants) compared olanzapine versus a prokinetic (metoclopramide), reporting that olanzapine may increase freedom from overall nausea (RR 2.95, 95% CI 1.73 to 5.02) and overall vomiting (RR 3.03, 95% CI 1.78 to 5.14).One study (62 participants) examined olanzapine versus 5-HT3 antagonists, reporting olanzapine may increase the likelihood of 50% or greater reduction in nausea or vomiting at 48 hours (RR 1.82, 95% CI 1.11 to 2.97) and 24 hours (RR 1.36, 95% CI 0.80 to 2.34).One study (229 participants) compared olanzapine versus dexamethasone, reporting that olanzapine may reduce overall nausea (RR 1.73, 95% CI 1.37 to 2.18), overall vomiting (RR 1.27, 95% CI 1.10 to 1.48), delayed nausea (RR 1.66, 95% CI 1.33 to 2.08) and delayed vomiting (RR 1.25, 95% CI 1.07 to 1.45).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is moderate-quality evidence that oral olanzapine probably increases the likelihood of not being nauseous or vomiting during chemotherapy from 25% to 50% in adults with solid tumours, in addition to standard therapy, compared to placebo or no treatment. There is uncertainty whether it increases serious adverse events. It may increase the likelihood of other adverse events, probably increasing somnolence and fatigue. There is uncertainty about relative benefits and harms of 5 mg versus 10 mg.We identified only RCTs describing oral administration. The findings of this review cannot be extrapolated to provide evidence about the efficacy and safety of any injectable form (intravenous, intramuscular or subcutaneous) of olanzapine.

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.