-
The Journal of Clinical Psychiatry Mar 2023Patients with early-phase schizophrenia or bipolar I disorder (BD-I) are at greater risk for antipsychotic-associated weight gain. This 12-week, randomized,... (Randomized Controlled Trial)
Randomized Controlled Trial
Olanzapine/Samidorphan in Young Adults With Schizophrenia, Schizophreniform Disorder, or Bipolar I Disorder Who Are Early in Their Illness: Results of the Randomized, Controlled ENLIGHTEN-Early Study.
Patients with early-phase schizophrenia or bipolar I disorder (BD-I) are at greater risk for antipsychotic-associated weight gain. This 12-week, randomized, double-blind study conducted between June 2017 and December 2021 evaluated weight effects of combination olanzapine and samidorphan (OLZ/SAM) versus olanzapine in early-phase illness. Young adults (16-39 years) with schizophrenia, schizophreniform disorder, or BD-I, < 4 years since symptom onset, body mass index < 30 kg/m, and < 24 weeks' cumulative antipsychotic exposure were randomized to OLZ/SAM (5-20/10 mg/d) or olanzapine (5-20 mg/d). Primary endpoint was percent change from baseline body weight at week 12. Secondary endpoints, tested hierarchically, were proportions of patients with ≥ 10% or ≥ 7% weight gain, waist circumference change, and Clinical Global Impressions-Severity (CGI-S) change. Of 428 patients (OLZ/SAM, n = 213; olanzapine, n = 215), 408 had ≥ 1 postbaseline weight assessment and were analyzed. Percent weight change was significantly lower with OLZ/SAM versus olanzapine (4.91% vs 6.77%; least-squares mean [LSM] [SE] difference, -1.87% [0.75]; = .012). Although fewer patients treated with OLZ/SAM had ≥ 10% weight gain, the difference was not statistically significant versus olanzapine (21.9% vs 30.4%, respectively; OR = 0.64; 95% CI 0.39 to 1.05); hierarchical testing precluded further statistical evaluation of secondary endpoints. Proportions of patients with ≥ 7% weight gain (33.1% vs 44.8%; OR = 0.61, 95% CI = 0.39 to 0.94) and waist circumference change (2.99 vs 3.90 cm; LSM [SE] difference, -0.92 cm [0.58]; 95% CI = -2.06 to 0.22) favored OLZ/SAM. LSM (SE) CGI-S change with OLZ/SAM was -0.82 (0.06). OLZ/SAM and olanzapine had similar safety profiles, including small, similar metabolic parameter changes. In patients with early-phase schizophrenia, schizophreniform disorder, or BD-I, OLZ/SAM treatment resulted in less weight gain versus olanzapine. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03187769.
Topics: Humans; Young Adult; Olanzapine; Schizophrenia; Antipsychotic Agents; Bipolar Disorder; Psychotic Disorders; Weight Gain; Benzodiazepines; Double-Blind Method
PubMed: 36946605
DOI: 10.4088/JCP.22m14674 -
Molecular Biology Reports Feb 2022Neurosteroids are involved in several important brain functions and have recently been considered novel players in the mechanic actions of neuropsychiatric drugs. There...
BACKGROUND
Neurosteroids are involved in several important brain functions and have recently been considered novel players in the mechanic actions of neuropsychiatric drugs. There are no reports of murine studies focusing on the effect of chronic neurosteroid treatment in parallel with antipsychotics on key steroidogenic enzyme expression and we therefore focused on steroidogenic enzyme gene expression in the brainstem of rats chronically treated with olanzapine and haloperidol.
METHODS AND RESULTS
Studies were carried out on adult, male Sprague-Dawley rats which were divided into 3 groups: control and experimental animals treated with olanzapine or haloperidol. Total mRNA was isolated from homogenized brainstem samples for RealTime-PCR to estimate gene expression of related aromatase, 3β-HSD and P450scc. Long-term treatment with the selected antipsychotics was reflected in the modulation of steroidogenic enzyme gene expression in the examined brainstem region; with both olanzapine and haloperidol increasing aromatase, 3β-HSD and P450scc gene expression.
CONCLUSIONS
The present findings shed new light on the pharmacology of antipsychotics and suggest the existence of possible regulatory interplay between neuroleptic action and steroidogenesis at the level of brainstem neuronal centres.
Topics: Animals; Antipsychotic Agents; Brain Stem; Cells, Cultured; Cholesterol Side-Chain Cleavage Enzyme; Gene Expression; Male; Neurons; Neurosteroids; Olanzapine; RNA, Messenger; Rats; Rats, Sprague-Dawley
PubMed: 34797492
DOI: 10.1007/s11033-021-06943-4 -
Metformin Ameliorates Hepatic Steatosis induced by olanzapine through inhibiting LXRα/PCSK9 pathway.Scientific Reports Apr 2022Studies have confirmed that olanzapine, the mainstay treatment for schizophrenia, triggers metabolic diseases, including non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD)....
Studies have confirmed that olanzapine, the mainstay treatment for schizophrenia, triggers metabolic diseases, including non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD). However, the etiology of olanzapine-induced NAFLD is poorly understood. Proprotein convertase subtilisin kexin type 9 (PCSK9) is involved in NAFLD pathogenesis, and metformin can significantly decrease circulating PCSK9. The purpose of this study was to investigate the role of PCSK9 and explore the therapeutic effect of metformin for olanzapine-associated NAFLD. Olanzapine significantly upregulated PCSK9 and promoted lipid accumulation in mouse livers and HepG2 and AML12 cells. Metformin ameliorated these pathological alterations. PCSK9 upstream regulator liver X receptor α (LXRα) was significantly upregulated in olanzapine-induced NAFLD. LXRα antagonist treatment and LXRα overexpression resulted in a decrease and increase of PCSK9, respectively. Hepatic lipogenesis-associated genes FAS and SCD1 were significantly upregulated in olanzapine-induced NAFLD mice and HepG2 cells overexpressing PCSK9, and genes related to lipid β-oxidation (SCAD and PPARα) were downregulated, while metformin reversed these changes. In addition, we found that LXRα overexpression compromised the effect of metformin on PCSK9 levels and intracellular lipid droplet formation. Taken together, our findings suggest that olanzapine enhances hepatic PCSK9 expression by upregulating LXRα, thereby increasing FAS and SCD1 expression as well as decreasing SCAD and PPARα, and promoting lipid accumulation, and, subsequently, NAFLD, which is ameliorated by metformin.
Topics: Animals; Liver X Receptors; Metformin; Mice; Non-alcoholic Fatty Liver Disease; Olanzapine; Proprotein Convertase 9
PubMed: 35379885
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-022-09610-1 -
The Journal of Clinical Psychiatry Mar 2020To assess the antipsychotic efficacy and safety of a combination of olanzapine and samidorphan (OLZ/SAM). (Randomized Controlled Trial)
Randomized Controlled Trial
Efficacy and Safety of a Combination of Olanzapine and Samidorphan in Adult Patients With an Acute Exacerbation of Schizophrenia: Outcomes From the Randomized, Phase 3 ENLIGHTEN-1 Study.
OBJECTIVE
To assess the antipsychotic efficacy and safety of a combination of olanzapine and samidorphan (OLZ/SAM).
METHODS
This 4-week, phase 3, randomized, double-blind, placebo- and olanzapine-controlled study was conducted from December 2015 to June 2017 in adults with schizophrenia according to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition (DSM-5) criteria who were experiencing an acute exacerbation. Patients were randomized 1:1:1 to OLZ/SAM, olanzapine monotherapy, or placebo. The primary and key secondary efficacy endpoint assessed was the change in Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) total score and Clinical Global Impressions-Severity of Illness Scale (CGI-S) score between baseline and week 4, respectively, for OLZ/SAM versus placebo. Safety monitoring occurred throughout.
RESULTS
401 patients received ≥ 1 dose of study drug; 352 completed treatment. Treatment with OLZ/SAM resulted in significant improvements versus placebo in PANSS total and CGI-S scores from baseline to week 4 (least squares [LS] mean ± SE: -6.4 ± 1.8 [P < .001] and -0.38 ± 0.12 [P = .002], respectively). Olanzapine treatment resulted in similar improvements (PANSS and CGI-S LS mean ± SE of -5.3 ± 1.84 [P = .004] and -0.44 ± 0.12 [P < .001], respectively). Adverse events (AEs) occurred in 54.5%, 54.9%, and 44.8% of patients on OLZ/SAM, olanzapine, and placebo, respectively. Weight gain, somnolence, dry mouth, anxiety, and headache were the most common AEs (ie, ≥ 5%) with active treatment.
CONCLUSIONS
OLZ/SAM treatment resulted in statistically and clinically significant efficacy improvements over 4 weeks versus placebo in adults with acutely exacerbated schizophrenia. Improvements were similar to those observed with olanzapine. OLZ/SAM was well tolerated, with a safety profile similar to that of olanzapine.
TRIAL REGISTRATIONS
ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02634346; EudraCT number: 2015-003373-15.
Topics: Acute Disease; Adult; Antipsychotic Agents; Double-Blind Method; Drug Combinations; Female; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Naltrexone; Narcotic Antagonists; Olanzapine; Outcome Assessment, Health Care; Schizophrenia; Symptom Flare Up
PubMed: 32141723
DOI: 10.4088/JCP.19m12769 -
The Oncologist Jun 2021Olanzapine is an inexpensive and durable agent for the treatment of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting and is also superior to neurokinin-1 receptor antagonists in...
Low-Dose Olanzapine Plus Granisetron and Dexamethasone for Carboplatin-Induced Nausea and Vomiting in Patients with Thoracic Malignancies: A Prospective Multicenter Phase II Trial.
BACKGROUND
Olanzapine is an inexpensive and durable agent for the treatment of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting and is also superior to neurokinin-1 receptor antagonists in the control of nausea. This study aimed to investigate the efficacy and safety of a low dose of 5 mg olanzapine plus granisetron and dexamethasone for treatment of carboplatin (CBDCA)-induced nausea and vomiting in patients with thoracic malignancies.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
We conducted a prospective, open-label, single-arm, multicenter, phase II trial in four centers in Japan. Registered patients were scheduled to receive area under the curve (AUC) ≥5 mg/mL per minute of CBDCA and had never received moderately to highly emetogenic chemotherapy. Patients received olanzapine 5 mg/day orally after supper for 4 days, in combination with granisetron and dexamethasone. Primary endpoint was complete response (CR; no emesis and no use of rescue medication) rate during the overall phase (0-120 hours).
RESULTS
Between February 2018 and June 2020, 51 patients were enrolled, and 50 patients were evaluated. The CR rates in the overall (0-120 hours), acute (0-24 hours), and delayed phases (24-120 hours) were 94.0%, 100%, and 94.0%, respectively. No grade 3 or higher adverse effects of olanzapine were observed.
CONCLUSION
Prophylactic antiemetic therapy with a low dose of 5 mg olanzapine plus granisetron and dexamethasone showed durable efficacy with an acceptable safety profile. This three-drug combination appears to be a reasonable treatment approach in patients with thoracic malignancies receiving an AUC ≥5 mg/mL per minute of CBDCA-based regimen. Clinical trial identification number: UMIN000031267.
IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE
The results of this phase II trial indicated that the prophylactic administration of low-dose of 5 mg olanzapine combined with granisetron and dexamethasone has promising activity with acceptable safety profile in patients with thoracic malignancy receiving high-dose carboplatin chemotherapy.
Topics: Carboplatin; Dexamethasone; Granisetron; Humans; Japan; Nausea; Olanzapine; Prospective Studies; Thoracic Neoplasms; Vomiting
PubMed: 33811782
DOI: 10.1002/onco.13772 -
British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology Oct 2020Pupillography is a noninvasive and cost-effective method to determine autonomic nerve activity. Genetic variants in cytochrome P450 (CYP), dopamine receptor (DRD2,...
AIMS
Pupillography is a noninvasive and cost-effective method to determine autonomic nerve activity. Genetic variants in cytochrome P450 (CYP), dopamine receptor (DRD2, DRD3), serotonin receptor (HTR2A, HTR2C) and ATP-binding cassette subfamily B (ABCB1) genes, among others, were previously associated with the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of antipsychotic drugs. Our aim was to evaluate the effects of aripiprazole and olanzapine on pupillary light reflex related to pharmacogenetics.
METHODS
Twenty-four healthy volunteers receiving 5 oral doses of 10 mg aripiprazole and 5 mg olanzapine tablets were genotyped for 46 polymorphisms by quantitative polymerase chain reaction. Pupil examination was performed by automated pupillometry. Aripiprazole, dehydro-aripiprazole and olanzapine plasma concentrations were measured by high-performance liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry.
RESULTS
Aripiprazole affected pupil contraction: it caused dilatation after the administration of the first dose, then caused constriction after each dosing. It induced changes in all pupillometric parameters (P < .05). Olanzapine only altered minimum pupil size (P = .046). Polymorphisms in CYP3A, HTR2A, UGT1A1, DRD2 and ABCB1 affected pupil size, the time of onset of constriction, pupil recovery and constriction velocity. Aripiprazole, dehydro-aripiprazole and olanzapine pharmacokinetics were significantly affected by polymorphisms in CYP2D6, CYP3A, CYP1A2, ABCB1 and UGT1A1 genes.
CONCLUSIONS
In conclusion, aripiprazole and its main metabolite, dehydro-aripiprazole altered pupil contraction, but olanzapine did not have such an effect. Many polymorphisms may influence pupillometric parameters and several polymorphisms had an effect on aripiprazole, dehydro-aripiprazole and olanzapine pharmacokinetics. Pupillography could be a useful tool for the determination of autonomic nerve activity during antipsychotic treatment.
Topics: Antipsychotic Agents; Aripiprazole; Benzodiazepines; Humans; Olanzapine; Pharmacogenetics; Reflex
PubMed: 32250470
DOI: 10.1111/bcp.14300 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Dec 2016People experiencing acute psychotic illnesses, especially those associated with agitated or violent behaviour, may require urgent pharmacological tranquillisation or... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
People experiencing acute psychotic illnesses, especially those associated with agitated or violent behaviour, may require urgent pharmacological tranquillisation or sedation. Droperidol, a butyrophenone antipsychotic, has been used for this purpose in several countries.
OBJECTIVES
To estimate the effects of droperidol, including its cost-effectiveness, when compared to placebo, other 'standard' or 'non-standard' treatments, or other forms of management of psychotic illness, in controlling acutely disturbed behaviour and reducing psychotic symptoms in people with schizophrenia-like illnesses.
SEARCH METHODS
We updated previous searches by searching the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group Register (18 December 2015). We searched references of all identified studies for further trial citations and contacted authors of trials. We supplemented these electronic searches by handsearching reference lists and contacting both the pharmaceutical industry and relevant authors.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with useable data that compared droperidol to any other treatment for people acutely ill with suspected acute psychotic illnesses, including schizophrenia, schizoaffective disorder, mixed affective disorders, the manic phase of bipolar disorder or a brief psychotic episode.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
For included studies, we assessed quality, risk of bias and extracted data. We excluded data when more than 50% of participants were lost to follow-up. For binary outcomes, we calculated standard estimates of risk ratio (RR) and the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI). We created a 'Summary of findings' table using GRADE.
MAIN RESULTS
We identified four relevant trials from the update search (previous version of this review included only two trials). When droperidol was compared with placebo, for the outcome of tranquillisation or asleep by 30 minutes we found evidence of a clear difference (1 RCT, N = 227, RR 1.18, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.31, high-quality evidence). There was a clear demonstration of reduced risk of needing additional medication after 60 minutes for the droperidol group (1 RCT, N = 227, RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.36 to 0.85, high-quality evidence). There was no evidence that droperidol caused more cardiovascular arrhythmia (1 RCT, N = 227, RR 0.34, 95% CI 0.01 to 8.31, moderate-quality evidence) and respiratory airway obstruction (1 RCT, N = 227, RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.15 to 2.52, low-quality evidence) than placebo. For 'being ready for discharge', there was no clear difference between groups (1 RCT, N = 227, RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.48, high-quality evidence). There were no data for mental state and costs.Similarly, when droperidol was compared to haloperidol, for the outcome of tranquillisation or asleep by 30 minutes we found evidence of a clear difference (1 RCT, N = 228, RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.09, high-quality evidence). There was a clear demonstration of reduced risk of needing additional medication after 60 minutes for participants in the droperidol group (2 RCTs, N = 255, RR 0.37, 95% CI 0.16 to 0.90, high-quality evidence). There was no evidence that droperidol caused more cardiovascular hypotension (1 RCT, N = 228, RR 2.80, 95% CI 0.30 to 26.49,moderate-quality evidence) and cardiovascular hypotension/desaturation (1 RCT, N = 228, RR 2.80, 95% CI 0.12 to 67.98, low-quality evidence) than haloperidol. There was no suggestion that use of droperidol was unsafe. For mental state, there was no evidence of clear difference between the efficacy of droperidol compared to haloperidol (Scale for Quantification of Psychotic Symptom Severity, 1 RCT, N = 40, mean difference (MD) 0.11, 95% CI -0.07 to 0.29, low-quality evidence). There were no data for service use and costs.Whereas, when droperidol was compared with midazolam, for the outcome of tranquillisation or asleep by 30 minutes we found droperidol to be less acutely tranquillising than midazolam (1 RCT, N = 153, RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.28, high-quality evidence). As regards the 'need for additional medication by 60 minutes after initial adequate sedation, we found an effect (1 RCT, N = 153, RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.24 to 1.20, moderate-quality evidence). In terms of adverse effects, we found no statistically significant differences between the two drugs for either airway obstruction (1 RCT, N = 153, RR 0.13, 95% CI 0.01 to 2.55, low-quality evidence) or respiratory hypoxia (1 RCT, N = 153, RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.16 to 3.03, moderate-quality evidence) - but use of midazolam did result in three people (out of around 70) needing some sort of 'airway management' with no such events in the droperidol group. There were no data for mental state, service use and costs.Furthermore, when droperidol was compared to olanzapine, for the outcome of tranquillisation or asleep by any time point, we found no clear differences between the older drug (droperidol) and olanzapine (e.g. at 30 minutes: 1 RCT, N = 221, RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.11, high-quality evidence). There was a suggestion that participants allocated droperidol needed less additional medication after 60 minutes than people given the olanzapine (1 RCT, N = 221, RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.36 to 0.87, high-quality evidence). There was no evidence that droperidol caused more cardiovascular arrhythmia (1 RCT, N = 221, RR 0.32, 95% CI 0.01 to 7.88, moderate-quality evidence) and respiratory airway obstruction (1 RCT, N = 221, RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.20 to 4.72, low-quality evidence) than olanzapine. For 'being ready for discharge', there was no difference between groups (1 RCT, N = 221, RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.34, high-quality evidence). There were no data for mental state and costs.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Previously, the use of droperidol was justified based on experience rather than evidence from well-conducted and reported randomised trials. However, this update found high-quality evidence with minimal risk of bias to support the use of droperidol for acute psychosis. Also, we found no evidence to suggest that droperidol should not be a treatment option for people acutely ill and disturbed because of serious mental illnesses.
Topics: Acute Disease; Aggression; Antipsychotic Agents; Benzodiazepines; Droperidol; Haloperidol; Humans; Midazolam; Olanzapine; Psychomotor Agitation; Psychotic Disorders; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 27976370
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD002830.pub3 -
European Psychiatry : the Journal of... Mar 2024We employed a Bayesian network meta-analysis for comparison of the efficacy and tolerability of US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved atypical antipsychotics... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
We employed a Bayesian network meta-analysis for comparison of the efficacy and tolerability of US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved atypical antipsychotics (AAPs) for the treatment of bipolar patients with depressive episodes. Sixteen randomized controlled trials with 7234 patients treated by one of the five AAPs (cariprazine, lumateperone, lurasidone, olanzapine, and quetiapine) were included. For the response rate (defined as an improvement of ≥50% from baseline on the Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale [MADRS]), all AAPs were more efficacious than placebo. For the remission rate (defined as the endpoint of MADRS ≤12 or ≤ 10), cariprazine, lurasidone, olanzapine, and quetiapine had higher remission rates than placebo. In terms of tolerability, olanzapine was unexpectedly associated with lower odds of all-cause discontinuation in comparison with placebo, whereas quetiapine was associated with higher odds of discontinuation due to adverse events than placebo. Compared with placebo, lumateperone, olanzapine, and quetiapine showed higher odds of somnolence. Lumateperone had a lower rate of ≥ weight gain of 7% than placebo and other treatments. Olanzapine was associated with a significant increase from baseline in total cholesterol and triglycerides than placebo. These findings inform individualized prescriptions of AAPs for treating bipolar depression in clinical practice.
Topics: United States; Humans; Antipsychotic Agents; Bipolar Disorder; Quetiapine Fumarate; Olanzapine; Lurasidone Hydrochloride; Network Meta-Analysis; United States Food and Drug Administration; Bayes Theorem; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 38487836
DOI: 10.1192/j.eurpsy.2024.25 -
Psychiatrike = Psychiatriki Jun 2022Long-acting injectable antipsychotics (LAIs) hold an important place in the therapeutic management of patients with schizophrenia and other psychoses. They offer... (Review)
Review
Long-acting injectable antipsychotics (LAIs) hold an important place in the therapeutic management of patients with schizophrenia and other psychoses. They offer advantages, such as knowledge of whether patients follow the medical advice that is given, stable pharmacokinetics and better correlation between the administered dose and the plasma levels of the drug, regular follow-up and reduced risk of overdose. Knowledge of the best way to administer LAIs is important in clinical practice because it maximizes the efficacy of the drug and minimizes the side-effects. This knowledge is facilitated through understanding both the pharmacokinetics and the pharmaceutical forms of these drugs because it provides necessary information concerning their mode of action. Currently in Greece, two first-generation (haloperidol and zuclopenthixol) and four newer LAIs (risperidone, olanzapine, paliperidone and aripiprazole) are in circulation. Their pharmaceutical form facilitates the delayed delivery of the drug during a period of weeks, thus increasing the time interval needed for the drug administration in order to maintain plasma therapeutic concentrations under stable state conditions. This is achieved by creating an extravascular drug reservoir (depot) in the skeletal muscles from which the drug is slowly released into the systemic circulation. The rate of removal of LAIs is regulated by the slow rate of absorption in the site of injection and the phenomenon of their increased half-life is called flip-flop pharmacokinetics. Their rate of absorption from skeletal muscles depends on factors, such as the injection technique, the pharmaceutical form of the drug, the distribution of fat tissue and the blood supply of the muscle. First-generation LAIs are characterized chemically by an esterified drug molecule that is dissolved in oil vehicle. The esterified drug is then hydrolyzed rapidly by plasma esterases allowing the entrance of the drug into the brain. On the contrary, newer LAIs are aqueous- based formulations characterized by various pharmaceutical forms: microspheres (risperidone), pamoic acid crystal (olanzapine), nanocrystals (paliperidone), dry drug- suspension with water (aripiprazole). Among newer drugs, risperidone and aripiprazole must be administered orally concurrently with the LAI for an initial time period. Furthermore, risperidone is the only LAI administered every 2 weeks and 3-monthly paliperidone is the only one administered every 3 months. All the other LAIs (1st generation and atypical) are usually administered every 4 weeks. This paper reviews the pharmacokinetic and pharmaceutical characteristics of these drugs. It also provides information concerning basic elements of LAI pharmacokinetics in order to understand these characteristics better.
Topics: Antipsychotic Agents; Aripiprazole; Delayed-Action Preparations; Humans; Olanzapine; Paliperidone Palmitate; Risperidone
PubMed: 34390562
DOI: 10.22365/jpsych.2021.035 -
Annals of Palliative Medicine Mar 2021Olanzapine has been found to have antiemetic properties due to its ability to inhibit multiple serotonergic, dopaminergic, alpha-1 adrenergic and histamine receptors. In... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Olanzapine has been found to have antiemetic properties due to its ability to inhibit multiple serotonergic, dopaminergic, alpha-1 adrenergic and histamine receptors. In 2016, a meta-analysis of 10 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on olanzapine in the prophylactic setting found olanzapine to be more efficacious than other standard antiemetics in the prophylactic setting. However, since the review, many clinical trials using olanzapine for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) have been published-in many cases, contending that further trials would further help elucidate the efficacy of olanzapine for CINV given the continued paucity of literature. The primary aim of this study is to conduct a secondary, cumulative meta-analysis to assess the impact of the most recent trials on the published effect estimate of olanzapine and ultimately determine whether trials published since 2016 have significantly changed the summary estimate.
METHODS
As reported previously, a literature search was conducted up until 2015, of Ovid Medline, Embase and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials; 10 RCTs with a total of over 1,000 patients were included, that compared olanzapine to other antiemetics in the prophylactic setting, which reported on at least one of two endpoints-no emesis and no nausea. The Mantel-Haenszel, random-effects analysis model was used to compute cumulative risk ratios (RR) and their accompanying 95% confidence intervals (CIs).
RESULTS
For the endpoint of emetic control, the cumulative meta-analysis shows that the summary effect did not change noticeably with the inclusion of the most recent trials. In the acute phase, the RR shifted from 1.07 before 2011 to 1.10 after 2015, even after the inclusion of 7 trials. Similar small changes were noted in the delayed and overall phases. For the endpoint of nausea control, the cumulative meta-analysis does show a significant visual change in summary effect, except for nausea control in the acute phase. In the delayed phase, the RR shifts from 1.58 before 2011 to 1.50 after 2015. In the overall phase, the RR shifts from 1.642 before 2011 to 1.53 after 2015.
CONCLUSIONS
Olanzapine's efficacy for the prophylaxis of CINV has been sufficiently documented, with respect to emetic control. There is, however, more limited data supporting its efficacy with respect to nausea control.
Topics: Antiemetics; Antineoplastic Agents; Humans; Nausea; Olanzapine; Vomiting
PubMed: 33440973
DOI: 10.21037/apm-20-1462