Dataset Information

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

ABSTRACT:

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.

SUBMITTER: Chelkeba L

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5386623 | biostudies-literature | 2017 Jan-Mar

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

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

Chelkeba Legese L Gidey Kidu K Mamo Ayele A Yohannes Berhane B Matso Tsehay T Melaku Tsegaye T

Pharmacy practice 20170101 1

<h4>Background</h4>Chemotherapy induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) remains the most distressing event in patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) or moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC).<h4>Objective</h4>Therefore, this meta-analysis was conducted to evaluate the efficacy of olanzapine containing regimen in preventing acute, delayed and overall phases of CINV.<h4>Methods</h4>PubMed, EBSCO, and Cochrane central register of controlled trials electronic databases were searched to ...[more]

PMID: 28503222

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionThe 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.MethodsOvid 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.ResultsThree 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.ConclusionFurther 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.

Project description:IntroductionThe 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).MethodsEmbase, 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.ResultNine 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.Conclusion5 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.

Project description:BackgroundPatients suffering from chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) might have negative adherence of treatment. Acupoint therapies, including acupuncture, acupressure, acupoints injection, massage, and moxibustion, are safe medical procedures with minimal side effects for CINV, but studies about overall safety and effectiveness of acupoint therapies have not been scientifically and methodically evaluated in recent years. Evaluating the overall safety and effectiveness of acupoint therapies in patients with CINV is the purpose of this review.Methods and analysisRelevant randomized controlled trials (RCTSs) are being searched in the following electronic databases: PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, EMBASE, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Chinese Scientific Journal Database (VIP database), Wanfang Data Knowledge Service Platform, and Chinese Biomedical Literature Database (CBM). We will also attempt to obtain the unpublished academic data by contacting the colleague, professor, or Institute of Traditional Chinese Medicine. The RCTs of the acupoint therapies for CINV patients will be searched in the databases from inception to July 2019. The primary outcomes are defined as severity, duration and frequency of nausea or vomiting, or both. The secondary outcomes are defined as any adverse events and quality of life. Performing the meta-analysis by using RevMan version 5 software. Mean difference (MD) or standardized mean difference (SMD) will express the continuous variables, while relative risk (RR) will express the categorical variables.ResultsThe results of this review will provide a high-quality synthesis to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of acupoint therapies for CINV.ConclusionThis review will provide evidence to estimate whether acupoint therapies are effective interventions for CINV.DisseminationEvidence whether acupoint therapies are effective interventions for CINV will be provided by this systematic review. This knowledge will recommend better acupoint therapies and selections of acupoints which might be helpful in treating CINV. The findings of this systematic review will be disseminated via various forms of presentation and publication of the data in a journal or electronic databases.Prospero registration numberCRD42019125538.

Project description: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.

Project description:BackgroundDue to the worldwide rise in cancer incidence, and therefore the rise in the need for antineoplastic chemotherapy, it is important for both healthcare professionals and patients alike that the side effects of chemotherapy, such as chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV), are treated and prevented. Auriculotherapy is a type of acupuncture and may be a low-cost and safe antiemetic measure to control the side effects of chemotherapy. The goal of this systematic review is to synthesize the available evidence in the literature regarding the auriculotherapy effects to treat CINV in people with cancer.MethodsThe review will only include randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compare the clinical effects of the auriculotherapy intervention (used alone or as an add-on), with sham auriculotherapy, routine treatment with antiemetic drugs, or other non-pharmacological interventions in patients with cancer with CINV who are undergoing chemotherapy. The outcomes to be evaluated are nausea and vomiting: in acute, delayed, or anticipated stages, when induced by chemotherapy. A comprehensive search for studies will be carried out in these databases: MEDLINE via PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, ICTRP, LILACS, CUMED, IBECS, BVS MTCI Americas, Web of Science, Scopus, PEDro, CNKI, and CBMdisc up until December 31, 2018. Only articles in English, Portuguese, and Spanish will be selected. Two independent reviewers will evaluate full texts, extract data, and assess the risk of bias of eligible articles. The quality of evidence will be assessed using Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE). A meta-analysis will be undertaken to assess the interventions and outcomes' homogeneity, assessing statistical heterogeneity using the Cochran's Q test and quantified using Higgins' inconsistency index. If there is insufficient data for a meta-analysis, a narrative synthesis will be presented. This protocol has been prepared according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols (PRISMA-P) guidelines.DiscussionThe results of this systematic review will summarize the strength of evidence for the use of auriculotherapy in the control of CINV of patients with cancer and will be used to identify evidence gaps.Systematic review registrationPROSPERO CRD42018117513.

Project description:ObjectiveTo determine the effectiveness of pharmacologic interventions for preventing postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) in patients undergoing thyroidectomy.DesignSystematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA).Data sourcesMEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Google Scholar.Eligibility criteria, participants, and interventionsRandomized clinical trials that investigated the efficacy of pharmacologic interventions in preventing PONV in patients undergoing thyroidectomy were included. The primary endpoints were the incidences of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV), postoperative nausea (PON), postoperative vomiting (POV), use of rescue antiemetics, and incidence of complete response in the overall postoperative phases. The secondary endpoints were the same parameters assessed in the early, middle, and late postoperative phases. The surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) values and rankograms were used to present the hierarchy of pharmacologic interventions.ResultsTwenty-six studies (n = 3,467 patients) that investigated 17 different pharmacologic interventions were included. According to the SUCRA values, the incidence of PONV among the overall postoperative phases was lowest with propofol alone (16.1%), followed by palonosetron (27.5%), and with tropisetron (28.7%). The incidence of PON among the overall postoperative phases was lowest with propofol alone (11.8%), followed by tropisetron and propofol combination (14%), and ramosetron and dexamethasone combination (18.0%). The incidence of POV among the overall postoperative phases was lowest with tropisetron and propofol combination (2.2%), followed by ramosetron and dexamethasone combination (23.2%), and tropisetron alone (37.3%). The least usage of rescue antiemetics among the overall postoperative phases and the highest complete response was observed with tropisetron and propofol combination (3.9% and 96.6%, respectively).ConclusionPropofol and tropisetron alone and in combination, and the ramosetron and dexamethasone combination effectively prevented PONV, PON, POV in patients undergoing thyroidectomy, with some heterogeneity observed in this NMA of full-text reports. Their use minimized the need for rescue antiemetics and enhanced the complete response.Trial registration numberCRD42018100002.

Dataset Information

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

Background

Objective

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

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

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure