Explore the vast range of titles available.

BackgroundDifferent effectiveness profiles among antipsychotics may be a key point to optimize treatment in patients suffering a first episode of psychosis to impact on long-term outcome. The aim of this study is to compare the clinical effectiveness of olanzapine, risperidone, haloperidol, aripiprazole, ziprasidone, and quetiapine in the treatment of first episode of psychosis at 3-year follow-up.MethodFrom February 2001 to January 2011, 2 phases of a prospective, randomized, open-label study were undertaken. A total of 376 first-episode drug-naïve patients were randomly assigned to olanzapine (n = 55), risperidone (n = 63), haloperidol (n = 56), aripiprazole (n = 78), ziprasidone (n = 62), or quetiapine (n = 62) and followed up for 3 years. The primary effectiveness measure was all cause of treatment discontinuation. In addition, an analysis based on intention-to-treat principle was conducted in the analysis for clinical efficacy.ResultsThe overall dropout rate at 3 years reached 20.75%. Treatment discontinuation rates were significantly different among treatment groups (olanzapine = 69.09, risperidone = 71.43, aripiprazole = 73.08%, ziprasidone = 79.03%, haloperidol = 89.28%, and quetiapine = 95.53%) (χ2 = 79.86; P = .000). Statistically significant differences in terms of lack of efficacy, adherence, and tolerability were observed among treatment groups along the 3-year follow-up, determining significant differences in time to all-cause discontinuation (log-rank = 92.240; P = .000). Significant differences between treatments were found in the categories of sleepiness/sedation, increased sleep duration, akinesia, weight gain, ejaculatory dysfunction, extrapyramidal-symptoms, and amenorrhea.ConclusionsOlanzapine, risperidone, and aripiprazole presented advantages for the first-line treatment of first episode of psychosis in terms of effectiveness. Identifying different discontinuation patterns may contribute to optimize treatment selection after first episode of psychosis.ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02526030 https://clinicaltrials.gov/show/NCT02526030

Objective The aim of this study is to assess the clinical efficacy of a 5 mg dosage of olanzapine in preventing chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) associated with moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC) among female patients diagnosed with gastrointestinal tract tumors. Methods Patients undergoing the oxaliplatin/irinotecan chemotherapy regimen were enrolled in this prospective controlled study. The olanzapine group received a 5 mg dosage of olanzapine along with palonosetron and dexamethasone, while the control group received a standard two-combination regimen consisting of dexamethasone and palonosetron. The primary endpoints included the total protection (TP) rates for the entire age group and the subgroup aged 60 years and above. Secondary endpoints encompassed the total protection rates during the acute and delayed phases within the two age brackets, as well as the total control (TC) rates and complete remission (CR) rates across all three phases (total, acute, and delayed). Additionally, the study involved the assessment of quality of life and the collection of adverse events associated with the interventions. Results 1) Regarding the primary endpoint, the total phase TP rates within both the entire age group and the age group exceeding 60 years demonstrated superiority in the olanzapine group when compared to the control group (66.7% vs 37.25%, P  = 0.003; 68.8% vs 44.4%, P = 0.044). 2) In terms of secondary endpoints, the olanzapine group exhibited superior acute phase TP rates in both age brackets when compared to the control group ( P  < 0.05). The olanzapine group also demonstrated higher delayed-phase TP rates, TC rates across all three phases, and CR rates within the two age brackets, although the differences were not statistically significant ( P  > 0.05). Furthermore, the quality of life in the olanzapine group surpassed that of the control group for both age brackets ( P  < 0.05), characterized by enhanced appetite and a higher incidence of drowsiness in the patients treated with olanzapine when compared to those in the control group ( P  < 0.05). Conclusion Olanzapine can enhance CINV induced by MEC regimen in female patients across all age groups, including the elderly, and therefore improve the quality of life for these patients. Clinical Trial Registration: https://www.chictr.org.cn/index.html , identifier: ChiCTR20000368269, 25/08/2020.

Dexamethasone is an antiemetic drug widely used to prevent nausea and vomiting caused by anticancer drugs. However, dexamethasone can cause several side effects even after short-term administration. Therefore, the development of dexamethasone-free antiemetic therapies has been recognized as an important challenge. The objective of this study was to investigate the efficacy and safety of palonosetron, aprepitant, and olanzapine. Patients who were chemotherapy-naïve and scheduled to receive highly emetogenic chemotherapy for breast cancer were enrolled and assessed for nausea and vomiting occurring within 120 h after the start of chemotherapy. The primary endpoint was the total control (TC) rate of overall phases. Secondary endpoints included the complete response (CR) rate, which was evaluated during the acute, delayed, and overall phases. A total of 88 patients were enrolled from eight centers in Japan, of whom 84 were included in the analysis. The proportion of patients achieving TC throughout the overall period was 17.1%. Similarly, CR and CC rates for the overall period were 43.4% and 39.5%, respectively. Frequently reported adverse events were loss of appetite and constipation, with rates of 52.4% and 50.0%, respectively. The primary endpoint was not achieved. Therefore, antiemetic therapy without dexamethasone shows an inadequate effect on nausea, and it is generally advisable to avoid omitting dexamethasone. However, in the overall period, both CR and CC were comparable to conventional three-drug combination therapy. Thus, in patients unable to use dexamethasone, replacing it with olanzapine could be an option. Trial registration number : UMIN 000038644, November 20, 2019. The date of first trial registration: 13/03/2020.

Purpose Even with antiemetic prophylaxis, patients undergoing cancer chemotherapy often still experience chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV). Neurokinin-1 (NK-1) receptor antagonists will prevent CINV effectively but are not affordable for patients of low socioeconomic status. Methods In this group sequential, response adaptive randomized double-blinded clinical trial, patients of low socioeconomic who cannot afford NK-1 receptor antagonists, planned for highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) agents received olanzapine 5 mg plus pregabalin 75 mg or placebo orally for five days add-on to standard antiemetic therapy (injection ondansetron 8 mg + injection dexamethasone 12 mg on day one followed by oral dexamethasone 8 mg on days 2 to 4). The primary outcome was the difference in the proportion of patients with “overall no nausea” between groups. Following the interim analysis, the allocation ratio was modified, resulting in more patients being assigned to the well-performing arm. Results Initially, 30 patients were equally randomized into two groups. As the experimental group performed well in the interim analysis, the allocation ratio was changed to 2:1 for the subsequent period. Finally, the experimental group ( n  = 36) performed better in terms of “overall no nausea” than the control group( n  = 18) (41.6% vs. 5.5%, p  = 0.008). Sedation and dizziness were significantly greater in the experimental group compared to the standard-of-care group. Conclusion Olanzapine 5 mg plus pregabalin 75 mg add-on to a combination of dexamethasone and ondansetron will significantly prevent the incidence of CINV compared to a combination of dexamethasone and ondansetron alone. However, the combination is associated with sedation and dizziness as adverse events. Trial registration: Clinical trial registry-India (CTRI/2021/08/035451). Registration Date: 05/08/2021.

Abstract Background and Hypothesis Meta-analyses have shown that the majority of patients with schizophrenia who have not improved after 2 weeks of treatment with an antipsychotic drug are unlikely to fully respond later. We hypothesized that switching to another antipsychotic with a different receptor binding profile is an effective strategy in such a situation. Study Design In total, 327 inpatients with an acute exacerbation of schizophrenia were randomized to double-blind treatment with either olanzapine (5–20 mg/day) or amisulpride (200–800 mg/day). Those patients who had not reached at least 25% Positive-and-Negative-Syndrome-Scale (PANSS) total score reduction from baseline after 2 weeks (the “non-improvers”) were rerandomized double-blind to either staying on the same compound (“stayers”) or to switching to the other antipsychotic (“switchers”) for another 6 weeks. The primary outcome was the difference in the number of patients in symptomatic remission between the combined “switchers” and the “stayers” after 8 weeks of treatment, analyzed by logistic regression. Study Results A total of 142 nonimprovers were rerandomized at week two. 25 (45.5 %) of the ‘stayers' compared to 41 (68.3 %) of the “switchers” reached remission at endpoint (p = .006). Differences in secondary efficacy outcomes were not significant, except for the PANSS negative subscore and the Clinical-Global-Impression-Scale. “Switchers” and “stayers” did not differ in safety outcomes. Conclusions Switching “non-improvers” from amisulpride to olanzapine or vice-versa increased remission rates and was safe. The superiority in the primary outcome was, however, not paralleled by significant differences in most secondary efficacy outcomes and the effect was only apparent at the last visit making replications of longer duration necessary.

The addition of 10 mg olanzapine to the standard triplet antiemetic therapy has shown superiority in controlling chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting compared with triplet therapy alone for highly emetogenic chemotherapy, albeit with sedative side-effects. We aimed to investigate if administering 5 mg of olanzapine at home after anthracycline plus cyclophosphamide chemotherapy, rather than before chemotherapy, can maintain efficacy in controlling chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting while minimising sedative side-effects and associated risks. This was a phase 3, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial, done in 15 hospitals and cancer centres in Japan. Eligible patients were female adults aged 20 years or older with stage I–III breast cancer and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0–1, who were scheduled to receive intravenous anthracycline plus cyclophosphamide-based chemotherapy, and were naive to chemotherapy or had never received moderately to highly emetogenic chemotherapy. Eligible patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to oral olanzapine 5 mg or placebo via the central registration system. Randomisation was performed using blocked stratification, with age (≥55 years vs <55 years) and institution as stratification factors and a block size of two. Allocation was concealed and masking was achieved by using tablets with identical appearance. Treatment was administered at home within 5 h after the end of anthracycline plus cyclophosphamide administration and before the patient's evening meal on day 1 to minimise the risk of sedation during hospital visits and transportation, and on the next 3 days after their evening meal, both with pre-chemotherapeutical application of intravenous dexamethasone 9·9 mg, intravenous palonosetron 0·75 mg, and oral aprepitant 125 mg on day 1 followed by an additional dose of aprepitant 80 mg on days 2 and 3 or intravenous fosaprepitant 150 mg as a premedication on day 1. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients with a complete response, defined as no vomiting and no rescue medication during the overall phase (0–120 h after the initiation of anthracycline plus cyclophosphamide) based on patient diary. The primary analysis was done by modified intention-to-treat, including all patients who received at least one dose of the study treatment and had at least one efficacy evaluation. Safety was analysed in all patients who received any treatment. This trial was registered with the Japan Registry of Clinical Trials, jRCT1031200134, and is complete. Between Oct 26, 2020 and Nov 2, 2022, 500 female patients from 15 medical institutions in Japan were randomly assigned to receive olanzapine (n=251) or placebo (n=249). Median age at enrolment was 52 years (IQR 45–60) in the olanzapine group and 51 years (46–60) in the placebo group. Data on gender and race or ethnicity were not collected. The median follow-up was 168 h (IQR 168–168). 480 participants (246 in the olanzapine group and 234 in the placebo group) received at least one dose of study medication and were eligible for the efficacy analysis. The complete response rate in the olanzapine group (58·1%, n=143) was significantly higher than in the placebo group (35·5%, n=83; difference 22·7%, 95% CI 14·0–31·4%; p<0·0001) during the overall phase. The most frequently reported severe or very severe symptoms based on the Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE) version 1.0 were anorexia (33 [13%] of 246 patients in the olanzapine group vs 89 [38%] of 235 in the placebo group) and constipation (30 [12%] vs 37 [16%]). Severe or very severe concentration impairment was reported in 25 (10%) of 246 patients in the olanzapine group and 34 (14%) of 235 patients in the placebo group. Experimental drug-related grade 3–4 adverse events according to the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events version 5.0 included somnolence (four [2%] of 246 patients in the olanzapine group vs none of 235 in the placebo group), and concentration impairment (two [1%] vs none). There were no deaths. Post-chemotherapy administration of 5 mg olanzapine in combination with triplet antiemetic therapy before anthracycline plus cyclophosphamide-based chemotherapy significantly improved the complete response rate for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting during the overall phase compared with placebo in female patients with breast cancer receiving outpatient chemotherapy, with an acceptable level of safety. The findings represent a substantial advancement in managing chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting and provide assurance that the safe and effective administration of olanzapine can be achieved at a dosage of 5 mg. The Capture of Outstanding Clinical Research and Evolution (CORE) project at Juntendo University.

Olanzapine 10 mg added to standard antiemetic therapy including aprepitant, palonosetron, and dexamethasone has been recommended for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting. Guidelines suggest that a dose reduction to 5 mg should be considered to prevent sedation. In several phase 2 studies, olanzapine 5 mg has shown equivalent activity to olanzapine 10 mg and a favourable safety profile in relation to somnolence. We evaluated the efficacy of olanzapine 5 mg combined with standard antiemetic therapy for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting caused by cisplatin-based chemotherapy. This was a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 study to evaluate the efficacy of olanzapine 5 mg with triplet-combination antiemetic therapy done in 26 hospitals in Japan. Key inclusion criteria were patients with a malignant tumour (excluding those with a haemopoietic malignancy) who were scheduled to be treated with cisplatin (≥50 mg/m2) for the first time, age between 20 and 75 years, and with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0–2. Eligible patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either oral olanzapine 5 mg or placebo once daily on days 1–4 combined with aprepitant, palonosetron, and dexamethasone (dosage based on the standard antiemetic therapy against highly emetogenic chemotherapy). Patients were randomly assigned to interventions by use of a web entry system and the minimisation method with a random component, with sex, dose of cisplatin, and age as factors of allocation adjustment. Patients, medical staff, investigators, and individuals handling data were all masked to treatment assignment. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients who achieved a complete response, defined as absence of vomiting and no use of rescue medications in the delayed phase (24–120 h). All randomly assigned patients who satisfied eligibility criteria received a dose of cisplatin 50 mg/m2 or more, and at least one study treatment, were included in efficacy analysis. All patients who received any treatment in this study were assessed for safety. This study is registered at UMIN Clinical Trials Registry, number UMIN000024676. Between Feb 9, 2017, and July 13, 2018, 710 patients were enrolled; 356 were randomly assigned to receive olanzapine and 354 were assigned to receive placebo. All eligible patients were observed 120 h after cisplatin initiation. One patient in the olanzapine group and three in the placebo group did not receive treatment and were excluded from all analyses. One patient in the olanzapine group discontinued treatment on day 1 and was excluded from the efficacy analysis. In the delayed phase, the proportion of patients who achieved a complete response was 280 (79% [95% CI 75–83] of 354 patients in the olanzapine group and 231 (66% [61–71] of 351 patients in the placebo group (p<0·0001). One patient had grade 3 constipation and one patient had grade 3 somnolence related to treatment in the olanzapine group. Olanzapine 5 mg combined with aprepitant, palonosetron, and dexamethasone could be a new standard antiemetic therapy for patients undergoing cisplatin-based chemotherapy. Japan Agency for Medical Research and Development.

This report presents the rationale and design of a multi-center clinical trial that examines the efficacy and safety of antipsychotic combination treatment in acutely ill schizophrenia patients compared to antipsychotic monotherapy. Antipsychotic combination treatment is common in clinical practice worldwide, despite clinical guidelines generally not recommending such practice due to lacking evidence for its efficacy and safety. Olanzapine has a related chemical structure and comparable receptor-binding profile as clozapine, which demonstrated superior efficacy in combination studies, but has a more unfavorable side-effect profile compared to olanzapine. Amisulpride and olanzapine have shown promising therapeutic efficacy in meta-analyses in monotherapy for people with schizophrenia. Combining amisulpride and olanzapine, complementary receptor-binding properties may enhance efficacy and possibly reduce (or at least not augment) side effects due to the different receptor profiles and metabolization pathways. Accordingly, we hypothesize that patients treated with amisulpride plus olanzapine show greater improvement on the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale total score after 8 weeks versus either monotherapy. A randomized, double-blind controlled trial is performed at 16 German centers comparing flexibly dosed monotherapy of oral amisulpride (400–800 mg/day), and olanzapine (10–20 mg/day) and amisulpride–olanzapine co-treatment. Sample size was calculated to be n = 101 per treatment arm, assuming an effect size of 0.500 and a two-sided alpha = 0.025 and beta = 0.90. Recruitment for this trial started in June 2012. Until December 2018, 328 patients have been randomized. Trial conduct has been extended to reach the projected sample size. Publication of the study results is expected in 2019 informing an evidence-based recommendation regarding specific antipsychotic combination treatment.

Rationale Weight gain during treatment with antipsychotics is a prominent side-effect, especially with some second-generation antipsychotics, such as olanzapine and clozapine, and pharmacological treatments which ameliorate this side-effect are important to investigate. Decreases in histaminergic transmission in the brain induced by antipsychotics may be one of the mechanisms contributing to weight gain. Since betahistine is a histaminergic agonist, it may potentially counteract the weight gain effects of antipsychotics. Method We conducted a double-blind placebo-controlled study to evaluate the effects of 12 weeks of treatment with betahistine ( N  = 29) or placebo ( N  = 22) in adolescents and adults on anthropomorphically measured weight-related parameters, appetite, and fasting glucose-lipid and leptin levels in 51 patients treated with first and/or second-generation antipsychotics who had gained weight during treatment or had high body-mass-index (BMI). Psychopathology and side-effects were also assessed with relevant scales. Results In a sub-group of patients being treated with olanzapine or clozapine ( n  = 26), betahistine was significantly ( P  < .05) better than placebo in preventing increases in weight (3.1 kg less weight gain than placebo), BMI, and waist circumference. Betahistine did not decrease weight or BMI in patients treated with other antipsychotics. There was also no effect of betahistine on preventing weight or BMI gain in the total combined sample of all subjects. Betahistine did not significantly improve appetite or glucose-lipid measures in either subgroup. There were no significant differences in side-effects or psychopathology changes in the betahistine- vs. placebo-treated patients. Conclusions These results suggest that betahistine may potentially be a useful adjunctive drug for decreasing weight gain in patients treated with antipsychotics that are potent histamine antagonists, such as olanzapine or clozapine, but may not be useful for this purpose in patients on other antipsychotic medications. The results justify larger placebo-controlled studies to further confirm these effects before specific recommendations can be made for routine use.

Purpose We assessed the efficacy of aprepitant (APR) or 10 or 5 mg OLN (OLN10 or OLN5) plus ondansetron and dexamethasone for chemotherapy-induced nausea/vomiting (CINV) prophylaxis in patients receiving high-emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC). Methods Patients who received doxorubicin + cyclophosphamide or cisplatin were given intravenous ondansetron and dexamethasone prior to chemotherapy and oral dexamethasone on days 2–4 and randomized 1:1:1 to receive APR125 on day 1 and APR80 on days 2–3 or OLN10 or OLN5 on days 1–4. Matched placebo controls were used. The primary endpoint was no nausea in ≤ 120 h. Secondary endpoints included CINV severity, complete response (CR) rate, adverse effects (AE), and quality of life. Results Of 141 patients, 104 received AC and 37 received cisplatin. The no-nausea rates were 33% (APR), 43.2% (OLN10; p  = 0.24), and 37% (OLN5; p  = 0.87). Grades 2–4 nausea were experienced by fewer patients for OLN10 than for APR (24–120 h, 8.7% vs. 27.7%, respectively; p  = 0.02; overall period, 19.6% vs. 40.4%, respectively; p  = 0.03). The median visual analog scale nausea score from 24 to 120 h was significantly lower for OLN10 (2.3) than for APR (1.2, p  = 0.03). The degrees of vomiting, CR, and AE were similar between the APR and OLN10 groups. CINV was similar between the OLN5 and APR groups. Conclusions Nausea was less severe for OLN10 than for APR in patients receiving HEC, but other measures were similar. CINV prevention efficacy was comparable between OLN5 and APR.