Sarma Indrani, Buragohain Sukainnya, Lahon Joonmoni, Banerjee Priyotosh, Kumar Subodh, Chetia Rituparna, Baishya Pakesh, Saikia Dibyajyoti
Pharmacology, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Guwahati, Guwahati, IND.
Pharmacology, ICARE Institute of Medical Sciences and Research (IIMSAR), Haldia, IND.
Cureus. 2025 Apr 28;17(4):e83118. doi: 10.7759/cureus.83118. eCollection 2025 Apr.
Cancer care faces challenges with chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV). Olanzapine and aprepitant, alone or with traditional antiemetics, promise CINV prevention. Their mechanisms target neurotransmitters, providing better control with manageable side effects. This study aims to rigorously review the efficacy and safety of olanzapine versus aprepitant in preventing CINV. Randomized clinical trials comparing olanzapine versus aprepitant in preventing CINV were selected following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) 2020 guidelines. A comprehensive literature search was conducted in various databases and registries through March 21, 2024. Quality assessment utilized Cochrane's 'Risk of Bias tool (RoB2)', and Review Manager 5.4.1 synthesized results using a random effect model. The main outcomes focused on odds ratios (ORs) for complete response (CR) in acute, delayed, and overall phases. Safety was assessed from trial descriptions. The certainty of evidence was assessed using GRADE Pro. Two hundred and eighty-two records were identified initially, yielding eight eligible RCTs with a total of 1056 participants after screening. All studies targeted CINV in adults undergoing highly emetogenic chemotherapy. In the acute phase, both drugs demonstrated similar efficacy in nausea and vomiting control (OR = 1.01, 95% CI = 0.63,1.62). During the delayed phase, no significant difference was observed (OR = 0.81, 95% CI = 0.62,1.04). In the overall phase, olanzapine exhibited slightly better nausea control than aprepitant, with statistical significance (OR = 0.76, 95% CI = 0.59,0.99). Emetic control was comparable across treatment arms (OR 0.93, 95 % CI 0.70-1.24). Olanzapine provided a clinically meaningful reduction in nausea. However, the sedation caused by olanzapine, which is significantly higher than that caused by aprepitant, can impair daily functioning, diminish treatment adherence, and increase fall risk.
癌症护理面临着化疗引起的恶心和呕吐(CINV)的挑战。奥氮平和阿瑞匹坦单独使用或与传统止吐药联合使用,有望预防CINV。它们的作用机制针对神经递质,能更好地控制症状且副作用易于管理。本研究旨在严格评估奥氮平与阿瑞匹坦在预防CINV方面的疗效和安全性。按照系统评价和Meta分析的首选报告项目(PRISMA)2020指南,选择比较奥氮平和阿瑞匹坦预防CINV的随机临床试验。通过在各种数据库和登记处进行全面的文献检索,截至2024年3月21日。质量评估采用Cochrane的“偏倚风险工具(RoB2)”,Review Manager 5.4.1使用随机效应模型综合结果。主要结局集中在急性、延迟和总体阶段完全缓解(CR)的比值比(OR)。根据试验描述评估安全性。使用GRADE Pro评估证据的确定性。最初识别出282条记录,筛选后得到8项符合条件的随机对照试验,共1056名参与者。所有研究均针对接受高致吐性化疗的成年患者的CINV。在急性期,两种药物在控制恶心和呕吐方面显示出相似的疗效(OR = 1.01,95% CI = 0.63,1.62)。在延迟期,未观察到显著差异(OR = 0.81,95% CI = 0.62,1.04)。在总体阶段,奥氮平在控制恶心方面比阿瑞匹坦略好,具有统计学意义(OR = 0.76,95% CI = 0.59,0.99)。各治疗组的止吐控制相当(OR 0.93,95% CI 0.70 - 1.24)。奥氮平能在临床上显著减轻恶心。然而,奥氮平引起的镇静作用明显高于阿瑞匹坦,这可能会损害日常功能、降低治疗依从性并增加跌倒风险。