Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27738796›Full record

Trial reportSupportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer2017

A randomized trial of olanzapine versus palonosetron versus infused ondansetron for the treatment of breakthrough chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in patients undergoing hematopoietic stem cell transplantation.

Midori Nakagaki, Michael Barras, Cameron Curley, Jason P Butler, Glen A Kennedy

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
1.6field-weighted citation impact, top 16% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

12 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 22 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Guideline
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pilot randomized trial of an electronic symptom monitoring and reporting intervention for hospitalized adults undergoing hematopoietic stem cell transplantation.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2020
    Trial
  6. Global inequitable distribution of seminal studies of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2026
    Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Midori NakagakiPharmacy Department, Level 1 Ned Hanlon Building, Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital, Butterfield Street, Herston, QLD, 4029, Australia. midori.nakagaki@health.qld.gov.au.ORCID 0000-0003-4086-6960
Michael BarrasPharmacy Department, Level 1 Ned Hanlon Building, Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital, Butterfield Street, Herston, QLD, 4029, Australia.
Cameron CurleyBone Marrow Transplant Unit, Level 5 Joyce Tweddell Building, Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital, Butterfield Street, Herston, QLD, 4029, Australia.
Jason P ButlerBone Marrow Transplant Unit, Level 5 Joyce Tweddell Building, Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital, Butterfield Street, Herston, QLD, 4029, Australia.
Glen A KennedyThe University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia.
Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital · AUThe University of Queensland · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThe primary aim of this study was to compare the effectiveness of olanzapine, palonosetron and ondansetron infusion (standard of care) for the treatment of breakthrough chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in patients undergoing hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT).

methodIt was a randomized open-label prospective study. Sixty-two patients were randomized to receive either ondansetron 32-mg infusion over 24 h, or olanzapine wafer 10 mg once daily in addition to ondansetron 8 mg IV three times a day or a single dose of palonosetron 0.25 mg IV instead of ondansetron. All groups were allowed rescue antiemetics. The primary endpoint was a composite outcome of no emesis, no use of rescue medication, and nausea score reduction of ≥50 %. The secondary endpoint was nausea score reduction of ≥50 %. Both endpoints were measured at 24 and 48 h after initiation of the study treatment. Statistical analysis was conducted using a double-sided Fisher's exact test.

resultThe primary endpoint was achieved in 6, 45, and 18 %, and 6, 64, and 18 % of ondansetron versus olanzapine versus palonosetron patient groups at 24 and 48 h, respectively. The secondary outcome was observed in 17, 60, and 62 %, and 35, 71, and 43 % of ondansetron versus olanzapine versus palonosetron patient groups at 24 and 48 h, respectively. Serious adverse drug reactions were not reported in any arms. Time to engraftment was not significantly different between the arms.

conclusionsOlanzapine was an effective treatment of breakthrough CINV. A single dose of palonosetron significantly reduced nausea up to 24 h.

Indexed as

AdolescentAdultAgedAntiemeticsAntineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy ProtocolsBenzodiazepinesDrug-Related Side Effects and Adverse ReactionsFemaleHematopoietic Stem Cell TransplantationHumansIsoquinolinesMaleMiddle AgedNauseaOlanzapineOndansetronAntiemeticsBenzodiazepinesIsoquinolinesOlanzapineOndansetronPalonosetronQuinuclidinesAntiemeticsNausea and vomitingOlanzapineOndansetronPalonosetronStem cell transplantation

Identifiers

PMID27738796
OpenAlexW2531089889

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.