Trial reportThe oncologist2020
Olanzapine Versus Haloperidol for Treatment of Delirium in Patients with Advanced Cancer: A Phase III Randomized Clinical Trial.
Trial report in The oncologist, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT01539733 (Early Recognition and Optimal Treatment of Delirium in Patients With Advanced Cancer), which is not on this map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Early Recognition and Optimal Treatment of Delirium in Patients With Advanced Cancer
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 19 citations in OpenAlex.
- Drug therapy for delirium in terminally ill adults.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2020Pooled it
- Neuroscience in cancer care: ethical, legal, and societal challenges.Molecular psychiatry · 2026Article
- Advances in Pharmacologic- and Non-pharmacologic Interventions for Cancer Pain: A Narrative Review.Current treatment options in oncology · 2026Review
- Advancing Delirium Treatment Trials in Older Adults: Recommendations for Future Trials From the Network for Investigation of Delirium: Unifying Scientists (NIDUS).Critical care medicine · 2025Article
- Review
- Effectiveness of antipsychotics for managing agitated delirium in patients with advanced cancer: a secondary analysis of a multicenter prospective observational study in Japan (Phase-R).Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2024Observational
- Pharmacological and non-pharmacological prevention and management of delirium in critically ill and palliative patients in the inpatient setting: a review.Frontiers in medicine · 2024Review
- Evidence-Based Guideline on Management of Postoperative Delirium in Older People for Low Resource Setting: Systematic Review Article.International journal of general medicine · 2022Review
- The Benefits of Olanzapine in Palliating Symptoms.Current treatment options in oncology · 2020Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTreatment of delirium often includes haloperidol. Second-generation antipsychotics like olanzapine have emerged as an alternative with possibly fewer side effects. The aim of this multicenter, phase III, randomized clinical trial was to compare the efficacy and tolerability of olanzapine with haloperidol for the treatment of delirium in hospitalized patients with advanced cancer. MATERIALS AND
methodsEligible adult patients (≥18 years) with advanced cancer and delirium (Delirium Rating Scale-Revised-98 [DRS-R-98] total score ≥17.75) were randomized 1:1 to receive either haloperidol or olanzapine (age-adjusted, titratable doses). Primary endpoint was delirium response rate (DRR), defined as number of patients with DRS-R-98 severity score <15.25 and ≥4.5 points reduction. Secondary endpoints included time to response (TTR), tolerability, and delirium-related distress.
resultsBetween January 2011 and June 2016, 98 patients were included in the intention-to-treat analysis. DRR was 45% (95% confidence interval [CI], 31-59) for olanzapine and 57% (95% CI, 43-71) for haloperidol (Δ DRR -12%; odds ratio [OR], 0.61; 95% CI, 0.2-1.4; p = .23). Mean TTR was 4.5 days (95% CI, 3.2-5.9 days) for olanzapine and 2.8 days (95% CI, 1.9-3.7 days; p = .18) for haloperidol. Grade ≥3 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 5 patients (10.2%) and 10 patients (20.4%) in the olanzapine and haloperidol arm, respectively. Distress rates were similar in both groups. The study was terminated early because of futility.
conclusionDelirium treatment with olanzapine in hospitalized patients with advanced cancer did not result in improvement of DRR or TTR compared with haloperidol. Clinical trial identification number. NCT01539733. Dutch Trial Register. NTR2559. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Guidelines recommend that pharmacological interventions for delirium treatment in adults with cancer should be limited to patients who have distressing delirium symptoms. It was suggested that atypical antipsychotics, such as olanzapine, outperform haloperidol in efficacy and safety. However, collective data comparing the efficacy and safety of typical versus atypical antipsychotics in patients with cancer are limited. If targeted and judicious use of antipsychotics is considered for the treatment of delirium in patients with advanced cancer, this study demonstrated that there was no statistically significant difference in response to haloperidol or olanzapine. Olanzapine showed an overall better safety profile compared with haloperidol, although this difference was not statistically significant.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.