ArticleNeuropsychopharmacology reports2024
Asenapine versus olanzapine for the treatment of nausea and vomiting in patients with cancer: A retrospective study.
Article in Neuropsychopharmacology reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- The expression of mercaptopyruvate sulfurtransferase serves as a potential biomarker for prognostic stratification and immunotherapy in certain cancers.Frontiers in oncology · 2025Article
- Asenapine versus olanzapine for the treatment of nausea and vomiting in patients with cancer: A retrospective study.Neuropsychopharmacology reports · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimPatients with cancer often experience nausea and vomiting (N/V), but may have difficulty using olanzapine (OLZ), a common antiemetic. Asenapine (ASE) is a multi-acting receptor-targeted antipsychotic like OLZ, although there is little evidence that ASE serves as an antiemetic. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of ASE compared to those of OLZ for the treatment of N/V in patients with cancer.
methodsThis retrospective study involved patients who received 5 mg ASE, 5 mg OLZ, or 2.5 mg OLZ for 2 days. Daily worst N/V was rated on a scale of 0 (none) to 3 (very much). The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients who had a response, defined as any reduction in N/V score. A complete response (CR) was defined as a score reduction to 0. Secondary endpoints included the proportion of patients with CR and adverse events.
resultsBetween April 2017 and March 2023, 212 patients were enrolled to receive treatment: 5 mg ASE (n = 34), 5 mg OLZ (n = 102), or 2.5 mg OLZ (n = 76). No significant differences in response rates (52.9% vs. 58.8% vs. 52.6%, p = 0.671) or secondary endpoints were observed between the groups. Patients receiving ASE were more likely to experience oral hypoesthesia (p = 0.004).
conclusionThis preliminary study suggests that ASE may be effective for N/V. Further studies are required to confirm these findings.
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.