ReviewCureus2025
Olanzapine Versus Aprepitant for the Prevention of Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Review in Cureus, 2025. 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
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.
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.