SynthesisEuropean journal of clinical pharmacology2026
Olanzapine for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in breast cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective randomised controlled trials.
Synthesis in European journal of clinical pharmacology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeChemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) remains a significant problem for breast cancer patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy despite routine antiemetic practice. In this systematic review and meta-analysis we aim to examine the efficacy and safety of olanzapine with regular antiemetic treatment for CINV prevention in breast cancer patients.
methodsFollowing PRISMA 2020 standards, we searched PubMed, Cochrane Library, Google scholar, and ClinicalTrials.gov. We retrieved RCTs exclusively, comparing olanzapine with placebo or routine care in breast cancer patients undergoing anthracycline-based chemotherapy. The protocol was registered to PROSPERO (CRD420251087309). The primary outcomes assessed were complete response (defined as no emesis and no rescue medication use) and total control (defined as no nausea, no emesis, and no rescue medication use). Certainty of evidence was assessed using the GRADE approach.
resultsFour RCTs involving 857 patients were included. Compared with placebo or standard antiemetic therapy alone, olanzapine significantly improved complete response rates (4 studies, 857 patients; RR 1.58, 95% CI 1.35-1.85; I² = 0%) and total control (2 studies, 600 patients; RR 1.93, 95% CI 1.49-2.50; I² = 0%). Subgroup analysis showed no statistically significant difference between 5 mg and 10 mg doses. Olanzapine decreased acute nausea (3 studies, 377 patients; RR 1.32, 95% CI 1.03-1.69, I² = 63.4%) and delayed nausea (3 studies, 377 patients; RR 1.22, 95% CI 1.06-1.41, I² = 0%). The overall impact on nausea control was not statistically significant and showed considerable heterogeneity (3 studies, 377 patients; RR 1.42, 95% CI 0.48-4.15; I² = 88.0%). Subgroup analysis showed no statistically significant difference between 5 mg and 10 mg doses. Side effects, including sedation, fatigue, sleeplessness, extrapyramidal symptoms, and increased appetite were significantly attributable to olanzapine. GRADE assessment showed low certainty evidence for complete response, total control, and delayed nausea outcomes, while evidence for acute complete response, acute nausea control, and overall nausea control was rated very low certainty due to risk of bias, inconsistency, and imprecision.
conclusionOlanzapine significantly enhances CINV prevention in breast cancer patients, with positive outcomes for both 5 mg and 10 mg doses. Although increased sedation occurred, it was generally well-tolerated.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42295427What 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.