Low-dose versus standard-dose olanzapine with triple antiemetic therapy for prevention of highly emetogenic chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in patients with solid tumours: a single-centre, open-label, non-inferiority, randomised, controlled, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Olanzapine is an effective antiemetic agent but it results in substantial daytime somnolence when administered at the standard dose. Our aim was to compare the efficacy of low-dose versus standard-dose olanzapine after highly emetogenic chemotherapy in patients with solid tumours. METHODS: This was a single-centre, open-label, non-inferiority, randomised, controlled, phase 3 trial done in a tertiary care referral centre in India (Tata Memorial Centre, Homi Bhabha National Institute, Mumbai). Patients aged 13-75 years with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-2, who were receiving doxorubicin-cyclophosphamide or high-dose cisplatin for a solid tumour were eligible. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1), with block randomisation (block sizes of 2 or 4) and stratified by sex, age (≥55 or <55 years), and chemotherapy regimen, to receive low-dose (2·5 mg) oral olanzapine or standard-dose (10·0 mg) oral olanzapine daily for 4 days, in combination with a triple antiemetic regimen. Study staff were masked to treatment allocation but patients were aware of their group assignment. The primary endpoint was complete control, defined as no emetic episodes, no rescue medications, and no or mild nausea in the overall phase (0-120 hours), assessed in the modified intention-to-treat (mITT) population (ie, all eligible patients who received protocol-specified treatment, excluding those who had eligibility violations and who withdrew consent after randomisation). Daytime somnolence was the safety endpoint of interest. Non-inferiority was shown if the upper limit of the one-sided 95% CI for the difference in the complete control proportions between the treatment groups excluded the non-inferiority margin of 10%. This study is registered with the Clinical Trial Registry India, CTRI/2021/01/030233, is closed to accrual, and this is the final data analysis. RESULTS: Between Feb 9, 2021, and May 30, 2023, 356 patients were pre-screened for eligibility, of whom 275 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned (134 to the 2·5 mg olanzapine group and 141 to the 10·0 mg olanzapine group). 267 patients (132 in the 2·5 mg group and 135 in the 10·0 mg group) were included in the mITT population, of whom 252 (94%) were female, 15 (6%) were male, and 242 (91%) had breast cancer. 59 (45%) of 132 patients in the 2·5 mg olanzapine group had complete control in the overall phase versus 59 (44%) of 135 in the 10·0 mg olanzapine group (difference -1·0% [one-sided 95% CI -100·0 to 9·0]; p=0·87). In the overall phase, there were significantly fewer patients in the 2·5 mg olanzapine group than in the 10·0 mg olanzapine group with daytime somnolence of any grade (86 [65%] of 132 vs 121 [90%] of 135; p<0·0001) and of severe grade on day 1 (six]5%] vs 54 [40%]; p<0·0001). INTERPRETATION: Our findings suggest that olanzapine 2·5 mg is non-inferior to 10·0 mg in antiemetic efficacy and results in reduced occurrence of daytime somnolence among patients receiving highly emetic chemotherapy and should be considered as a new standard of care. FUNDING: Progressive Ladies Welfare Association.

Early non-response as a predictor of later non-response to antipsychotics in schizophrenia: a randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: It remains a challenge to predict the long-term response to antipsychotics in patients with schizophrenia who do not respond at an early stage. This study aimed to investigate the optimal predictive cut-off value for early non-response that would better predict later non-response to antipsychotics in patients with schizophrenia. METHODS: This multicenter, 8-week, open-label, randomized trial was conducted at 19 psychiatric centers throughout China. All enrolled participants were assigned to olanzapine, risperidone, amisulpride, or aripiprazole monotherapy for 8 weeks. The positive and negative syndrome scale (PANSS) was evaluated at baseline, week 2, week 4, and week 8. The main outcome was the prediction of nonresponse. Nonresponse is defined as a < 20% reduction in the total scores of PANSS from baseline to endpoint. Severity ratings of mild, moderate, and severe illness corresponded to baseline PANSS total scores of 58, 75, and 95, respectively. RESULTS: At week 2, a reduction of < 5% in the PANSS total score showed the highest total accuracy in the severe and mild schizophrenia patients (total accuracy, 75.0% and 80.8%, respectively), and patients who were treated with the risperidone and amisulpride groups (total accuracy, 82.4%, and 78.2%, respectively). A 10% decrease exhibited the best overall accuracy in the moderate schizophrenia patients (total accuracy, 84.0%), olanzapine (total accuracy, 79.2%), and aripiprazole group (total accuracy, 77.4%). At week 4, the best predictive cut-off value was < 20%, regardless of the antipsychotic or severity of illness (total accuracy ranging from 89.8 to 92.1%). CONCLUSIONS: Symptom reduction at week 2 has acceptable discrimination in predicting later non-response to antipsychotics in schizophrenia, and a more accurate predictive cut-off value should be determined according to the medication regimen and baseline illness severity. The response to treatment during the next 2 weeks after week 2 could be further assessed to determine whether there is a need to change antipsychotic medication during the first four weeks. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study was registered on Clinicaltrials.gov (NCT03451734).

2023 updated MASCC/ESMO consensus recommendations: prevention of nausea and vomiting following high-emetic-risk antineoplastic agents.

PURPOSE: This systematic review updates the MASCC/ESMO recommendations for high-emetic-risk chemotherapy (HEC) published in 2016-2017. HEC still includes cisplatin, carmustine, dacarbazine, mechlorethamine, streptozocin, and cyclophosphamide in doses of > 1500 mg/m2 and the combination of cyclophosphamide and an anthracycline (AC) in women with breast cancer. METHODS: A systematic review report following the PRISMA guidelines of the literature from January 1, 2015, until February 1, 2023, was performed. PubMed (Ovid), Scopus (Google), and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews were searched. The literature search was limited to randomized controlled trials, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses. RESULTS: Forty-six new references were determined to be relevant. The main topics identified were (1) steroid-sparing regimens, (2) olanzapine-containing regimens, and (3) other issues such as comparisons of antiemetics of the same drug class, intravenous NK1 receptor antagonists, and potentially new antiemetics. Five updated recommendations are presented. CONCLUSION: There is no need to prescribe steroids (dexamethasone) beyond day 1 after AC HEC, whereas a 4-day regimen is recommended in non-AC HEC. Olanzapine is now recommended as a fixed part of a four-drug prophylactic antiemetic regimen in both non-AC and AC HEC. No major differences between 5-HT3 receptor antagonists or between NK1 receptor antagonists were identified. No new antiemetic agents qualified for inclusion in the updated recommendations.

2023 updated MASCC/ESMO consensus recommendations: prevention of nausea and vomiting following multiple-day chemotherapy, high-dose chemotherapy, and breakthrough nausea and vomiting.

PURPOSE: This review is an update of the MASCC/ESMO 2015 recommendations for the prophylaxis of acute and delayed nausea and vomiting induced by multiple-day chemotherapy, high-dose chemotherapy, and breakthrough nausea and vomiting. METHODS: A systematic literature search was conducted using PubMed from June 1, 2015, through February 1, 2023. RESULTS: We identified 56 references (16 were duplications or invalid), leaving 40 manuscripts for this search. The panel classified level I evidence (three manuscripts) and level II evidence (14 manuscripts). High-dose chemotherapy and stem cell transplant were discussed in four of these manuscripts, and multiple-day chemotherapy treatment in 15. Some manuscripts covered both topics. Additionally, a search for breakthrough nausea and vomiting resulted in 12 "hits." No new relevant studies were identified. CONCLUSIONS: The recommendations for patients receiving high-dose chemotherapy with stem cell transplants and patients undergoing multiple-day cisplatin were updated. For patients receiving high-dose chemotherapy for stem cell transplant, a combination of a 5-HT3 receptor antagonist with dexamethasone and aprepitant is recommended. Olanzapine could be considered part of the antiemetic regimen. Patients receiving multiple-day cisplatin should receive a 5-HT3 receptor antagonist plus dexamethasone plus aprepitant plus olanzapine. For patients experiencing breakthrough nausea and vomiting, the available evidence suggests using a single dose of olanzapine daily for 3 days.

Supportive care for the prevention of nausea, vomiting and anorexia in a phase 1B study of selinexor in advanced cancer patients: an exploratory study.

INTRODUCTION: Clinical observations of cancer patients treated with selinexor have reported high incidence of nausea and anorexia. The study objective was to investigate the adoption of prophylactic olanzapine for the prevention of nausea, vomiting and anorexia in cancer patients receiving selinexor and standard chemotherapy. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed supportive care interventions in patients receiving selinexor and recorded frequency of adverse events (NCI-CTAE). Association between categorical variables were analyzed using Fisher's exact tests; repeated measures analysis was performed to assess weight changes over time. RESULTS: Of 124 evaluable patients, 83 (66.9%) were female, 93 were white (75.0%), and the most common cancer was ovarian (N = 30, 24.2%). One hundred and four patients (83.9%) received olanzapine, of which 93 (89.4%) were prophylactically treated, the majority (86.5%) receiving low 2.5 mg daily dose. Other anti-emetics included ondansetron in 90 patients (72.6%), dexamethasone prescribed in 50 patients (40.3%) and metoclopramide in 49 patients (39.5%), while aprepitant/fosaprepitant (N = 2, 1.6%) were prescribed infrequently. Cancer patients receiving prophylactic olanzapine (N = 93) compared to patients who never received olanzapine (N = 20) had more Grade 1 + anorexia (31.2% vs 20.0%), less nausea (53.8% vs 70.0%), less vomiting (33.3% vs 40.0%), and increased hyperglycemia (29.0% vs 10.0%), but differences were non-statistically significant. In addition, there was minimal weight loss over time in both groups and no statistically significant differences in weight loss between groups. CONCLUSION: Prophylactic olanzapine decreased nausea, vomiting and maintained weight over 3 months but did not prevent anorexia in patients receiving selinexor and chemotherapy. Low dose olanzapine was well tolerated but associated with hyperglycemia.

[Administration Period of Olanzapine as an Antiemetic Drug for Patients on FEC Therapy-A Survey].

Olanzapine(OLZ)is a multi-acting receptor-targeted antipsychotic drug approved in Japan in December 2017 for the treatment of anticancer drug-induced nausea and vomiting. However, the recommended doses and administration periods of OLZ in the literature and guidelines are varied. Reports on the efficacy and safety of OLZ combined with perioperative chemotherapy for breast cancer in Japanese patients are few. Moreover, the risk of nausea and vomiting during treatment with anticancer drugs in young and women patients remains to be high. In this study, we conducted an exploratory survey on the optimal duration of OLZ administration(days 1-4: 5 mg, before sleep)during perioperative breast cancer 5-fluorouracil, epirubicin, cyclophosphamide(FEC)therapy. We found that treatment with OLZ showed efficacy in improving nausea grade and maintaining relative dose intensity. Moreover, it could be used safely without interruption due to side effects, such as weight gain, elevation in blood glucose, somnolence, and insomnia. Prophylactic antiemetic therapy with OLZ administration (days 1-4: 5 mg)prior to sleep was effective in patients having FEC therapy-induced nausea and vomiting.

Pharmacodynamic Interactions Between Ketamine and Psychiatric Medications Used in the Treatment of Depression: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: The use of ketamine for depression has increased rapidly in the past decades. Ketamine is often prescribed as an add-on to other drugs used in psychiatric patients, but clear information on drug-drug interactions is lacking. With this review, we aim to provide an overview of the pharmacodynamic interactions between ketamine and mood stabilizers, benzodiazepines, monoamine oxidase-inhibitors, antipsychotics, and psychostimulants. METHODS: MEDLINE and Web of Science were searched. RESULTS: Twenty-four studies were included. For lithium, no significant interactions with ketamine were reported. Two out of 5 studies on lamotrigine indicated that the effects of ketamine were attenuated. Benzodiazepines were repeatedly shown to reduce the duration of ketamine's antidepressant effect. For the monoamine oxidase-inhibitor tranylcypromine, case reports showed no relevant changes in vital signs during concurrent S-ketamine use. One paper indicated an interaction between ketamine and haloperidol, 2 other studies did not. Four papers investigated risperidone, including 3 neuroimaging studies showing an attenuating effect of risperidone on ketamine-induced brain perfusion changes. Clozapine significantly blunted ketamine-induced positive symptoms in patients with schizophrenia but not in healthy participants. One paper reported no effect of olanzapine on ketamine's acute psychotomimetic effects. CONCLUSION: Current literature shows that benzodiazepines and probably lamotrigine reduce ketamine's treatment outcome, which should be taken into account when considering ketamine treatment. There is evidence for an interaction between ketamine and clozapine, haloperidol, and risperidone. Due to small sample sizes, different subject groups and various outcome parameters, the evidence is of low quality. More studies are needed to provide insight into pharmacodynamic interactions with ketamine.

Long-term safety and durability of effect with a combination of olanzapine and samidorphan in patients with schizophrenia: results from a 1-year open-label extension study.

BACKGROUND: Combination olanzapine and samidorphan (OLZ/SAM), in development for schizophrenia and bipolar I disorder, is intended to provide the efficacy of olanzapine while mitigating olanzapine-associated weight gain. OLZ/SAM safety, tolerability, and efficacy from a 52-week open-label extension study in patients with schizophrenia are reported. METHODS: Patients previously completing the 4-week, double-blind ENLIGHTEN-1 study switched from OLZ/SAM, olanzapine, or placebo to OLZ/SAM. Assessments included adverse events (AEs), weight, vital signs, Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS), and Clinical Global Impression-Severity (CGI-S) scores. Baseline was prior to first dose of OLZ/SAM in the extension study. RESULTS: In total, 281 patients enrolled, 277 received ≥1 OLZ/SAM dose, and 183 (66.1%) completed 52 weeks. Reasons for discontinuation included patient withdrawal (15.5%), loss to follow-up (6.9%), AEs (5.8%), and lack of efficacy (1.8%). AEs were reported in 136 (49.1%) patients; increased weight (13%) and somnolence (8%) were most common. Ten serious AEs were reported in eight patients (2.9%); none were considered treatment related. There were no deaths. Mean (SD) baseline weight was 79.1 (17.8) kg. Mean weight change from baseline to week 52 was 1.86 kg (2.79% increase). PANSS total and CGI-S scores continued to decline over 52 weeks (mean [95% CI] changes from baseline to week 52: -16.2 [-18.5, -14.0] and -0.9 [-1.0, -0.8], respectively). CONCLUSION: OLZ/SAM was generally well tolerated in this extension study; most patients completed the 52-week treatment period with sustained improvement in schizophrenia symptoms. Mean increases in weight stabilized by week 6 with limited subsequent change through end of treatment.

Efficacy and safety of 5 mg olanzapine combined with aprepitant, granisetron and dexamethasone to prevent carboplatin-induced nausea and vomiting in patients with gynecologic cancer: A multi-institution phase II study.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to investigate the efficacy and safety of prophylactic administration of 5 mg olanzapine (OLZ) combined with neurokinin 1 receptor antagonist (NK1RA), 5-hydroxytryptamine type-3 receptor antagonist (5-HT3RA), and dexamethasone (DEX) to prevent nausea and vomiting in carboplatin (CBDCA) combination therapy for patients with gynecological cancer. METHODS: We conducted a single-arm, multi-institution, phase II study. Gynecological cancer patients scheduled to receive AUC ≥4 mg/mL/min CBDCA were enrolled. All patients received 5 mg OLZ (once daily after supper on days 1-4) combined with NK1RA, 5-HT3RA, and DEX. The primary end point was complete response (CR; no emesis and rescue therapy) during overall phase (120 h after the start of carboplatin administration). RESULTS: Between May 2018 and June 2019, 60 patients were enrolled from 3 institutions in Japan. A total of 57 patients who met the criteria were included in the efficacy and safety analysis. The CR rate for the overall phase was 78.9%. Acute (0-24 h) and delayed phases (24-120 h) were 96.5% and 80.7%, respectively. Somnolence was observed in 73.7% patients. However, somnolence of grade 2 or higher was observed in only 3.5% of cases. There were no grade 3 or 4 toxicities associated with OLZ. CONCLUSIONS: Preventive use of OLZ combined with standard triplet therapy had promising activity with manageable safety, suggesting that this combination could be an effective standard treatment option for patients with AUC ≥4 mg/mL/min CBDCA combination therapy.

The Benefits of Olanzapine in Palliating Symptoms.

OPINION STATEMENT: Olanzapine has become a major drug in the management of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting as a prophylactic agent. In addition, a recent randomized trial has demonstrated its benefits in treating nausea and vomiting associated with advanced cancer. The added benefit to olanzapine is that it also stimulates appetite. As a result, since it treats multiple symptoms associated with advanced cancer, it is likely to become the antiemetic of choice in palliative care at least in the USA. The added benefit of treating insomnia and the avoidance of benzodiazepines should place olanzapine in at the top of the list of drugs to use for patients who do complain of insomnia. There is no good evidence that it potentiates the respiratory depression of opioids unlike benzodiazepines. The evidence is weak that olanzapine in as an adjuvant analgesic. Hopefully, future trials will explore this in greater depth. The benefits of adding olanzapine to potent opioids are that it may reduce craving, drug cues, and opioid misuse. Other symptoms like anxiety and depression may be addressed by the addition of olanzapine to standard antidepressants.

Differential benefits of olanzapine on executive function in schizophrenia patients: Preliminary findings.

OBJECTIVE: Schizophrenia patients show executive function (EF) impairments in voluntary orienting as measured by eye-movements. We tested 14 inpatients to investigate the effects of the antipsychotic olanzapine on EF, as measured by antisaccade eye-movement performance. METHODS: Patients were tested at baseline (before olanzapine), 3-5 days post-medication, and 12-14 days post-medication. Patients were also assessed on the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) to measure the severity of schizophrenia-related symptoms, and administered the Stroop task, a test of EF. Nine matched controls were also tested on the antisaccade and Stroop. RESULTS: Both groups showed improvement on Stroop and antisaccade; however, the schizophrenia group improved significantly more on antisaccade, indicating an additional benefit of olanzapine on EF performance. Patients with poorer baseline antisaccade performance (High-Deficit) showed significantly greater improvement on the antisaccade task than patients with better baseline performance (Low-Deficit), suggesting that baseline EF impairment predicts the magnitude of cognitive improvement with olanzapine. These subgroups showed significant and equivalent improvement on PANSS scores, indicating that improvement on the antisaccade task with olanzapine was not a result of differences in magnitude of clinical improvement. CONCLUSIONS: This preliminary study provides evidence that olanzapine may be most advantageous for patients with greater baseline EF deficits.

The use of olanzapine as an antiemetic in palliative medicine: a systematic review of the literature.

BACKGROUND: Olanzapine is an atypical antipsychotic that has affinity for many central nervous system receptors. Its efficacy is supported by several studies in the prevention and treatment of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting. No recommendations exist on the antiemetic use of olanzapine in the palliative care setting. The aim of this work is to complete the initial work of Fonte et al. published in 2015, to determine whether the literature supports the use of olanzapine as an antiemetic in palliative situations and, in practice, to propose a therapeutic schema adapted to the palliative setting. METHODS: Systematic review of the literature according to the PRISMA criteria. We searched the PubMed, Cochrane, RefDoc, EMBase databases and the gray literature databases. The bibliographic search was conducted between November 2016 and August 2017. RESULTS: Thirteen articles were included: 2 case studies, 3 case series, 3 retrospective studies, 2 prospective studies, 2 literature reviews. All studies concluded on the efficacy of olanzapine as an antiemetic in the palliative care setting. No serious adverse effects were reported. Based on the data from the literature review, we propose a therapeutic scheme adapted to the palliative care context. CONCLUSION: Action of olanzapine on many receptors and its tolerance profile make it an interesting antiemetic treatment in palliative medicine. But to date, studies are scarce and have a low statistical power. Further investigation is therefore needed to determine the benefit of this treatment in palliative care patients, compared to usual treatments.

Intravenous Olanzapine for the Management of Agitation: Review of the Literature.

Objective: The purpose of this review is to summarize the current evidence of the off-label use of intravenous (IV) olanzapine and discuss its risks versus benefits for the management of agitation. Data Sources: A literature search was conducted to gather relevant data regarding IV use of olanzapine for the management of acute agitation. PubMed, EMBASE, MEDLINE, and IPA were searched using the keywords and MESH terms: olanzapine, intravenous, IV, off-label, and agitation. Study Selection and Data Extraction: All case reports, and retrospective and prospective studies evaluating the efficacy and safety of IV olanzapine administration for agitation from January 2004 to December 2018 were analyzed. Data Synthesis: Doses from 2.5 to 10 mg given as an IV bolus (maximum dose of 30 mg/d) have been administered. Rescue medications such as droperidol or parenteral benzodiazepines are sometimes coadministered to assist with achieving adequate sedation. Prospective studies demonstrate efficacy similar to droperidol in achieving adequate sedation within 10 minutes and similar time to onset of sedation. Rates of respiratory depression and airway obstruction are low and similar to that of comparative agents, including intramuscular olanzapine. Relevance to Patient Care and Clinical Practice: This review evaluated the off-label use of IV olanzapine to manage agitation based on case reports, and retrospective and prospective data. Conclusions: The use of IV olanzapine remains controversial in the absence of clear evidence evaluating safety and efficacy. Future studies are warranted comparing IV olanzapine with more commonly utilized and Food and Drug Administration-approved treatment modalities for acute agitation in the emergency department and other settings.

Efficacy and Tolerability of Atypical Antipsychotics in the Treatment of Delirium: A Systematic Review of the Literature.

BACKGROUND: Although haloperidol is the most widely used drug in the treatment of delirium, evidence on the relevance of atypical antipsychotics (AAPs) is growing. OBJECTIVE: To review the literature on the efficacy and tolerability of AAPs in the treatment of delirium. METHODS: A systematic search of the literature published before April 2018 was performed on PubMed using the following search strings: "Delirium" and "Atypical antipsychotics", "Novel antipsychotics", "New antipsychotics", "Quetiapine", "Olanzapine", "Aripiprazole", "Risperidone", "Paliperidone", "Clozapine", "Asenapine", "Iloperidone", "Amisulpiride", "Ziprasidone", "Zotepine", "Sertindole", "Lurasidone" or "Perospirone". RESULTS: Twelve randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 22 open trials were considered. Despite an overall lack of large-scale RCTs, there is some evidence supporting the efficacy of olanzapine and quetiapine in placebo controlled trials. In a recent and large RCT in elderly patients, risperidone and/or haloperidol were associated with a significantly worse outcome than placebo. While preliminary, the current comparative studies suggest that haloperidol and the AAPs olanzapine, quetiapine and risperidone are similarly effective, although treatment with AAPs is associated with a reduced incidence of extrapyramidal symptoms. Ziprasidone was not shown to be effective. No RCTs are available for other AAPs. CONCLUSIONS: Although the current evidence of the efficacy and tolerability of AAPs in the treatment of delirium is limited and the heterogeneity of the data precluded a meta-analysis, olanzapine and quetiapine seem to be adequate alternatives to haloperidol, especially in patients who are vulnerable for extrapyramidal symptoms, who require sedation or who have a history of haloperidol intolerance. Evidently, larger-scale RCTs are urgently required.

Feasibility of olanzapine, multi acting receptor targeted antipsychotic agent, for the prevention of emesis caused by continuous cisplatin- or ifosfamide-based chemotherapy.

Background To determine the feasibility and efficacy of olanzapine, which is approved by the Pharmaceuticals and Medical Devices Agency as multi acting receptor targeted antipsychotic agent of the thienobenzodiazepine class, for prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in patients undergoing continuous five-day chemotherapy. Patients and methods This study was a prospective dose escalation study at a single center (UMIN ID: UMIN000015386). Patients received a combination of adriamycin and ifosfamide (AI) or a combination of bleomycin, etoposide, and cisplatin (BEP). On days 1-5, all patients received intravenous granisetron (1 mg) and intravenous dexamethasone sodium phosphate (24 mg). Olanzapine was administrated on day-1 to day5 at bedtime. The dose of olanzapine followed a dose-escalation scheme, with monitoring of safety and tolerability at each dose. A 3 + 3 cohort design was used, with three to six patients per cohort. Results Nine patients were enrolled (three for each cohort). No patients experienced dose-limiting toxicity (DLT). The most frequent adverse events were dry mouth and constipation. In each cohort, the maximum severity of nausea was Grade 2, and no patients experienced a vomiting episode. Conclusion A 2.5 mg/day dosage of olanzapine is sufficient to prevent from CINV in Japanese patients receiving continuous five-day chemotherapy. A dose of 10 mg/day, which is recommended by international CINV guidelines, is also tolerated. If CINV is not controlled by an initial dose of 2.5 mg/day of olanzapine, dosage escalation is encouraged. Future studies should compare olanzapine with aprepitant.