PCSK9 dysregulates cholesterol homeostasis and triglyceride metabolism in olanzapine-induced hepatic steatosis via both receptor-dependent and receptor-independent pathways.

Schizophrenia, affecting approximately 1% of the global population, is often treated with olanzapine. Despite its efficacy, olanzapine's prolonged use has been associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular diseases and nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD); however, the underlying mechanism remains unclear. Proprotein convertase subtilisin kexin type 9 (PCSK9) plays a crucial role in lipid metabolism and is involved in NAFLD pathogenesis via an unknown mechanism. This study aims to investigate the role of PCSK9 in olanzapine-induced NAFLD. C57BL/6J mice and HepG2 and AML12 cell lines were treated with varying concentrations of olanzapine to examine the effects of olanzapine on PCSK9 and lipid metabolism. PCSK9 levels were manipulated using recombinant proteins, plasmids, and small interfering RNAs in vitro, and the effects on hepatic lipid accumulation and gene expression related to lipid metabolism were assessed. Olanzapine treatment significantly increased PCSK9 levels in both animal and cell line models, correlating with elevated lipid accumulation. PCSK9 manipulation demonstrated its central role in mediating hepatic steatosis through both receptor-dependent pathways (impacting NPC1L1) and receptor-independent pathways (affecting lipid synthesis, uptake, and cholesterol biosynthesis). Interestingly, upregulation of SREBP-1c, rather than SREBP-2, was identified as a key driver of PCSK9 increase in olanzapine-induced NAFLD. Our findings establish PCSK9 as a pivotal factor in olanzapine-induced NAFLD, influencing both receptor-related and metabolic pathways. This highlights PCSK9 inhibitors as potential therapeutic agents for managing NAFLD in schizophrenia patients treated with olanzapine.

Dexamethasone-Free Antiemetic Prophylaxis for Highly Emetogenic Chemotherapy: A Double-Blind, Phase III Randomized Controlled Trial (CINV POD study).

PURPOSE: The effectiveness of a dexamethasone (DEX)-free regimen for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) prophylaxis in patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) is not known. METHODS: This was a double-blind, phase III trial designed to show the noninferiority of a DEX-free regimen (olanzapine, palonosetron, and fosaprepitant [OPF]) compared with the DEX-containing regimen (olanzapine, palonosetron, and DEX [OPD]). Chemotherapy-naïve patients age 18-80 years receiving single-day HEC were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive either the OPD regimen or the OPF regimen. The primary objective was to compare complete response (CR) rates for vomiting during the overall period (start of chemotherapy to 120 hours). Secondary objectives included CR for vomiting during the acute period (0-24 hours) and delayed period (24-120 hours), CR for nausea, and comparison of toxicities and patient-reported outcomes. RESULTS: Three hundred forty-six patients received the study interventions, 174 in the OPD arm and 172 in the OPF arm. The DEX-free OPF arm had significantly higher CR rates for vomiting compared with the DEX-containing OPD arm in acute (94.7% v 85.6%; P < .004), delayed (81.9% v 50.5%; P < .001), and overall (79.6% v 48.8%; P < .001) periods. For nausea, CR rates in the OPF arm were higher in delayed (53.4% v 39.6%; P = .009) and overall (50.5% v 39.1%; P = .031) periods but not in the acute period (77.9% v 81.6%; P = .39). Fatigue (P = .009) and drowsiness (P = .002) were more in the OPF arm in the acute period and insomnia (P < .001) in the OPD arm in the overall period. CONCLUSION: This study shows that a DEX-free OPF regimen is efficacious and should be considered a standard option for acute and delayed CINV prophylaxis for HEC.

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.

Evaluation of palonosetron, fosaprepitant, and olanzapine as antiemetic prophylaxis for fludarabine and melphalan-based conditioning regimens prior to allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplants.

BACKGROUND: Limited data are available regarding efficacious antiemetic regimens to prevent chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) for patients undergoing allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT). In patients aged 60 years or older, allogeneic HSCT is associated with improved survival, but tolerability of the transplant is a significant barrier. Fludarabine and melphalan (Flu-Mel) is a frequently utilized multi-day reduced intensity conditioning regimen for allogeneic HSCT. However, the optimal CINV prevention regimen is unknown. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of a novel CINV prophylaxis regimen prior to allogeneic HSCT with Flu-Mel compared to a historical control group. STUDY DESIGN: This was a retrospective, single-center, cohort review of 123 patients who received a Flu-Mel preparative regimen prior to allogeneic HSCT from January 1, 2019, to September 30, 2022. Fifty-nine patients received high dose ondansetron (HDO) for CINV prevention, while sixty-four patients received a combination of palonosetron, fosaprepitant, and olanzapine (PFO). The primary outcome was average number of rescue antiemetic doses administered per day. A key secondary outcome was time to first rescue antiemetic. RESULTS: The median number of antiemetic doses used per day was significantly lower in patients who received PFO compared to HDO (1.94 doses [0.31-3.60] vs 3.31 doses [1.61-4.92]; p = 0.002). In addition, use of PFO significantly prolonged the median time to first rescue antiemetic compared to HDO (41.3 h [24.3-122.7] vs 26.2 h [14.7-48.1]; p = 0.016). CONCLUSION: The combination of palonosetron, fosaprepitant, and olanzapine is an effective antiemetic regimen for patients receiving a Flu-Mel-based preparative regimen.

CYP1A2 expression rather than genotype is associated with olanzapine concentration in psychiatric patients.

Olanzapine is a commonly prescribed atypical antipsychotic agent for treatment of patients with schizophrenia and bipolar disorders. Previous in vitro studies using human liver microsomes identified CYP1A2 and CYP2D6 enzymes being responsible for CYP-mediated metabolism of olanzapine. The present work focused on the impact of CYP1A2 and CYP2D6 genetic polymorphisms as well as of CYP1A2 metabolizing capacity influenced by non-genetic factors (sex, age, smoking) on olanzapine blood concentration in patients with psychiatric disorders (N = 139). CYP2D6 genotype-based phenotype appeared to have negligible contribution to olanzapine metabolism, whereas a dominant role of CYP1A2 in olanzapine exposure was confirmed. However, CYP1A2 expression rather than CYP1A2 genetic variability was demonstrated to be associated with olanzapine concentration in patients. Significant contribution of - 163C > A (rs762551), the most common SNP (single nucleotide polymorphism) in CYP1A2 gene, to enhanced inducibility was confirmed by an increase in CYP1A2 mRNA expression in smokers carrying - 163A, and smoking was found to have appreciable impact on olanzapine concentration normalized by the dose/bodyweight. Furthermore, patients' olanzapine exposure was in strong association with CYP1A2 expression; therefore, assaying CYP1A2 mRNA level in leukocytes can be an appropriate tool for the estimation of patients' olanzapine metabolizing capacity and may be relevant in optimizing olanzapine dosage.

Probable Olanzapine-Related Idiopathic Intracranial Hypertension in an Adolescent With First-Episode Psychosis.

Pseudotumor cerebri or idiopathic intracranial hypertension (IIH) secondary to psychotropic drugs is a very rare occurrence. Lithium is typically the culprit agent. Here, authors report on an interesting case of an adolescent with early-onset schizophrenia that develops a reversible IIH putatively related to olanzapine-induced weight gain. This is followed by discussion of purported pharmacodynamic mechanisms and brief review of literature. Clinicians should be cognizant to this serious complication given the propensity of the majority of atypical antipsychotics to induce significant weight gain especially in younger population.

Low Dose Olanzapine in the Prevention and Treatment of Carboplatin Induced Nausea and Vomiting: A Prospective Clinical Randomized Controlled Trial.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to determine the effectiveness and safety of 5 mg olanzapine (OLZ) in preventing vomiting and nausea caused by carboplatin chemotherapy. METHODS: All patients with malignant tumors (n = 113) who underwent Carboplatin (AUC ≥ 5) treatment were randomly categorized into two groups: the standard group (n = 57) and the OLZ regimen (n = 56). The major endpoints of the trial were the TC (total control) between two groups during the OP (Overall phase, 0-120 hours), DP (delayed phase, 25-120 hours), and AP (acute phase, 0-24 hours). The secondary endpoints were the CR (complete response) and TP (total protection) during AP, OP, and DP. The time of first vomiting was compared between the two groups using Kaplan-Meier curves. The impact of CINV on the quality of life was assessed by the Functional Living Index-Emesis (FLIE). OLZ-related side effects were also recorded. RESULTS: (1) The primary endpoint TC rates were more favorable in the OLZ regimen group than in the standard group during the AP 87.50% (49/56) vs. 63.15% (36/57) P = 0.003, OP 62.50% (35/56) vs. 31.57% (18/57) P = 0.001, and DP 64.28% (36/56) vs. 33.33% (19/57) P = 0.001. (2) The secondary endpoints TP were 82.14% (46/56) vs. 63.15% (36/57), P = 0.024, 83.92% (47/56) vs. 63.15% (36/57). P = 0.012 during the DP and OP. There was no statistical significance during AP between the two groups. The CR rates were not statistically different between the two groups during the three periods, P > 0.05; (3) The first vomiting time in the OLZ group was delayed compared with the standard group (P = 0.248). The effect on life quality (score ≥ 108) assessed by FLIE was 62.50% vs. 43.48% between the two groups, P < 0.05. The primary side effects of OLZ are fatigue (85%) and somnolence (75%). The primary side effects of the standard group are fatigue (77%) and loss of appetite (85%). CONCLUSION: The 5 mg OLZ-based triple antiemetic regimen is effective and safe in preventing vomiting and nausea induced by Carboplatin.

Efficacy and Safety of Olanzapine for the Prevention of Chemotherapy-induced Nausea and Vomiting in Children: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) remain the most distressing event in patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) and moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC). This meta-analysis was conducted to evaluate the efficacy and safety of olanzapine containing regimen in preventing CINV in children on HEC and MEC. We searched PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane central register of controlled trials electronic databases to identify randomized clinical trials that compared 2 groups who either got olanzapine (olanzapine group) or placebo/no olanzapine (control group) for the prevention of CINV in children. The primary outcome was to determine the efficacy of olanzapine (complete response). The secondary outcomes were nausea control, the need for rescue medications, and adverse events of olanzapine. Three randomized clinical trials (n=394 patients) were included in this meta-analysis (olanzapine group, n=194, and placebo/control group, n=200). The pooled analysis of this meta-analysis found that olanzapine had a higher complete response in all phases of emesis in the HEC group and only in the acute phase in HEC/MEC groups compared with the control group. Olanzapine had higher nausea control in all phases of HEC but no nausea control in HEC/MEC. Olanzapine also reduced the need for rescue medications. A significant number of patients in the olanzapine group experienced somnolence (grades 1 and 2), but none of the participants discontinued the study due to side effects. In conclusion, this meta-analysis showed that olanzapine significantly prevented CINV in HEC. There was also a lesser need for rescue medications in the olanzapine group. Somnolence was higher in the olanzapine group, but it was clinically insignificant.

Olanzapine as an add-on, pre-operative anti-emetic drug for postoperative nausea or vomiting: a randomised controlled trial.

Postoperative nausea or vomiting occurs in up to 40% in patients with multiple risk factors, despite prophylaxis. Olanzapine is an antipsychotic drug that is used to prevent nausea and vomiting in palliative care and to treat chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting. This study aimed to examine whether pre-operative olanzapine, as a prophylactic anti-emetic added to intra-operative dexamethasone, ondansetron and total intravenous anaesthesia, reduced the incidence of postoperative nausea or vomiting. We performed a multiply-blinded randomised controlled trial in patients aged 18-60 years with cancer at high risk of postoperative nausea or vomiting (three or four risk factors according to the Apfel criteria) plus a previous history of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting. Patients were allocated at random to receive 10 mg olanzapine or placebo orally 1 h before surgery in addition to a two-drug regimen (dexamethasone and ondansetron) and propofol anaesthesia to prevent postoperative nausea or vomiting. The primary outcome was the incidence of postoperative nausea or vomiting in the first 24 h after surgery. In total, 100 patients were enrolled; 47 in the olanzapine group and 49 in the control group completed the study. The baseline characteristics of the groups were similar. The incidence of postoperative nausea or vomiting in the first 24 h after surgery was lower in the olanzapine group (12/47, 26%) than in the control group (31/49, 63%) (p = 0.008, RR 0.40 (95%CI 0.21-0.79)). Adding pre-operative oral olanzapine to intra-operative dexamethasone and ondansetron was highly effective in reducing the risk of postoperative nausea or vomiting in the first 24 hours after surgery in patients with a previous history of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting and at least three Apfel risk factors for postoperative nausea or vomiting.

Olanzapine for Non-Chemotherapy Related Nausea and Emesis in Patients with a Palliative Care Consult.

CONTEXT: Current palliative care guidelines lack a specific treatment algorithm for nausea and emesis. Olanzapine is an atypical antipsychotic with antiemetic activity that's recommended in the guidelines for the treatment of chemotherapy induced nausea and vomiting, but outside of oncologic indications there is a lack of research. OBJECTIVES: To describe the safety and efficacy of olanzapine for nausea and emesis in the palliative care domain, excluding patients actively undergoing chemotherapy or radiation. METHODS: This retrospective chart review encompassed hospitalized adult patients from six hospitals across a large health system admitted from August 2020 through August 2021, with a palliative care consult, and being treated with olanzapine for nausea or emesis. Data was collected on antiemetic therapy affordability, the ability for patients to tolerate medications by mouth, and safety outcomes such as QTc prolongation and increased liver function tests. RESULTS: A total of 78 patients were included in the study. Olanzapine decreased the number of doses required of antiemetic medications, the median doses of antiemetic medications pre-olanzapine was 1.6 (IQR 0.8-2.8) and post-olanzapine was 0.6 (IQR 0-2.4) (P = 0.0006). After olanzapine was initiated, appetite was improved (P < 0.001), cost of antiemetic therapy was reduced by 65 cents per day (P = 0.059) and olanzapine was prescribed at discharge in 69% of patients. QTc prolongation was observed in 19% of patients, and increased ALT and AST were observed in 4.3% and 0%, respectively. CONCLUSION: This retrospective review demonstrated benefit to utilizing olanzapine for nausea and emesis in palliative care patients and should be considered to aid in symptom management.

Efficacy of Olanzapine in Addition to Standard Triplet Antiemetic Therapy for Cisplatin-Based Chemotherapy: A Secondary Analysis of the J-FORCE Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: It is unknown whether olanzapine combined with triplet antemetic therapy is effective for all patients undergoing highly emetogenic chemotherapy. A secondary analysis of randomized clinical trials using olanzapine may provide insight into the effectiveness of olanzapine for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV), including cisplatin. Objective: To examine the add-on effect of olanzapine according to risk factors for CINV. Design, Setting, and Participants: This preplanned secondary analysis evaluated results of the J-FORCE trial, a large double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 randomized clinical trial conducted in Japan from February 9, 2017, to July 18, 2018. Participants were enrolled from 26 participating hospitals across Japan and included patients aged 20 to 75 years who had a malignant tumor and were cisplatin-naive. The efficacy analysis population of the J-FORCE trial was analyzed according to allocation adjustment factors (sex [male or female], age [≥55 years or <55 years], and cisplatin dose [≥70 mg/m2 or <70 mg/m2]) and patient-related risk factors (history of motion sickness, drinking habit [defined as alcoholic drinks consumption in excess of occasional drinking], and history of morning sickness during pregnancy). Statistical analysis was performed from February 18 to April 18, 2020. Interventions: Patients were randomized 1:1 to receive 5 mg of olanzapine or placebo combined with standard triplet antiemetic therapy. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was complete response (CR, defined as no vomiting and no use of rescue medication) in the delayed phase (24-120 hours after cisplatin-based chemotherapy administration). Secondary end points were CR, complete control, and total control in the acute, delayed, and overall phases for 6 CINV risk factors as well as time to treatment failure. The CR point estimates and 95% CIs of the differences between groups were calculated, and a Mantel-Haenszel test was performed. Results: Of the 705 patients (mean [SD] age, 63.0 [9.2] years; 471 males [66.8%]) included in the efficacy analysis population; 581 patients (82.4%) were 55 years or older, and 526 (74.6%) were treated with a cisplatin dose of 70 mg/m2 or more. Risk difference (RD) for a CR in the delayed phase was significantly greater in the olanzapine group than the placebo group in males (RD, 12.6% [95% CI, 5.0%-20.1%]; P = .001); in females (RD, 14.5% [95% CI, 2.2%-26.3%]; P = .02); in those 55 years or older (RD, 11.1% [95% CI, 3.9%-18.2%]; P = .003) or younger than 55 years (RD, 23.6% [95% CI, 7.3%-38.3%]; P = .005); for a cisplatin dose of 70 mg/m2 or more (RD, 13.5% [95% CI, 5.9%-21.0%]; P < .001); for those without a history of motion sickness (RD, 13.9% [95% CI, 6.9%-20.6%]; P < .001); for those with a drinking habit (RD, 14.9% [95% CI, 6.1%-23.4%]; P = .001) or without a drinking habit (RD, 12.0% [95% CI, 2.5%-21.3%]; P = .01); and for those with a history of morning sickness during pregnancy (RD, 27.2% [9.7%-42.6%]; P = .002). In other subgroups, a delayed CR was higher in the olanzapine group than the placebo group, although not significantly higher. Conclusions and Relevance: Results of this study suggest a benefit of using 5 mg of olanzapine plus triplet antiemetic therapy to counter CINV regardless of the presence or absence of risk factors. Trial Registration: University Hospital Medical Information Network Clinical Trials Registry Identifier: UMIN000024676.

Benefits and risks of off-label olanzapine use for symptom management in cancer patients-a case report.

BACKGROUND: Cancer patients often experience symptoms such as anorexia, anxiety and insomnia, which can impact their quality of life. Randomized placebo-controlled trials support prophylactic use of olanzapine for the prevention of nausea and vomiting due to moderate and high-emetic risk chemotherapy. In the setting of palliative care, olanzapine is increasingly utilized as an off-label treatment of symptoms including anorexia-cachexia, anxiety, and insomnia. The following case reports will highlight the potential benefits and risks of off-label olanzapine use for symptom management in cancer patients. CASE DESCRIPTION: Patient 1 is a female in her 70s with stage IV infiltrating ductal carcinoma of the right breast was having trouble tolerating treatment with letrozole, palbociclib, and denosumab due to uncontrolled nausea resulting in weight loss. Her nausea was refractory to multiple anti-emetics. Low dose olanzapine (2.5 mg) prevented nausea and allowed her to tolerate treatment. Patient 2 is a male in his 50s with renal cell carcinoma, who was receiving treatment with cabozantinib, presented with uncontrolled pain improved with opioid rotation from oxycodone to morphine. He was also experiencing uncontrolled anxiety despite treatment with alprazolam. Alprazolam was weaned and replaced with olanzapine resulting in improvement of his symptoms. Patient 3 is a male in his 60s with pancreatic adenocarcinoma who presented with muscle weakness and fatigue resulting in discontinuation of gemcitabine plus cisplatin. He also had symptoms of depression, poor appetite, and sleep problems. He was prescribed short course of dexamethasone 4 mg by mouth twice daily and olanzapine 5 mg by mouth nightly to improve symptoms. One week after, he presented with confusion and workup revealed hyperammonia which was treated with lactulose, which led to the return of baseline mentation. CONCLUSIONS: Olanzapine antagonizes multiple receptors and has potential to treat a host of symptoms including nausea, anorexia, anxiety, and insomnia, but healthcare providers should be mindful of potential risks and unclear benefits for off-label indications. More research and funding are needed evaluating off-label use of olanzapine for palliation of symptoms in cancer patients who are often frail and susceptible to adverse events.

Intravascular papillary endothelial hyperplasia: Olanzapine-induced vascular proliferation?

Intravascular papillary endothelial hyperplasia (Masson's tumor) is a reactive vascular lesion of obscure etiopathogenesis, often seen in the head and neck. Its presentation as a scalp swelling, however, is extremely uncommon. We describe the first report in an adult, being treated for bipolar illness. A young male presented with a right frontotemporal scalp swelling since 3 weeks. He was also being treated for bipolar illness with olanzapine. Examination revealed a soft, non-pulsatile swelling. After inconclusive aspiration results, a complete excision was performed. Histopathology revealed proliferating endothelial cells arranged as papillary fronds confined to vessel lumina, devoid of atypia, accompanied by thrombosed vessels facilitating a diagnosis of Masson's tumor. The patient is free of recurrence five months after surgery. Further studies on a possible effect of olanzapine on vascular proliferation in experimental in vivo and in vitro models would definitely aid in elucidating clinical relevance, if any.