A randomized trial of olanzapine versus palonosetron versus infused ondansetron for the treatment of breakthrough chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in patients undergoing hematopoietic stem cell transplantation

Olanzapine within steroid-sparing antiemetic regimen to prevent chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in patients with acute leukemia receiving multi-day intensive chemotherapy

INTRODUCTION

Olanzapine use for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in hematological malignancies, for multi-day chemotherapy, and with a steroid-sparing antiemetic strategy is poorly understood. This study investigated if olanzapine is associated with improved prevention of CINV when added to a steroid-sparing antiemetic regimen in patients with acute leukemia receiving intensive, moderately emetogenic, multi-day chemotherapy.

METHODS

This was a single-center, retrospective cohort study in patients with acute leukemia. Patients who received olanzapine for CINV prevention were compared to those who did not. All patients received a 5-HT3 antagonist. Adult patients receiving moderately emetogenic, multi-day, intensive chemotherapy for acute leukemia were included. Patients were excluded if they received steroids greater than physiological doses during the study period. The primary endpoint was the complete response of CINV (no emesis or rescue antiemetic usage).

RESULTS

This study included 58 patients, 12 patients received olanzapine and 46 patients were in the control group. Baseline demographics were similar. In the study population, 89.7% had acute myeloid leukemia, median age was 54 (interquartile range 42-63) years, 34.5% were female, 27.6% had prior CINV. Complete response of CINV was similar between groups, 4 (33.3%) and 15 (32.6%) patients in the olanzapine and control groups, respectively. Safety events were similar between groups.

CONCLUSION

Patients with acute leukemia receiving multi-day intensive chemotherapy are at high risk for CINV. The limited data in this study suggests that olanzapine use within a steroid-sparing antiemetic regimen was well tolerated and associated with similar incidence and severity of CINV compared to the control group.

2023 MASCC and ESMO guideline update for the prevention of chemotherapy- and radiotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting

• Nausea and vomiting are considered amongst the most troublesome adverse events for patients receiving antineoplastics. • The guideline covers emetic risk classification, prevention and management of treatment-induced nausea and vomiting. • The Consensus Committee consisted of 34 multidisciplinary, health care professionals and three patient advocates. • Recommendations are based on evidence-based data (level of evidence) and the authors’ collective expert opinion (grade). • All recommendations are for the first course of antineoplastic therapy; modifications may be needed in subsequent courses.

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.

Treatment of breakthrough and prevention of refractory chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in pediatric cancer patients: Clinical practice guideline update

This clinical practice guideline update provides recommendations for treating breakthrough chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) and preventing refractory CINV in pediatric patients. Two systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials in adult and pediatric patients informed the recommendations. In patients with breakthrough CINV, escalation of antiemetic agents to those recommended for chemotherapy of the next higher level of emetogenic risk is strongly recommended. A similar recommendation to escalate therapy is made to prevent refractory CINV in patients who did not experience complete breakthrough CINV control and are receiving minimally or low emetogenic chemotherapy. A strong recommendation to use antiemetic agents that controlled breakthrough CINV for the prevention of refractory CINV is also made.

Ocular Administration of Palonosetron in the Prevention of Cisplatin-Induced Nausea and Vomiting

Cancer treatments are frequently associated with nausea and vomiting despite greatly improved preventive medication. Administration of antinausea agents as eye drops might provide easy and rapid access to the systemic circulation for prevention of nausea and vomiting and for the treatment of breakthrough nausea, but the ocular administration route has rarely been evaluated. Palonosetron is a second-generation 5-hydroxytryptamine 3 receptor antagonist approved for prevention and treatment of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting. We compared ocular administration of palonosetron to non-active vehicle eye drops and to intravenous palonosetron in the prevention of cisplatin-induced nausea and vomiting in beagle dogs. Palonosetron ocular drops at the dose of 30 µg/kg reduced cumulative nausea over time as measured with the area under the visual analog scale curve by 98% compared with the vehicle and reduced nausea-associated dog behavior by 95%. Vomiting was completely prevented with repeated palonosetron ocular dosing. Hydroxypropyl-β-cyclodextrin (HP-β-CD) palonosetron formulation was well tolerated locally at the palonosetron concentration of 3 mg/ml. Absorption of palonosetron from eye drops was fast. Ten minutes after ocular administration, palonosetron plasma concentrations were similar compared with intravenous administration, and remained similar for six hours. We conclude that palonosetron is rapidly absorbed into the systemic circulation from eye drops. Ocularly administered palonosetron was well tolerated in the HP-β-CD formulation and was highly effective in the prevention of cisplatin-induced nausea and vomiting. Evaluation of the safety and efficacy of ocular administration of palonosetron is warranted in the prevention and treatment of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in clinical trials. SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT: Palonosetron, an effective and well-tolerated antiemetic drug was rapidly absorbed into the systemic blood circulation when administered as eye drops. The achieved palonosetron blood concentrations prevented cisplatin-induced nausea and vomiting in beagle dogs. Palonosetron eye drops might provide an easy and quick method for administering palonosetron when parenteral administration is desired and intravenous administration is not feasible.

Antiemetic Strategies in Patients Who Undergo Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation

Hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) is an integral part of the treatment strategy in patients with a hematological disorder. Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is still an issue in patients who undergo HSCT. While several guidelines for the antiemetic therapy against CINV have been published, there is no detailed information about appropriate antiemetic drugs for each conditioning regimen in HSCT. Various studies reported that the triplet of 5-HT3RA, NK1RA, and dexamethasone appears useful in HSCT. However, each antiemetic has unique adverse effects or interactions with specific drugs. Here, we review the literature relating to clinical trials on the prevention of CINV, and summarize the information to clarify the benefit of antiemetic regimens.

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.

Olanzapine combined with 5-hydroxytryptamine type 3 receptor antagonist (5-HT3 RA) plus dexamethasone for prevention and treatment of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in high and moderate emetogenic chemotherapy: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

We performed a pooled analysis to evaluate the efficacy and adverse events (AEs) of olanzapine combined with dexamethasone plus 5-hydroxytryptamine type 3 receptor antagonist (5-HT3 RA) compared with 5-HT3 RA plus dexamethasone for the prevention and treatment of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in high and moderate emetogenic chemotherapy based on randomised controlled trials (RCTs). PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, the Cochrane Library, China Biomedical Literature database (CBM), WanFang Database, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), and Chinese Science and Technology Periodical Database (VIP) (from their inception to April 2019) were searched to capture relevant articles. Relative risk with 95% confidence intervals for CINV and AEs were all extracted or calculated. Eleven studies with 1107 cancer patients were involved in this review. The pooled RR of delayed CINV (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.38 to 0.66; p<0.01) were significantly decreased in the olanzapine group. The occurrence of insomnia was also statistically decreased, as was the rate of acute CINV (RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.48 to 0.75; p<0.01). However, only the percentages of CINV III and CINV IV were significantly decreased in the acute and delayed phases. Subgroup analysis demonstrated that the efficacy was not statistically significantly different between 5 mg and 10 mg olanzapine. Olanzapine significantly decreased the occurrence of CINV III and IV and insomnia in high and moderately emetogenic chemotherapy. Compared with 10 mg per day, 5 mg oral olanzapine may be more appropriate for patients with cancer.

Olanzapine for the prophylaxis and rescue of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting: a systematic review, meta-analysis, cumulative meta-analysis and fragility assessment of the literature

INTRODUCTION

The aim of this study is to rigorously review the efficacy and safety of olanzapine in defined hematology oncology settings including (1) the setting of highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) and moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC) settings (2) at 5 mg and 10 mg doses, and (3) for response rates for use in the acute, delayed, and overall settings post-MEC and HEC.

METHODS

Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched through April 23, 2020. The primary efficacy endpoints were the rate of complete response, in the acute (0-24 h post-chemotherapy), delayed (24-120 h post-chemotherapy), and overall (0-120 h post-chemotherapy) phases. The secondary efficacy endpoints were the rates of no nausea and no emesis, for each phase. Safety endpoints were the rate of no serious adverse events (i.e., no grade 3 or 4 toxicities), as assessed by Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) criteria. The Mantel-Haenszel, random-effects analysis model was used to compute risk ratios and accompanying 95% confidence intervals for each endpoint. For endpoints that statistically favored one arm, absolute risk differences were computed to assess whether there is a 10% or greater difference, used as the threshold for clinical significance by MASCC/ESMO. Fragility indices were also calculated for each statistically significant endpoint, to quantitatively assess the robustness of the summary estimate. A cumulative meta-analysis was conducted for each efficacy meta-analysis with more than 5 studies, also using the Mantel-Haenszel random-effects analysis model.

RESULTS

Three studies reported on olanzapine for the rescue of breakthrough chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV); 22 studies reported on olanzapine in the prophylactic setting. For studies reporting on HEC patients, olanzapine-containing regimens were statistically and clinically superior in seven of nine efficacy endpoints in the prophylaxis setting. When olanzapine is administered at a 10-mg dose, it is statistically and clinically superior to control patients in eight of nine endpoints among adults. Olanzapine may be effective in the MEC setting and when administered at 5-mg doses, but the paucity of data leads to notable uncertainty.

CONCLUSION

Further RCTs are needed in the setting of MEC patients and administration of olanzapine at a lower 5-mg dose, which may be given to reduce the sedative effect of olanzapine at 10 mg.

Efficacy of Olanzapine-Triple Antiemetic Regimen in Patients with Gastrointestinal Tumor and High Risk of Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting Receiving Moderately Emetogenic Chemotherapy: A Retrospective Study

Purpose

Dexamethasone combined with 5-hydroxytryptamine type 3 receptor antagonists (5-HT3 RA) dual regimen is the standard prophylaxis regimen for patients receiving moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC). However, it has been found in real-world practice that chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) remains poorly controlled among patients with gastrointestinal tumor, especially in those with high-risk factors for vomiting, such as female, young, and non-alcoholic individuals. Hence, we aimed to evaluate the efficacy of an olanzapine-containing triple regimen in this clinical setting.

Patients and Methods

We retrospectively reviewed the clinical records of gastrointestinal tumor patients who received mFOLFOX6, XELOX, or FOLFIRI chemotherapy at two institutions. All patients included were female and less than 55 years old, with no history of drinking. The patients were divided into two groups for olanzapine-containing triple therapy (olanzapine, tropisetron, and dexamethasone) and non-olanzapine dual therapy (tropisetron and dexamethasone). The study outcomes were complete response (CR), complete control (CC), nausea control, and quality of life (QoL) by the functional living index-emesis (FLIE) questionnaire.

Results

A total of 93 patients were included in the study (olanzapine: 40; control: 53). The CR rate in the olanzapine group was significantly higher than that in the control group in delayed and overall phase (75.0% vs 54.7%, p=0.044; 70.0% vs 47.2%; p=0.028). The CC rate in the overall phase was also better in the olanzapine group (62.5% vs 39.6%, p=0.029). The control of nausea in the overall phase showed a superior trend in the olanzapine group (p=0.059). The olanzapine group exhibited higher FLIE scores, which demonstrated better QoL. More patients in the olanzapine group exhibited somnolence and dizziness. Conversely, the incidence of insomnia and anorexia in the olanzapine group was lower.

Conclusion

This retrospective study indicates that in gastrointestinal tumor patients with high-risk factors for CINV who were receiving MEC, olanzapine-containing triple antiemetic regimen exhibit better efficacy and QoL as compared to non-olanzapine dual regimen. Further randomized studies are required to confirm these results.

Pilot randomized trial of an electronic symptom monitoring and reporting intervention for hospitalized adults undergoing hematopoietic stem cell transplantation

PURPOSE

Patients undergoing a hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HCT) have varied symptoms during their hospitalization. This study examined whether daily symptom reporting (with electronic patient-reported outcomes [PROs]) in an inpatient bone marrow transplant clinic reduced symptom burden on post-transplant days +7, +10, and +14.

METHODS

A prospective, single-institution 1:1 pilot randomized, two-arm study recruited HCT patients. HCT inpatients (N = 76) reported daily on 16 common symptoms using the PRO version of the Common Terminology for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE). Fisher's exact test was used to examine differences in the proportion of patients reporting individual symptoms. Multivariable linear regression modeling was used to examine group differences in peak symptom burden, while controlling for symptom burden at baseline, age, comorbidity, and transplantation type (autologous or allogeneic).

RESULTS

HCT patients receiving the PRO intervention also experienced lower peak symptom burden (average of 16 symptoms) at days +7, +10, and +14 (10.4 vs 14.5, p = 0.03).

CONCLUSIONS

Daily use of electronic symptom reporting to nurses in an inpatient bone marrow transplant clinic reduced peak symptom burden and improved individual symptoms during the 2 weeks post-transplant. A multi-site trial is warranted to demonstrate the generalizability, efficacy, and value of this intervention.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02574897.

Olanzapine for the prevention and treatment of cancer-related nausea and vomiting in adults

BACKGROUND

Olanzapine as an antiemetic represents a new use of an antipsychotic drug. People with cancer may experience nausea and vomiting whilst receiving chemotherapy or radiotherapy, or whilst in the palliative phase of illness.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy and safety of olanzapine when used as an antiemetic in the prevention and treatment of nausea and vomiting related to cancer in adults.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE and Embase for published data on 20th September 2017, as well as ClinicalTrials.gov and World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform for unpublished trials. We checked reference lists, and contacted experts in the field and study authors.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of olanzapine versus any comparator with or without adjunct therapies for the prevention or treatment, or both, of nausea or vomiting in people with cancer aged 18 years or older, in any setting, of any duration, with at least 10 participants per treatment arm.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard Cochrane methodology. We used GRADE to assess quality of evidence for each main outcome. We extracted data for absence of nausea or vomiting and frequency of serious adverse events as primary outcomes. We extracted data for patient perception of treatment, other adverse events, somnolence and fatigue, attrition, nausea or vomiting severity, breakthrough nausea and vomiting, rescue antiemetic use, and nausea and vomiting as secondary outcomes at specified time points.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 14 RCTs (1917 participants) from high-, middle- and low-income countries, representing over 24 different cancers. Thirteen studies were in chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting. Oral olanzapine was administered during highly emetogenic (HEC) or moderately emetogenic (MEC) chemotherapy (12 studies); chemoradiotherapy (one study); or palliation (one study). Eight studies await classification and 13 are ongoing.The main comparison was olanzapine versus placebo/no treatment. Other comparisons were olanzapine versus NK1 antagonist, prokinetic, 5-HT3 antagonist or dexamethasone.We assessed all but one study as having one or more domains that were at high risk of bias. Eight RCTs with fewer than 50 participants per treatment arm, and 10 RCTs with issues related to blinding, were at high risk of bias. We downgraded GRADE assessments due to imprecision, inconsistency and study limitations.Olanzapine versus placebo/no treatmentPrimary outcomesOlanzapine probably doubles the likelihood of no nausea or vomiting during chemotherapy from 25% to 50% (risk ratio (RR) 1.98, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.59 to 2.47; 561 participants; 3 studies; solid tumours; HEC or MEC therapy; moderate-quality evidence) when added to standard therapy. Number needed to treat for additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) was 5 (95% CI 3.3 - 6.6).It is uncertain if olanzapine increases the risk of serious adverse events (absolute risk difference 0.7% more, 95% CI 0.2 to 5.2) (RR 2.46, 95% CI 0.48 to 12.55; 7 studies, 889 participants, low-quality evidence).Secondary outcomesFour studies reported patient perception of treatment. One study (48 participants) reported no difference in patient preference. Four reported quality of life but data were insufficient for meta-analysis.Olanzapine may increase other adverse events (RR 1.71, 95% CI 0.99 to 2.96; 332 participants; 4 studies; low-quality evidence) and probably increases somnolence and fatigue compared to no treatment or placebo (RR 2.33, 95% CI 1.30 to 4.18; anticipated absolute risk 8.2% more, 95% CI 1.9 to 18.8; 464 participants; 5 studies; moderate-quality evidence). Olanzapine probably does not affect all-cause attrition (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.73; 943 participants; 8 studies; I² = 0%). We are uncertain if olanzapine increases attrition due to adverse events (RR 3.00, 95% CI 0.13 to 70.16; 422 participants; 6 studies). No participants withdrew due to lack of efficacy.We are uncertain if olanzapine reduces breakthrough nausea and vomiting (RR 0.38, 95% CI 0.10 to 1.47; 501 participants; 2 studies; I² = 54%) compared to placebo or no treatment. No studies reported 50% reduction in severity of nausea or vomiting, use of rescue antiemetics, or attrition.We are uncertain of olanzapine's efficacy in reducing acute nausea or vomiting. Olanzapine probably reduces delayed nausea (RR 1.71, 95% CI 1.40 to 2.09; 585 participants; 3 studies) and vomiting (RR 1.28, 95% CI 1.14 to 1.42; 702 participants; 5 studies).Subgroup analysis: 5 mg versus 10 mgPlanned subgroup analyses found that it is unclear if 5 mg is as effective an antiemetic as 10 mg. There is insufficient evidence to exclude the possibility that 5 mg may confer a lower risk of somnolence and fatigue than 10 mg.Other comparisonsOne study (20 participants) compared olanzapine versus NK1 antagonists. We observed no difference in any reported outcomes.One study (112 participants) compared olanzapine versus a prokinetic (metoclopramide), reporting that olanzapine may increase freedom from overall nausea (RR 2.95, 95% CI 1.73 to 5.02) and overall vomiting (RR 3.03, 95% CI 1.78 to 5.14).One study (62 participants) examined olanzapine versus 5-HT3 antagonists, reporting olanzapine may increase the likelihood of 50% or greater reduction in nausea or vomiting at 48 hours (RR 1.82, 95% CI 1.11 to 2.97) and 24 hours (RR 1.36, 95% CI 0.80 to 2.34).One study (229 participants) compared olanzapine versus dexamethasone, reporting that olanzapine may reduce overall nausea (RR 1.73, 95% CI 1.37 to 2.18), overall vomiting (RR 1.27, 95% CI 1.10 to 1.48), delayed nausea (RR 1.66, 95% CI 1.33 to 2.08) and delayed vomiting (RR 1.25, 95% CI 1.07 to 1.45).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is moderate-quality evidence that oral olanzapine probably increases the likelihood of not being nauseous or vomiting during chemotherapy from 25% to 50% in adults with solid tumours, in addition to standard therapy, compared to placebo or no treatment. There is uncertainty whether it increases serious adverse events. It may increase the likelihood of other adverse events, probably increasing somnolence and fatigue. There is uncertainty about relative benefits and harms of 5 mg versus 10 mg.We identified only RCTs describing oral administration. The findings of this review cannot be extrapolated to provide evidence about the efficacy and safety of any injectable form (intravenous, intramuscular or subcutaneous) of olanzapine.

Randomized, Placebo-Controlled, Phase III Trial of Fosaprepitant, Ondansetron, Dexamethasone (FOND) Versus FOND Plus Olanzapine (FOND-O) for the Prevention of Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting in Patients with Hematologic Malignancies Receiving Highly Emetogenic Chemotherapy and Hematopoietic Cell Transplantation Regimens: The FOND-O Trial

Evidence supports olanzapine for prophylaxis of chemotherapy-induced nausea/vomiting (CINV) for highly emetogenic chemotherapy; however, most studies focus on solid malignancies and single-day regimens. A randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled trial was conducted to compare the addition of olanzapine to triplet therapy (fosaprepitant, ondansetron, dexamethasone [FOND-O]) versus triplet therapy alone (FOND) in preventing CINV in hematology patients receiving single-day and multiple-day highly emetogenic chemotherapy and hematopoietic cell transplant (HCT) regimens (NCT02635984). The primary objective of this study was to compare complete response (CR; no emesis and minimal nausea, <25 mm on a 100-mm visual analog scale) during the overall assessment period (chemotherapy days plus 5 days after). Secondary objectives were the number of emesis, number of rescue medications, percent achieving minimal nausea, and percent achieving complete protection (CP; no emesis, rescue antiemetic, or significant nausea), all of which are reported as acute (chemotherapy days), delayed (5 days after chemotherapy), and overall phases. Olanzapine 10 mg or matching placebo were given on each chemotherapy day and 3 days after. Adults with hematologic malignancy receiving HCT regimens of melphalan, BEAM (carmustine, etoposide, cytarabine, melphalan), busulfan (Bu)/cyclophosphamide (Cy), Bu/fludarabine (Flu), Bu/melphalan, FluCy, FluCy-total body irradiation (TBI), etoposide-TBI, and ICE (ifosfamide, carboplatin, etoposide) or 7+3 chemotherapy regimens were included. An estimated 98 patients were required using alpha = .05 and 80% power. No significant differences existed in baseline characteristics between FOND-O (n = 51) and FOND (n = 50) arms. Mean duration of olanzapine was 7.7 days (range, 4 to 11). Discontinuation for possible adverse events occurred in 3 placebo and 0 olanzapine patients. CR was significantly higher for FOND-O in overall (55% versus 26%, P = .003) and delayed (60.8% versus 30%, P = .001) but not acute (P = .13) phases. Significantly more patients receiving FOND-O achieved no more than minimal nausea in overall (P = .001) and delayed phases (P = .0002), as well as fewer overall mean emesis counts (P = .005). CP rates were not different in any assessment phase (P ≥ .05 each). Within the HCT subgroup (n = 64), the CR, CP, and no significant nausea rates were significantly better for FONDO-O in overall and delayed phases (all P < .05). Analysis within the HCT subgroup revealed significant improvement in outcomes in delayed and overall phases with FOND-O in the autologous but not allogeneic cohort. Addition of olanzapine to an NK-1-based triplet antiemetic regimen significantly improved clinically relevant outcomes in the HCT population.