BackgroundDespite the burden of schizophrenia and bipolar disorder in the Chinese population, country-specific data to guide practitioners regarding antipsychotic therapy are lacking. The primary aim of this systematic review was to examine evidence of the efficacy, effectiveness, and safety of olanzapine in Chinese populations.MethodsA systematic literature search was conducted using databases covering international and Chinese core journals using search terms related to schizophrenia and bipolar disorder, specified countries (People’s Republic of China, Hong Kong, Taiwan), and olanzapine treatment. Following initial screening, inclusion and exclusion criteria were applied to the search results to identify relevant studies from which data were extracted.ResultsA total of 489 publications were retrieved and 61 studies were identified for inclusion. Most studies were related to schizophrenia (n=54), with six studies related to bipolar disorder and one study related to both conditions. The quality of study methods and reporting in international journals was noticeably better than in Chinese language journals. Most studies included relatively small patient populations and were of short duration. The efficacy of olanzapine in Chinese populations was confirmed by multiple comparative and noncomparative studies that found statistically significant reductions in symptom measures in studies conducted for ≥6 weeks (schizophrenia) or ≥3 weeks (bipolar disorder). Findings related to effectiveness (treatment discontinuation, quality of life, and neurocognitive improvements) were generally consistent with those observed in non-Chinese populations. No new safety signals specific for Chinese populations were raised for olanzapine.ConclusionChinese and non-Chinese populations with schizophrenia or bipolar disorder treated with olanzapine display broadly similar responses. Differences between these populations, especially in relation to the relative efficacy of olanzapine versus other antipsychotics, may warrant further investigation via studies incorporating both populations. Use of local data to provide evidence for practice guidelines should be encouraged, and may promote ongoing improvements in the quality of research and study reporting.

The aim of this study was to systematically evaluate the efficacy and safety of gefitinib and cetuximab-based therapies in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). The studies to be used for the comparisons were selected from the available literature on gefitinib and cetuximab-based therapies compared to conventional chemotherapy in patients with advanced NSCLC. The meta-analysis was performed with RevMan 5.0 software and the Bucher approach was applied to conduct the indirect comparisons. A total of 4 studies, including 935 patients, on gefitinib therapy vs. conventional chemotherapy and 4 studies, including 1,015 patients, on cetuximab-based therapy vs. conventional chemotherapy, were used for indirect comparisons. As regards efficacy, the risk ratio (RR) of objective response rate and 1-year survival rate between gefitinib and cetuximab-based therapies in patients with advanced NSCLC were 0.99 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.75-1.32; P=0.9584] and 0.85 (95% CI: 0.71-1.01; P=0.0696), respectively, and the mean difference of progression-free survival and overall survival (OS) were -0.15 (95% CI: -0.90 to 0.60; P=0.6946) and -1.84 (95% CI: -3.53 to -0.15; P=0.0331), respectively. As regards safety, the RR of grade 3/4 adverse events (AEs) was 0.29 (95% CI: 0.19-0.44; P=0.0001). The results demonstrated that cetuximab-based therapy was superior to gefitinib therapy in terms of OS and inferior to gefitinib therapy in terms of AEs, whereas there were no significant differences in terms of efficacy and safety between the two therapies on other endpoints adopted for advanced NSCLC. However, further well-designed randomized controlled trials and continuous studies are required to confirm our findings.