PURPOSE Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is a significant toxicity of chemotherapy. Olanzapine is recommended in adult patients for the prevention of CINV but has not been prospectively investigated in children. METHODS This investigator-initiated, randomized, open-label trial evaluated olanzapine in children (ages 5-18 years) scheduled to receive the first cycle of highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC). All participants received aprepitant, ondansetron, and dexamethasone during and 2 days after chemotherapy. Participants in the study group additionally received oral olanzapine 0.14 mg/kg/day (rounded to the nearest 2.5 mg; maximum, 10 mg) during the chemotherapy block and 3 days postchemotherapy. The primary objective was to compare complete response (CR) rates (no vomiting and no rescue medication) between the groups in the acute, delayed, and overall periods. Nausea comparison and safety evaluation were secondary and additional objectives, respectively. The collection of outcomes and adverse events was performed daily until the completion of the overall period. RESULTS A total of 240 patients underwent randomization. We performed a modified intention-to-treat analysis on 231 patients (116 in the control group and 115 in the study group). A higher proportion of patients in the olanzapine group achieved CR in the acute period (78% v 59%; P = .001), delayed period (74% v 47%; P < .001) and overall period (64% v 38%; P < .001) than in the control group. The proportion of patients with no nausea was significantly higher in the olanzapine group in the acute period (74% v 52%; P < .001), delayed period (74% v 47%; P < .001), and overall period (64% v 37%; P < .001). Grade 1/2 somnolence was greater in the olanzapine group (35% v 11%; P < .001). There was no grade 3/4 somnolence reported. CONCLUSION Olanzapine significantly improved CR rates for vomiting in children receiving the first cycle of HEC.

Introduction:Lack of restorative sleep and altered sleep-wake cycle is a frequent problem among patients admitted to the Intensive Care Unit (ICU). This study was conducted to estimate the prevalence of poor sleep and patient's perspective of factors governing poor sleep in the ICU.Materials and Methods:A cross-sectional study was performed in medical ICU of a tertiary care hospital. A total of 32 patients admitted to the ICU for at least 24 h were recruited. A 72-h actigraphy was done followed by a subjective assessment of sleep quality by the Richards-Campbell Sleep Questionnaire (RCSQ). Patient's perspective of sleep quality and quantity and possible risk factors for poor sleep were recorded.Results:Poor sleep (defined as RCSQ <50, sensitivity 88% and specificity 87%) was found in 15 out of the 32 patients (47%). The prevalence of poor sleep was higher among patients on mechanical ventilation (n = 15) (66.7% vs. 33.3%, P < 0.05). Patients with poor sleep had higher age (median age [in years] 42.8 vs. 31.4, P = 0.008), acute physiology, and chronic health evaluation II score (mean 14 ± 5.15 vs. 9.3 ± 5.64, P = 0.02), SAPS 3 score (62.7 ± 8.9 vs. 45.6 ± 10.5, P ≤ 0.0001), and worse actigraphy parameters. Only 55.63% of total sleep time was in the night (2200–0600). All patients had discomfort from indwelling catheters and suctioning of endotracheal tubes. All patients suggested that there be a minimum interruption in the sleep for interventions or medications.Conclusion:There is a high prevalence of poor sleep among patients admitted to the ICU. There is a dire need to minimize untimely interventions and design nonpharmacological techniques to allow patients to sleep comfortably.

No abstract

ObjectivesTo assess the cost-effectiveness of addition of olanzapine to a prophylactic antiemetic regimen containing aprepitant, dexamethasone and ondansetron among children receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) in India, Bangladesh, Indonesia, the UK and the USA.MethodsHealth states were estimated using individual patient-level outcome data from a randomised trial. The incremental cost–utility ratio (ICUR), incremental cost-effectiveness ratio and net monetary benefit (NMB) were calculated from the patient perspective for India, Bangladesh, Indonesia, the UK and the USA. One-way sensitivity analysis was done by varying the cost of olanzapine, cost of hospitalisation and utility values by ±25%.ResultsThe olanzapine arm had an increment of 0.0018 quality-adjusted life-years (QALY) over the control arm. The mean total expenditure in the olanzapine arm was greater by US$0.51, US$0.43, US$6.73, US$11.05 and US$12.35 in India, Bangladesh, Indonesia, the UK and the USA, respectively. The ICUR($/QALY) was US$282.60 in India, US$241.42 in Bangladesh, US$3755.93 in Indonesia, US$6161.83 in the UK and US$6887.41 in the USA. The NMB was US$9.86, US$10.12, US$14.08, US$44.74 and US$98.79 for India, Bangladesh, Indonesia, the UK and the USA, respectively. The ICUR estimates of the base case and sensitivity analysis were below the willingness-to-pay threshold in all scenarios.ConclusionThe addition of olanzapine as a fourth agent for antiemetic prophylaxis is cost-effective despite an increase in overall expenditure. Olanzapine should be uniformly considered for children receiving HEC.