Skip to main navigation Skip to search Skip to main content

Olanzapine Versus Haloperidol for Treatment of Delirium in Patients with Advanced Cancer: A Phase III Randomized Clinical Trial

  • Maurice J.D.L. van der Vorst
  • , Elisabeth C.W. Neefjes
  • , Manon S.A. Boddaert
  • , Bea A.T.T. Verdegaal
  • , Aart Beeker
  • , Saskia C.C. Teunissen
  • , Aartjan T.F. Beekman
  • , Janneke A. Wilschut
  • , Johannes Berkhof
  • , Wouter W.A. Zuurmond
  • , Henk M.W. Verheul*
  • *Corresponding author for this work
  • Rijnstate Hospital
  • Netherlands Comprehensive Cancer Organisation (IKNL)
  • Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam
  • Spaarne Gasthuis
  • Utrecht University
  • Academic Hospice Demeter
  • Hospice Kuria, Amsterdam, Netherlands

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review

11 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

Background: Treatment of delirium often includes haloperidol. Second-generation antipsychotics like olanzapine have emerged as an alternative with possibly fewer side effects. The aim of this multicenter, phase III, randomized clinical trial was to compare the efficacy and tolerability of olanzapine with haloperidol for the treatment of delirium in hospitalized patients with advanced cancer. Materials and Methods: Eligible adult patients (≥18 years) with advanced cancer and delirium (Delirium Rating Scale-Revised-98 [DRS-R-98] total score ≥17.75) were randomized 1:1 to receive either haloperidol or olanzapine (age-adjusted, titratable doses). Primary endpoint was delirium response rate (DRR), defined as number of patients with DRS-R-98 severity score <15.25 and ≥4.5 points reduction. Secondary endpoints included time to response (TTR), tolerability, and delirium-related distress. Results: Between January 2011 and June 2016, 98 patients were included in the intention-to-treat analysis. DRR was 45% (95% confidence interval [CI], 31–59) for olanzapine and 57% (95% CI, 43–71) for haloperidol (Δ DRR −12%; odds ratio [OR], 0.61; 95% CI, 0.2–1.4; p =.23). Mean TTR was 4.5 days (95% CI, 3.2–5.9 days) for olanzapine and 2.8 days (95% CI, 1.9–3.7 days; p =.18) for haloperidol. Grade ≥3 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 5 patients (10.2%) and 10 patients (20.4%) in the olanzapine and haloperidol arm, respectively. Distress rates were similar in both groups. The study was terminated early because of futility. Conclusion: Delirium treatment with olanzapine in hospitalized patients with advanced cancer did not result in improvement of DRR or TTR compared with haloperidol. Clinical trial identification number. NCT01539733. Dutch Trial Register. NTR2559. Implications for Practice: Guidelines recommend that pharmacological interventions for delirium treatment in adults with cancer should be limited to patients who have distressing delirium symptoms. It was suggested that atypical antipsychotics, such as olanzapine, outperform haloperidol in efficacy and safety. However, collective data comparing the efficacy and safety of typical versus atypical antipsychotics in patients with cancer are limited. If targeted and judicious use of antipsychotics is considered for the treatment of delirium in patients with advanced cancer, this study demonstrated that there was no statistically significant difference in response to haloperidol or olanzapine. Olanzapine showed an overall better safety profile compared with haloperidol, although this difference was not statistically significant.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)e570-e577
Journaloncologist
Volume25
Issue number3
Early online date1 Jan 2019
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 1 Mar 2020

UN SDGs

This output contributes to the following UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

  1. SDG 3 - Good Health and Well-being
    SDG 3 Good Health and Well-being

Keywords

  • Advanced cancer
  • Delirium
  • Efficacy
  • Haloperidol
  • Olanzapine
  • Phase III
  • Safety

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Olanzapine Versus Haloperidol for Treatment of Delirium in Patients with Advanced Cancer: A Phase III Randomized Clinical Trial'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this