122 PART THREE | DELIRIUM Abstract Background: Treatment of delirium often includes haloperidol. Secondgeneration antipsychotics like olanzapine have emerged as an alternative with possibly fewer side effects. The aim of this multicenter, phase III, randomized clinical trial (RCT) was to compare the efficacy and tolerability of olanzapine to haloperidol for the treatment of delirium in hospitalized patients with advanced cancer. Patients 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 recovery (TTR), tolerability, delirium-related distress. Results: Between January 2011 and June 2016, 98 patients were included in the intention-to-treat analysis (ITT). 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 = 0.23). 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 = 0.18) for haloperidol. Grade ≥3 treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) occurred in 5 patients (10.2%), and in 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. Conclusions: Delirium treatment with olanzapine in hospitalized patients with advanced cancer did not result in improvement of DRR or TTR compared to haloperidol. Key words: delirium, advanced cancer, haloperidol, olanzapine, efficacy, safety, phase III
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjY0ODMw