Oral administration of cefixime to lower risk febrile neutropenic children with cancer

Early switch from intravenous to oral antibiotic therapy in patients with cancer who have low-risk neutropenic sepsis: the EASI-SWITCH RCT

Background

Neutropenic sepsis is a common complication of systemic anticancer treatment. There is variation in practice in timing of switch to oral antibiotics after commencement of empirical intravenous antibiotic therapy.

Objectives

To establish the clinical and cost effectiveness of early switch to oral antibiotics in patients with neutropenic sepsis at low risk of infective complications.

Design

A randomised, multicentre, open-label, allocation concealed, non-inferiority trial to establish the clinical and cost effectiveness of early oral switch in comparison to standard care.

Setting

Nineteen UK oncology centres.

Participants

Patients aged 16 years and over receiving systemic anticancer therapy with fever (≥ 38°C), or symptoms and signs of sepsis, and neutropenia (≤ 1.0 × 109/l) within 24 hours of randomisation, with a Multinational Association for Supportive Care in Cancer score of ≥ 21 and receiving intravenous piperacillin/tazobactam or meropenem for < 24 hours were eligible. Patients with acute leukaemia or stem cell transplant were excluded.

Intervention

Early switch to oral ciprofloxacin (750 mg twice daily) and co-amoxiclav (625 mg three times daily) within 12-24 hours of starting intravenous antibiotics to complete 5 days treatment in total. Control was standard care, that is, continuation of intravenous antibiotics for at least 48 hours with ongoing treatment at physician discretion.

Main outcome measures

Treatment failure, a composite measure assessed at day 14 based on the following criteria: fever persistence or recurrence within 72 hours of starting intravenous antibiotics; escalation from protocolised antibiotics; critical care support or death.

Results

The study was closed early due to under-recruitment with 129 patients recruited; hence, a definitive conclusion regarding non-inferiority cannot be made. Sixty-five patients were randomised to the early switch arm and 64 to the standard care arm with subsequent intention-to-treat and per-protocol analyses including 125 (intervention n = 61 and control n = 64) and 113 (intervention n = 53 and control n = 60) patients, respectively. In the intention-to-treat population the treatment failure rates were 14.1% in the control group and 24.6% in the intervention group, difference = 10.5% (95% confidence interval 0.11 to 0.22). In the per-protocol population the treatment failure rates were 13.3% and 17.7% in control and intervention groups, respectively; difference = 3.7% (95% confidence interval 0.04 to 0.148). Treatment failure predominantly consisted of persistence or recurrence of fever and/or physician-directed escalation from protocolised antibiotics with no critical care admissions or deaths. The median length of stay was shorter in the intervention group and adverse events reported were similar in both groups. Patients, particularly those with care-giving responsibilities, expressed a preference for early switch. However, differences in health-related quality of life and health resource use were small and not statistically significant.

Conclusions

Non-inferiority for early oral switch could not be proven due to trial under-recruitment. The findings suggest this may be an acceptable treatment strategy for some patients who can adhere to such a treatment regimen and would prefer a potentially reduced duration of hospitalisation while accepting increased risk of treatment failure resulting in re-admission. Further research should explore tools for patient stratification for low-risk de-escalation or ambulatory pathways including use of biomarkers and/or point-of-care rapid microbiological testing as an adjunct to clinical decision-making tools. This could include application to shorter-duration antimicrobial therapy in line with other antimicrobial stewardship studies.

Trial registration

This trial is registered as ISRCTN84288963.

Funding

This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: 13/140/05) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 28, No. 14. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

Safety of reducing antibiotic use in children with febrile neutropenia: A systematic review

Febrile neutropenia is the most frequent complication in children treated with chemotherapy. Nevertheless, neutropenic children are a very heterogeneous group and invasive bacterial infections concern a minority of patients. Reducing antibiotics would bring many benefits. Yet, we can only explore this strategy if the safety of children is preserved. The main aims of this review were to study the safety and effectiveness of reducing antibiotic use in children with febrile neutropenia in terms of duration, route of administration (oral versus intravenous) and narrowing of antimicrobial spectrum. Cochrane Library, Pubmed and Embase were searched for relevant articles until February 2020. We have included all articles describing controlled trials written in French or in English. The risk of bias was assessed with ROB-2 (Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 6.0. 2019, Chap. 8) or ROBINS-1 (Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 6.0. 2019, Chap. 25). On 2351 articles, the systematic research retained 13 studies. Nine were used for a meta-analysis comparing oral versus intravenous treatment. We found no pediatric studies concerning de-escalation of empiric broad-spectrum antibiotics. No publication biases were found and almost all of the selected studies were at low risk or with some concern for bias. In comparing oral versus intravenous treatment and early cessation versus continuing antibiotics when no infection is proven, we found no difference in terms of safety (mortality and admission in intensive care unit) and efficacy (need of readmission/antibiotic modification/recurrence of fever). It seems safe and effective to provide oral treatment in low-risk febrile neutropenia and to stop antibiotics when no bacterial infection is proven. Spectrum reduction remains an important topic in pediatric research.Supplemental data for this article is available online at https://doi.org/10.1080/08880018.2022.2055245.

8th European Conference on Infections in Leukaemia: 2020 guidelines for the use of antibiotics in paediatric patients with cancer or post-haematopoietic cell transplantation

Paediatric patients with cancer and those undergoing haematopoietic cell transplantation are at high risk of bacterial infections. The 8th European Conference on Infections in Leukaemia (ECIL-8) convened a Paediatric Group to review the literature and to formulate recommendations for the use of antibiotics according to the European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases grading system. The evaluation of antibacterial prophylaxis included mortality, bloodstream infection, febrile neutropenia, emergence of resistance, and adverse effects as endpoints. Initial antibacterial therapy and antibiotic de-escalation or discontinuation focused on patients with a clinically stable condition and without previous infection or colonisation by resistant bacteria, and on patients with a clinically unstable condition or with previous infection or colonisation by resistant bacteria. The final considerations and recommendations of the ECIL-8 Paediatric Group on antibacterial prophylaxis, initial therapy, and de-escalation strategies are summarised in this Policy Review.

Safety and efficacy of step-down to oral outpatient treatment versus inpatient antimicrobial treatment in pediatric cancer patients with febrile neutropenia: A noninferiority multicenter randomized clinical trial

BACKGROUND

It has been suggested that low-risk febrile neutropenia (FN) episodes can be treated in a step-down manner in the outpatient setting. This recommendation has been limited to implementation in middle-income countries due to concerns about infrastructure and lack of trained personnel. We aimed to determine whether early step-down to oral antimicrobial outpatient treatment is not inferior in safety and efficacy to inpatient intravenous treatment in children with low-risk FN.

PROCEDURE

A noninferiority randomized controlled clinical trial was conducted in three hospitals in Mexico City. Low-risk FN was identified in children younger than 18 years. After 48 to 72 hours of intravenous treatment, children were randomly allocated to receive outpatient oral treatment (experimental arm, cefixime) or to continue inpatient treatment (standard of care, cefepime). Daily monitoring was performed until neutropenia resolution. The presence of any unfavorable clinical outcome was the endpoint of interest. We performed a noninferiority test for comparison of proportions.

RESULTS

We identified 1237 FN episodes; 117 cases were randomized: 60 to the outpatient group and 57 for continued inpatient treatment. Of the FN episodes, 100% in the outpatient group and 93% in the inpatient group had a favorable outcome (P < 0.001). The mean duration of antibiotics was 4.1 days (SD 2.5; 95% CI, 3.4-4.8 days) in the outpatient group and 4.4 days (SD 2.5; 95% CI, 3.7-5.0 days) in the inpatient group (P = 0.70).

CONCLUSIONS

In our population, step-down oral outpatient treatment of low-risk FN was as safe and effective as inpatient intravenous treatment. Clinical Trials Identifier: NCT04000711.

Early switch from intravenous to oral antibiotic therapy in patients with cancer who have low-risk neutropenic sepsis (the EASI-SWITCH trial): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Neutropenic sepsis remains a common treatment complication for patients receiving systemic anti-cancer treatment. The UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence have not recommended switching from empirical intravenous antibiotics to oral antibiotics within 48 h for patients assessed as low risk for septic complications because of uncertainty about whether this would achieve comparable outcomes to using intravenous antibiotics for longer. The UK National Institute for Health Research funded the EASI-SWITCH trial to tackle this uncertainty.

METHODS

The trial is a pragmatic, randomised, non-inferiority trial that aims to establish the clinical and cost-effectiveness of early switching from intravenous to oral antibiotics in cancer patients with low-risk neutropenic sepsis. Patients ≥ 16 years, receiving systemic anti-cancer treatment (acute leukaemics/stem cell transplants excluded), with a temperature of > 38 °C, neutrophil count ≤ 1.0 × 109/L, MASCC (Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer) score ≥ 21 and receiving IV piperacillin/tazobactam or meropenem for less than 24 h are eligible to participate. Patients are randomised 1:1 either (i) to switch to oral ciprofloxacin and co-amoxiclav within 12-24 h of commencing intravenous antibiotics, completing at least 5 days total antibiotics (intervention), or (ii) to continue intravenous antibiotics for at least 48 h, with ongoing antibiotics being continued at the physician's discretion (control). Patients are discharged home when their physician deems it appropriate. The primary outcome measure is a composite of treatment failures as assessed at day 14. The criteria for treatment failure include fever persistence or recurrence 72 h after starting intravenous antibiotics, escalation from protocolised antibiotics, hospital readmission related to infection/antibiotics, critical care support or death. Based on a 15% treatment failure rate in the control group and a 15% non-inferiority margin, the recruitment target is 230 patients.

DISCUSSION

If the trial demonstrates non-inferiority of early switching to oral antibiotics, with potential benefits for patient quality of life and resource savings, this finding will have significant implications for the routine clinical management of those with low-risk neutropenic sepsis.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ISRCTN: 84288963. Registered on the 1 July 2015. https://doi.org/10.1186/ISRCTN84288963. EudraCT: 2015-002830-35.

Guideline for the Management of Fever and Neutropenia in Children With Cancer and Hematopoietic Stem-Cell Transplantation Recipients: 2017 Update

Purpose To update a clinical practice guideline (CPG) for the empirical management of fever and neutropenia (FN) in children with cancer and hematopoietic stem-cell transplantation recipients. Methods The International Pediatric Fever and Neutropenia Guideline Panel is a multidisciplinary and multinational group of experts in pediatric oncology and infectious diseases that includes a patient advocate. For questions of risk stratification and evaluation, we updated systematic reviews of observational studies. For questions of therapy, we conducted a systematic review of randomized trials of any intervention applied for the empirical management of pediatric FN. The Grading of Recommendation Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach was used to make strong or weak recommendations and to classify levels of evidence as high, moderate, low, or very low. Results Recommendations related to initial presentation, ongoing management, and empirical antifungal therapy of pediatric FN were reviewed; the most substantial changes were related to empirical antifungal therapy. Key differences from our 2012 FN CPG included the listing of a fourth-generation cephalosporin for empirical therapy in high-risk FN, refinement of risk stratification to define patients with high-risk invasive fungal disease (IFD), changes in recommended biomarkers and radiologic investigations for the evaluation of IFD in prolonged FN, and a weak recommendation to withhold empirical antifungal therapy in IFD low-risk patients with prolonged FN. Conclusion Changes to the updated FN CPG recommendations will likely influence the care of pediatric patients with cancer and those undergoing hematopoietic stem-cell transplantation. Future work should focus on closing research gaps and on identifying ways to facilitate implementation and adaptation.

Strategies for Empiric Management of Pediatric Fever and Neutropenia in Patients With Cancer and Hematopoietic Stem-Cell Transplantation Recipients: A Systematic Review of Randomized Trials

Purpose

To describe treatment failure and mortality rates with different antibiotic regimens and different management strategies for empirical treatment of fever and neutropenia (FN) in pediatric patients with cancer and hematopoietic stem-cell transplantation (HSCT) recipients.

Methods

We conducted a systematic review and performed searches of MEDLINE, Embase, PubMed, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Studies were included if pediatric patients had cancer or were HSCT recipients and the intervention was related to the management of FN. Strategies synthesized were monotherapy versus aminoglycoside-containing combination therapy; antipseudomonal penicillin monotherapy versus fourth-generation cephalosporin monotherapy; inpatient versus outpatient management; oral versus intravenous antibiotics; and addition of colony-stimulating factors.

Results

Of 11,469 citations screened, 68 studies randomly assigning 7,265 episodes were included. When compared with monotherapy, aminoglycoside-containing combination therapy did not decrease treatment failures (risk ratio, 1.13; 95% CI, 0.92 to 1.38; P = 0.23), and no difference in mortality was observed. Antipseudomonal penicillin and fourth-generation cephalosporin monotherapy were associated with similar failure and mortality rates. Outpatient management and oral antibiotics were safe in low-risk FN with no infection-related mortality observed in any patient and no significant differences in outcomes compared with inpatient management and intravenous therapy. Therapeutic colony-stimulating factors were associated with a 1.42-day reduction in hospitalization (95% CI, 0.62 to 2.22 days; P < .001).

Conclusion

There were a moderate number of pediatric randomized trials of FN management. Monotherapy for high-risk FN and outpatient and oral management for low-risk FN are effective strategies. These findings will provide the basis for guideline recommendations in pediatric FN.

Very early discharge versus early discharge versus non-early discharge in children with cancer and febrile neutropenia

BACKGROUND

Chemotherapy-induced neutropenia is a common adverse effect in children with cancer. Due to the high relative risk of infections and infectious complications, standard care for children with cancer and febrile neutropenia consists of routine hospitalization and parenteral administration of broad-spectrum antibiotics. However, there are less serious causes of febrile neutropenia; in a subgroup of these children, lengthy in-hospital treatment might be unnecessary. Various research groups have studied the adjustment of standard care to shorten in-hospital treatment for children with cancer and febrile neutropenia at low risk for bacterial infections. However, most of these studies were not done in a randomized matter.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate whether early discharge (mean/median of less than five days) from in-hospital treatment was not inferior to non-early discharge (mean/median of five days or more) and whether very early discharge (mean/median of less than 24 hours) was not inferior to early discharge, non-early discharge, or a combination of these, in children with cancer and febrile neutropenia.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (2015, issue 11), MEDLINE/PubMed (from 1945 to December 2015), EMBASE/Ovid (from 1980 to December 2015), the reference lists of relevant articles and review articles, and various conference proceedings (dependent on availability from 2005 to 2010 to 2013 to 2015). We scanned the International Standard Randomised Controlled Trials Number (ISRCTN) Register, the National Institute of Health Register for ongoing trials, and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) on 9 January 2016.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomized controlled trials and controlled clinical trials in which children with cancer and febrile neutropenia were divided in groups with different times of discharge.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methods of Cochrane and its Childhood Cancer Group. Two independent review authors performed study selection, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment. We entered data extracted from the included studies into Review Manager 5 and undertook analyses according to the guidelines of the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions.

MAIN RESULTS

We included two randomized controlled trials assessing very early, early, non-early (or a combination of these) discharge in children with cancer and febrile neutropenia. We graded the evidence as low quality; we downgraded for risk of bias and imprecision. One study, Santolaya 2004, consisted of 149 randomized low-risk episodes and compared early discharge (mean/median of less than five days) to non-early discharge (mean/median of five days or more). This study found no clear evidence of difference in treatment failure (risk ratio (RR) 0.91, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.24 to 3.50, P value = 0.89 for rehospitalization or adjustment of antimicrobial treatment, or both; Fischer's exact P value = 0.477 for death) or duration of treatment (mean difference -0.3 days, 95% CI -1.22 to 0.62, P value = 0.52 for any antimicrobial treatment; mean difference -0.5 days, 95% CI -1.36 to 0.36, P value = 0.25 for intravenous antimicrobial treatment; mean difference 0.2 days, 95% CI -0.51 to 0.91, P value = 0.58 for oral antimicrobial treatment). Costs were lower in the early discharge group (mean difference USD -265, 95% CI USD -403.14 to USD -126.86, P value = 0.0002). The second included study, Brack 2012, consisted of 62 randomized low-risk episodes and compared very early discharge (mean/median of less than 24 hours) to early discharge (mean/median of less than five days). This study also found no clear evidence of difference in treatment failure (RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.15 to 1.89, P value = 0.34 for rehospitalization or adjustment of antimicrobial treatment (or both); Fischer's exact P value = 0.557 for death). Regarding duration of treatment, median duration of intravenous antimicrobial treatment was shorter in the very early discharge group (Wilcoxon's P value ≤ 0.001, stated in the study) and median duration of oral antimicrobial treatment was shorter in the early discharge group (Wilcoxon's P ≤ 0.001, stated in the study) as compared to one another. However, there was no clear evidence of difference in median duration of any antimicrobial treatment (Wilcoxon's P value = 0.34, stated in the study). Costs were not assessed in this study. Neither of the included studies assessed quality of life. Meta-analysis was not possible as the included studies assessed different discharge moments and used different risk stratification models.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Very limited data were available regarding the safety of early discharge compared to non-early discharge from in-hospital treatment in children with cancer and febrile neutropenia and a low risk for invasive infection. The absence of clear evidence of differences in both studies could be due to lack of power.Evidently, there are still profound gaps regarding very early and early discharge in children with cancer and febrile neutropenia. Future studies that assess this subject should have a large sample size and aim to establish uniform and objective criteria regarding the identification of a low-risk febrile neutropenic episode.

Systematic review of reduced therapy regimens for children with low risk febrile neutropenia

PURPOSE

Reduced intensity therapy for children with low-risk febrile neutropenia may provide benefits to both patients and the health service. We have explored the safety of these regimens and the effect of timing of discharge.

METHODS

Multiple electronic databases, conference abstracts and reference lists were searched. Randomised controlled trials (RCT) and prospective observational cohorts examining the location of therapy and/or the route of administration of antibiotics in people younger than 18 years who developed low-risk febrile neutropenia following treatment for cancer were included. Meta-analysis using a random effects model was conducted. I (2) assessed statistical heterogeneity not due to chance.

REGISTRATION

PROSPERO (CRD42014005817).

RESULTS

Thirty-seven studies involving 3205 episodes of febrile neutropenia were included; 13 RCTs and 24 prospective observational cohorts. Four safety events (two deaths, two intensive care admissions) occurred. In the RCTs, the odds ratio for treatment failure (persistence, worsening or recurrence of fever/infecting organisms, antibiotic modification, new infections, re-admission, admission to critical care or death) with outpatient treatment was 0.98 (95% confidence interval (95%CI) 0.44-2.19, I (2) = 0 %) and with oral treatment was 1.05 (95%CI 0.74-1.48, I (2) = 0 %). The estimated risk of failure using outpatient therapy from all prospective data pooled was 11.2 % (95%CI 9.7-12.8 %, I (2) = 77.2 %) and using oral antibiotics was 10.5 % (95%CI 8.9-12.3 %, I (2) = 78.3 %). The risk of failure was higher when reduced intensity therapies were used immediately after assessment, with lower rates when these were introduced after 48 hours.

CONCLUSIONS

Reduced intensity therapy for specified groups is safe with low rates of treatment failure. Services should consider how these can be acceptably implemented.

Bacterial bloodstream infections and antimicrobial susceptibility pattern in pediatric hematology/oncology patients after anticancer chemotherapy

Purpose

Bloodstream infections in pediatric hematology and oncology represent a major problem worldwide, but this has not been studied in Qatar. In this study, we investigated the burden of infection and the resistance pattern in the bacterial etiology, in the only tertiary pediatric hematology and oncology center in Qatar.

Methods

All pediatric cancer patients (n=185) were evaluated retrospectively during the period 2004–2011; a total of 70 (38%) patients were diagnosed with bloodstream infections. Bacterial etiology was determined, along with their susceptibility patterns. Neutropenia, duration of neutropenia, fever, duration of fever, and C-reactive protein (CRP) were evaluated throughout the study.

Results

A total of 70 patients (38%) were diagnosed with acute leukemias, lymphomas, solid tumors, or brain tumors; those patients experienced 111 episodes of bacteremia. The most common Gram-positive (n=64 [55%]) isolates were Staphylococcus epidermidis (n=26), Staphylococcus hominis (n=9), and Staphylococcus haemolyticus (n=7), and the common Gram-negative (n=52 [45%]) isolates were Klebsiella pneumoniae (n=14), Pseudomonas aeruginosa (n=10), and Escherichia coli (n=7). There was a significant association observed between fever with positive blood culture and different types of cancer (P=0.035). The majority of bacteremia (n=68 [61.3%]) occurred in nonneutropenic episodes. Elevated values of CRP (≥5 mg/L) were detected in 82 (95.3%) episodes and were negatively correlated with absolute neutrophil count (ANC) (r=−0.18; P=0.248) among all cases. However, the infection-related fatality rate was 2.2% (n=4), with three caused by Gram-negative pathogens. Multidrug resistant organisms were implicated in 33 (28.4%) cases and caused three of the mortality cases.

Conclusion

Multidrug resistant organisms cause mortality in pediatric cancer patients. Investigation of antimicrobial susceptibility of these organisms may guide successful antimicrobial therapy and improve the surveillance and quality of pediatric malignancy care.

Outpatient versus inpatient IV antibiotic management for pediatric oncology patients with low risk febrile neutropenia: a randomised trial

BACKGROUND

Febrile neutropenia (FN) is a frequent, serious complication of intensive pediatric chemotherapy regimens. The aim of this trial was to compare quality of life (QOL) between inpatient and outpatient intravenous antibiotic management of children and adolescents with low risk febrile neutropenia (LRFN).

PROCEDURE

In this randomised non-blinded trial, patients between 1 and 21 years old, receiving low/moderate intensity chemotherapy were pre-consented and, on presentation to emergency (ED) with FN satisfying low risk criteria, randomised to either outpatient or inpatient care with intravenous cefepime 50 mg/kg (12 hourly). All patients continued antibiotics for at least 48 hours, until afebrile for 24 hours and demonstrating a rising absolute neutrophil count ≥200/mm(3). Several domains of QOL were examined by daily questionnaire.

RESULTS

Eighty-one patients presented to ED with 159 episodes of fever. Thirty-seven FN presentations involving 27 patients were randomised to inpatient (18) and outpatient (19) management. Combined QOL mean scores for parents were higher for the outpatient group and scores for three specific parent variables (keeping up with household tasks/time spent with partner/time spent with other children) were higher among outpatients. There was no difference in parent confidence/satisfaction in care between groups. Patients scored better in the outpatient group overall and for sleep and appetite. The mean length of fever was equivalent between groups and there were no serious adverse events attributable to cefepime or outpatient care.

CONCLUSION

Outpatient cefepime management of LRFN provided significant benefit to parents and patients across several QOL domains and appeared both feasible and safe.

Oral versus intravenous antibiotic treatment for febrile neutropenia in cancer patients

BACKGROUND

Fever occurring in a neutropenic patient remains a common life-threatening complication of cancer chemotherapy. The common practice is to admit the patient to hospital and treat him or her empirically with intravenous broad-spectrum antibiotics. Oral therapy could be an alternative approach for selected patients.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the efficacy of oral antibiotics versus intravenous (IV) antibiotic therapy in febrile neutropenic cancer patients.

SEARCH METHODS

The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (2013, Issue 1) in The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE (1966 to January week 4, 2013), EMBASE (1980 to 2013 week 4) and LILACS (1982 to 2007). We searched several databases for ongoing trials. We checked the conference proceedings of the Interscience Conference of Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy (ICAAC) (1995 to 2007), and all references of included studies and major reviews were scanned.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing oral antibiotic(s) to intravenous antibiotic(s) for the treatment of neutropenic cancer patients with fever. The comparison between the two could be started initially (initial oral) or following an initial course of intravenous antibiotic treatment (sequential).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed trial eligibility and methodological quality and extracted data. Data concerning mortality, treatment failures and adverse events were extracted from the included studies assuming an 'intention-to-treat' basis for the outcome measures whenever possible. Risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were estimated for dichotomous data. Risk of bias assessment was also made in line with methodology of The Cochrane Collaboration.

MAIN RESULTS

Twenty-two trials (3142 episodes in 2372 patients) were included in the analyses. The mortality rate was similar when comparing oral to intravenous antibiotic treatment (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.68, 9 trials, 1392 patients, median mortality 0, range 0% to 8.8%). Treatment failure rates were also similar (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.06, all trials). No significant heterogeneity was shown for all comparisons but adverse events. The effect was stable in a wide range of patients. Quinolones alone or combined with another antibiotic were used with comparable results. Adverse reactions, mostly gastrointestinal, were more common with oral antibiotics.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Based on the present data, oral treatment is an acceptable alternative to intravenous antibiotic treatment in febrile neutropenic cancer patients (excluding patients with acute leukaemia) who are haemodynamically stable, without organ failure, and do not have pneumonia, infection of a central line or a severe soft-tissue infection. The wide CI for mortality allows the present use of oral treatment in groups of patients with an expected low risk for mortality, and further research should be aimed at clarifying the definition of low risk patients.

Oral versus intravenous antibiotics in treatment of paediatric febrile neutropenia

The purpose of this study is to determine whether, in low-risk febrile neutropenic paediatric populations, oral antibiotics are as effective as intravenous antibiotics in obtaining resolution of the febrile neutropenic episode. A comprehensive literature search of MEDLINE, EMBASE and CENTRAL identified prospective, randomised controlled trials comparing oral antibiotics with intravenous antibiotics in the treatment of febrile neutropenic episodes in low-risk paediatric oncology patients. Outcomes assessed were mortality, rate of treatment failure, length of the febrile neutropenic episode and adverse events. The random effects model was used to calculate risk ratios (RRs) for dichotomous data and mean difference with standard deviation for continuous data. Seven trials were included in the overall analysis, which included 934 episodes of febrile neutropenia in 676 patients aged between 9 months and 20 years. The overall treatment failure rates were not significantly different between oral and intravenous antibiotics (RR: 1.02, 95% confidence interval 0.78-1.32, P= 0.91). In carefully selected low-risk febrile neutropenic children, empiric treatment with oral antibiotics is a safe and effective alternative to intravenous antibiotics as they lower the cost of treatment as well as psychosocial burden on these children and their families.

Parental perspectives on inpatient versus outpatient management of pediatric febrile neutropenia

To describe parent preference for treatment of febrile neutropenia and the key drivers of parental decision making, structured face-to-face interviews were used to elicit parent preferences for inpatient versus outpatient management of pediatric febrile neutropenia. Parents were presented with 4 different scenarios and asked to indicate which treatment option they preferred and to describe reasons for this preference during the face-to-face interview. Comments were recorded in writing by research assistants. A consensus approach to thematic analysis was used to identify themes from the written comments of the research assistants. A total of 155 parents participated in the study. Of these, 80 (51.6%) parents identified hospital-based intravenous treatment as the most preferred treatment scenario for febrile neutropenia. The major themes identified included convenience/disruptiveness, physical health, emotional well-being, and modifiers of parental decision making. Most parents preferred hospital-based treatment for febrile neutropenia. An understanding of issues that influence parental decision making may assist health care workers in planning program implementation and further support families in their decision-making process.

Advances in management of low-risk febrile neutropenia

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To describe and discuss the most recent advances in the management of low-risk febrile neutropenia in children with cancer.

RECENT FINDINGS

Several risk stratification tools for children with febrile neutropenia have been developed, although none of these tools have been directly compared and few have been validated in independent populations. However, there is good evidence that, for pediatric patients with febrile neutropenia at low risk for severe infection, outpatient management is a well tolerated and efficacious alternative to inpatient care. Moreover, major progress has been made in obtaining and understanding perceived quality of life and preferences for outpatient management in pediatric cancer patients. Many parents prefer inpatient management although child quality of life is, in general, anticipated to be higher with outpatient intravenous therapy. Finally, outpatient strategies are more cost-effective as compared with traditional management in hospital.

SUMMARY

Outpatient management is a well tolerated and cost-effective strategy for low-risk febrile neutropenia in children with cancer, although parental preferences are highly variable for outpatient versus inpatient management. Future research should examine the effectiveness of outpatient strategies through conduct of large cohort studies. Other future work could focus on development of decision aids and other tools to facilitate ambulatory approaches.

Clinical practice guideline for the use of antimicrobial agents in neutropenic patients with cancer: 2010 update by the infectious diseases society of america

This document updates and expands the initial Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) Fever and Neutropenia Guideline that was published in 1997 and first updated in 2002. It is intended as a guide for the use of antimicrobial agents in managing patients with cancer who experience chemotherapy-induced fever and neutropenia. Recent advances in antimicrobial drug development and technology, clinical trial results, and extensive clinical experience have informed the approaches and recommendations herein. Because the previous iteration of this guideline in 2002, we have a developed a clearer definition of which populations of patients with cancer may benefit most from antibiotic, antifungal, and antiviral prophylaxis. Furthermore, categorizing neutropenic patients as being at high risk or low risk for infection according to presenting signs and symptoms, underlying cancer, type of therapy, and medical comorbidities has become essential to the treatment algorithm. Risk stratification is a recommended starting point for managing patients with fever and neutropenia. In addition, earlier detection of invasive fungal infections has led to debate regarding optimal use of empirical or preemptive antifungal therapy, although algorithms are still evolving. What has not changed is the indication for immediate empirical antibiotic therapy. It remains true that all patients who present with fever and neutropenia should be treated swiftly and broadly with antibiotics to treat both gram-positive and gram-negative pathogens. Finally, we note that all Panel members are from institutions in the United States or Canada; thus, these guidelines were developed in the context of North American practices. Some recommendations may not be as applicable outside of North America, in areas where differences in available antibiotics, in the predominant pathogens, and/or in health care-associated economic conditions exist. Regardless of venue, clinical vigilance and immediate treatment are the universal keys to managing neutropenic patients with fever and/or infection.

Outpatient management of cancer patients with febrile neutropenia: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

In some centers, outpatient management for cancer patients with low-risk febrile neutropenia (FN) has been implemented into routine clinical practice. Our objective was to evaluate the current level of evidence before supporting widespread adoption of outpatient management for this population.

METHODS

We systematically reviewed randomized controlled trials evaluating efficacy and safety of outpatient management of FN.

RESULTS

From 1448 reviewed articles, 14 studies were included for meta-analysis. (i) Inpatient versus outpatient setting (6 studies) was not significantly associated with treatment failure [risk ratio 0.81; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.55-1.19; P = 0.28]. Death occurred in 13 of 742 FN episodes with no difference between the two groups (risk ratio 1.11; 95% CI 0.41-3.05; P = 0.83). (ii) Outpatient oral versus outpatient parenteral antibiotics (8 studies) were similarly efficacious with no association between route of drug administration and treatment failure (risk ratio 0.93; 95% CI 0.65-1.32; P = 0.67). No death occurred in 857 FN episodes.

CONCLUSION

Based on the current literature, outpatient treatment of FN is a safe and efficacious alternative to inpatient management. Variation between studies in terms of time to discharge, choice of antibiotic class, and age of study population may limit the interpretation of the data.

Executive Summary: Clinical Practice Guideline for the Use of Antimicrobial Agents in Neutropenic Patients with Cancer: 2010 Update by the Infectious Diseases Society of America

This document updates and expands the initial Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) Fever and Neutropenia Guideline that was published in 1997 and first updated in 2002. It is intended as a guide for the use of antimicrobial agents in managing patients with cancer who experience chemotherapy-induced fever and neutropenia.

Recent advances in antimicrobial drug development and technology, clinical trial results, and extensive clinical experience have informed the approaches and recommendations herein. Because the previous iteration of this guideline in 2002, we have a developed a clearer definition of which populations of patients with cancer may benefit most from antibiotic, antifungal, and antiviral prophylaxis. Furthermore, categorizing neutropenic patients as being at high risk or low risk for infection according to presenting signs and symptoms, underlying cancer, type of therapy, and medical comorbidities has become essential to the treatment algorithm. Risk stratification is a recommended starting point for managing patients with fever and neutropenia. In addition, earlier detection of invasive fungal infections has led to debate regarding optimal use of empirical or preemptive antifungal therapy, although algorithms are still evolving.

What has not changed is the indication for immediate empirical antibiotic therapy. It remains true that all patients who present with fever and neutropenia should be treated swiftly and broadly with antibiotics to treat both gram-positive and gram-negative pathogens.

Finally, we note that all Panel members are from institutions in the United States or Canada; thus, these guidelines were developed in the context of North American practices. Some recommendations may not be as applicable outside of North America, in areas where differences in available antibiotics, in the predominant pathogens, and/or in health care–associated economic conditions exist. Regardless of venue, clinical vigilance and immediate treatment are the universal keys to managing neutropenic patients with fever and/or infection.

Cost-effectiveness of outpatient management for febrile neutropenia in children with cancer

OBJECTIVE

Inpatient management remains the standard of care for treatment of febrile neutropenia (FN) in children with cancer. Clinical data suggest, however, that outpatient management might be a safe and efficacious alternative for patients with low-risk FN episodes.

METHODS

A cost-utility model was created to compare 4 treatment strategies for low-risk FN. The base case considered pediatric cancer patients with low-risk FN. The model used a health care payer's perspective and a time horizon of 1 FN episode. Four treatment strategies were evaluated: (1) entire treatment in hospital with intravenous antibiotics (HospIV); (2) early discharge consisting of 48 hours of inpatient observation with intravenous antibiotics followed by oral outpatient treatment (EarlyDC); (3) entirely outpatient management with intravenous antibiotics (HomeIV); and (4) entirely outpatient management with oral antibiotics (HomePO). Outcome measures were quality-adjusted FN episodes (QAFNEs), costs (Canadian dollars), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. Parameter uncertainty was assessed with probabilistic sensitivity analyses.

RESULTS

The most cost-effective strategy was HomeIV. It was cost-saving ($2732 vs $2757) and more effective (0.66 vs 0.55 QAFNE) as compared with HomePO. EarlyDC was slightly more effective (0.68 QAFNE) but significantly more expensive ($5579) than HomeIV, which resulted in an unacceptably high incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of more than $130 000 per QAFNE. HospIV was the least cost-effective strategy because it was more expensive ($14 493) and less effective (0.65 QAFNE) than EarlyDC.

CONCLUSION

The findings of this decision-analytic model indicate that the substantially higher costs of inpatient management cannot be justified on the basis of safety and efficacy considerations or patient/parent preferences.

Risk prediction in pediatric cancer patients with fever and neutropenia

BACKGROUND

To identify predictors for 2 risk measures-"proven invasive bacterial infection or culture-negative sepsis (IBD)" and "clinical complications (CC)"-in pediatric cancer patients with fever and neutropenia (FN).

METHODS

Records of 390 patients with FN hospitalized over 2 years were reviewed. For the 332 who met inclusion criteria, one FN episode was randomly selected. Independent predictors at presentation were analyzed using multiple regression models. Optimal cut-off risk prediction scores were determined. These models were validated by bootstrap analysis.

RESULTS

Patients' median age was 6.0 years; 66% had an underlying diagnosis of leukemia. Independent predictors of IBD (n = 56) were absolute neutrophil count <100, temperature at presentation > or =39.0 degrees C, "sick" clinical appearance, and underlying diagnosis of acute myeloid leukemia. A total weighted score <24 reliably identified patients at low risk for IBD. Independent predictors of CC (n = 47) were relapse of malignancy, non-white race, "sick" clinical appearance, and underlying diagnosis of acute myeloid leukemia. A total weighted score <19 predicted patients at low risk for CC. Of those misclassified as low risk, 11 of 12 with IBD and 3 of 9 with CC had the outcome within 24 hours of presentation. Of the remaining patients classified as low-risk for IBD and CC, 99.5% and 97.1%, respectively, remained outcome-free after 24 hours of observation.

CONCLUSIONS

This study identifies predictors of infection/complications in pediatric patients with FN, establishes clinical cut-off scores and highlights the importance of the initial clinical impression and 24 hours of observation. These prediction models warrant prospective validation.

Risk assessment in fever and neutropenia in children with cancer: What did we learn?

Children with cancer treated with chemotherapy are susceptible to bacterial infections and serious infectious complications. However, fever and neutropenia can also result from other causes, for which no antibiotic treatment is needed. In the past decades attempts have been made to stratify the heterogeneous group of pediatric cancer patients with fever and neutropenia into high- and low-risk groups for bacterial infections or infectious complications. Strategies for risk assessment have resulted in treatment regimens with early discharge or even no hospital admission at all, and/or treatment with oral or no antibiotics. We will provide a historical overview of the changing approach to low-risk fever and neutropenia, and we will also try to identify clear and objective parameters for risk assessment strategies and illustrate their relationship to innate immunity. In the future, new insights into genetic susceptibility on neutropenic fever might be of use in children with cancer with fever and neutropenia.

A prospective study of admissions for febrile neutropenia in secondary paediatric units in South East England

BACKGROUND

The Paediatric Oncology Centres (POCs) treating childhood cancer in South East England produce unified supportive care guidelines for use in the secondary pediatric (shared care) units. This study evaluated the adherence to current guidelines for febrile neutropenia (FN) and documented outcome in terms of bacterial isolates, antibiotic resistance patterns, length of hospital stay, and mortality.

PROCEDURE

Prospective study of pediatric FN admissions between July 2001 and December 2002.

RESULTS

Data were received on 433 eligible FN episodes in 212 patients. The recommended empirical antibiotics (piptazobactam + gentamicin) were used in 354 (82%) admissions. Blood cultures were positive in 129 episodes (30%). Gram-positive organisms predominated (120/149 organisms isolated) and the majority were coagulase-negative Staphylococci (95/120). There were 27 Gram-negative isolates and 1 fungal isolate. No Gram-negative isolate was resistant to both first-line antibiotics. Only one death was recorded in the study group. The median length of hospital stay was 5 days.

CONCLUSIONS

We obtained data on a large number of shared care episodes of FN. The antibiotic guidelines were followed in most episodes. Bacteremia was common, but little resistance to first-line antibiotics was documented among Gram-negative isolates, confirming the safety of the strategy in our population.

A prospective, multicentric scoring system to predict mortality in febrile neutropenic children with cancer

BACKGROUND

Many studies have succeeded in identifying a subset of children with febrile neutropenia (FN) who are at lower risk of infectious complications and eventual death. Conversely, to the authors' knowledge, no scoring system has been published to date with which to assess the risk of mortality for the whole group of children with neutropenia and fever.

METHODS

Between March 2000 and July 2004, 1520 episodes of FN in 981 children were included in a multicentric prospective study to evaluate a scoring system that was designed to identify high mortality risk at the onset of an FN episode in children with cancer.

RESULTS

In the derivation set (714 episodes), 18 patients died (2.5%). A multivariate analysis yielded the following significant mortality-related risk factors: advanced stage of underlying malignant disease (odds ratio [OR], 3122.1; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 0.0001-5.2), associated comorbidity (OR, 25.3; 95% CI, 7.7-83.2), and bacteremia (OR, 7.2; 95% CI, 2.4-22.0). A mortality score could be built with 3 points scored for the presence of advanced-stage underlying malignant disease, 2 points scored for the presence of associated comorbidity, and 1 point scored for bacteremia. If patients collected 4 points of the risk score at onset, then their risk of mortality was 5.8%; if patients had a score of 5 points, then their risk of mortality was 15.4%; and, if they reached the maximum score of 6 points, then their risk of mortality was raised to 40%. The sensitivity of the scoring system was 100%, and it had a specificity of 84.2%. In the validation set (806 episodes), 19 children died (2.3%). For children with scores >3, the scoring system had a sensitivity of 84.2%, a specificity of 83.2%, and a negative predictive value of 99.54% for predicting mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of a mortality score for high-risk patients was validated statistically by the current results. This is a major prognostic approach to categorize patients with high-risk FN at onset. A better initial predictive approach may allow better therapeutic decisions for these children, with an eventual impact on reducing mortality.

Management of febrile neutropenia in pediatric oncology patients: a Canadian survey

BACKGROUND

Traditionally, febrile neutropenia in pediatric oncology patients has been managed aggressively with hospital admission and intravenous antibiotics. Recent studies suggest that less intensive interventions are effective for selected children. Study of Canadian practice patterns may help better understand the current context of care for these patients.

PROCEDURE

We carried out a cross-sectional mailed survey of the 17 tertiary pediatric centers in Canada. A 36-item questionnaire gathered information on oncology department characteristics, the existence of protocols for management of febrile neutropenia, use of outpatient therapy or early discharge, criteria used to identify patients at low risk, and opinions of oncologists.

RESULTS

A total of 16 (94%) completed questionnaires were returned, reflecting a treatment population of approximately 2,100 children with febrile neutropenia/year. Three out of seventeen centers carry out exclusively traditional management. The remaining 14 offer modified treatment for low risk children. The majority (n = 10) carry out an early discharge approach. Two thirds of the episodes of febrile neutropenia are treated this way with good results. The rest (n = 4) implement complete outpatient management. Approximately 120 patients benefit from this annually, with a reportedly high success rate. Most specialists agreed on the benefits of decreased hospitalization for children with cancer. However, about half considered the level of evidence is not sufficient to fully implement complete outpatient management.

CONCLUSIONS

Variations in the treatment of pediatric febrile neutropenia have been extensively implemented across Canada. However more evidence, ideally in the form of multicenter clinical trials, appears to be needed to further safely modify practice.

Turbulent Waiting: Rural Families Experiencing Chemotherapy-Induced Neutropenia

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVES

To explore how rural families understand and manage the chemotherapy-induced neutropenia (CIN) experience.

DESIGN

Qualitative, inductive approach using family interviews.

SETTING

Family homes in a rural community in the midwestern United States.

PARTICIPANTS

A convenience sample (7 families [21 people] who had a family member experiencing CIN) recruited from a regional cancer treatment center.

METHODS

Semistructured family interviews that were recorded on audiotape occurred along with constant, comparative analysis over 12 months. An interdisciplinary research team analyzed the transcribed data using grounded theory methodology.

MAIN RESEARCH VARIABLE

The family experience of CIN.

FINDINGS

An overall family process of turbulent waiting with intensified connections was revealed. Families in the study experienced a sense of vulnerability in response to the diagnosis of CIN. Intensified connections existed within and beyond the families to nurses, physicians, and community members, emphasizing the value of relationships for rural families and highlighting trust in their care providers. Waiting for chemotherapy to resume created a sense of turbulence, an unsettling time described by families as "being on a roller coaster" or "dangling." To manage the period of waiting and protect the neutropenic patient, families developed family caring strategies, including inquiry, vigilance, and balancing. The process of turbulent waiting with intensified connections led families to a reframed family integrity that included an expanded capacity for caring and protecting.

CONCLUSIONS

Rural families understand and manage CIN in a context of vulnerability. The threat posed by cancer is heightened by CIN. Family waiting is a rich, interactive process by which families reemphasize relationships to manage neutropenia and is a process that healthcare professionals should acknowledge.

IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING

Findings suggest the need for further investigation of family caring strategies and for the development of family-level assessment measures in the instance of CIN. Findings contribute to theory development regarding family cancer care and suggest a need to develop an intervention protocol constructed from the perspective of a family-professional partnership.

Early hospital discharge with oral antimicrobial therapy in patients with hematologic malignancies and low-risk febrile neutropenia

Although consensus exists relating criteria for the identification of low-risk patients with febrile neutropenia, no clear indication on how to manage these patients has been so far provided particularly in outpatients affected by hematologic malignancies. The feasibility and safety of early discharge was prospectively evaluated in 100 outpatients with hematologic malignancies and febrile neutropenia. A strategy considering the risk-index of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer (MASCC) was applied. High-risk patients were entirely managed at hospital. Low-risk patients were early discharged if they were afebrile since 48 h and not on supportive therapy requiring hospitalization. Out of 90 low-risk episodes, in 69 instances (76.7%), patients were discharged after a median of 4 days and continued home therapy with oral cefixime (78%) or other antibiotics. Only five outpatients (7.2%) had fever recurrence. Twenty-one low-risk patients were not early discharged due to worsening conditions (three deaths), need of multiple daily dose therapy, or discharge refuse. No clinical characteristic was able to predict the eligibility for early discharge. The MASCC risk-index is a useful aid in the identification of high-risk febrile neutropenia needing whole in-hospital treatment. As for low-risk patients, hospitalization at least in the first days of fever is required. Cefixime could be included among the oral antibacterial drugs to be used in the outpatient treatment of adult patients with febrile neutropenia.

The evolution towards ambulatory and day-case management of febrile neutropenia

Febrile neutropenia (FN) is only second to chemotherapy administration as a cause of hospital admission during treatment for cancer. As FN may signify serious or life-threatening infection, management protocols have focussed on trying to prevent adverse outcomes in these patients. However, it is now possible to identify a subset of patients with FN at low risk of life-threatening complications in whom duration of hospitalisation and intensity of therapy can be reduced safely. This review discusses how the management of FN has evolved to enable patients identified as low risk to be treated on specific low risk management strategies, with an emphasis on some of the practical considerations for the implementation of such strategies.

Update on management of infections in cancer and stem cell transplant patients

Infections are the most important causes of morbidity and mortality in patients with aggressive malignancies and those undergoing allogeneic stem cell transplantation. The introduction of new therapeutic approaches including the use of nucleoside analogs and of monoclonal antibodies to CD20 and CD52 and the increased use of matched unrelated stem cell donors has resulted in new challenges with regard to systemic viral and fungal infections. In patients with bacterial infections, emergence of resistance to formerly widely used antibiotics as well as a shift of causative pathogens towards a predominance of multi-resistant gram-positive cocci has to be taken into consideration. In high-risk neutropenic patients with fever of unknown origin, prompt empiric monotherapy with piperacillin-tazobactam, cefepime, ceftazidime, or a carbapenem is mandatory. In patients with lung infiltrates, early preemptive intervention with an antifungal active against aspergilli is recommended, whereas in patients with catheter-related, skin or soft tissue infections, preemptive addition of a glycopeptide shows a high response rate. The prompt preemptive use of ganciclovir or foscarnet in allogeneic stem cell transplant recipients can reliably be guided by serial monitoring of cytomegalovirus antigen and polymerase chain reaction monitoring.

Risk assessment and treatment of low-risk patients with febrile neutropenia

Progress has been made in the development and validation of rules that attempt ito predict a low risk (<10%) of severe infection or clinical complications in patients with cancer, fever, and neutropenia. It is uncertain, however, which model is optimal, with respect to test characteristics, applicability, and interinstitutional reliability, and prospective model validation in a multicenter context among outpatients has not been performed. Clinical criteria, such as comorbidities and performance status, remain critical in the risk-assessment process and probably are used by most physicians caring for patients with cancer who are febrile and neutropenic. Clinical prediction rules might be improved in the future by including measurements of inflammatory markers, such as procalcitonin. Reliable prediction of the risk of medical complications may be relevant for decisions regarding parenteral versus oral antimicrobial therapy, but it is definitely needed for decisions regarding site of care. Site-of-care decisions require thorough assessment not only of medical criteria, but also of psychosocial and organizational and/or logistic criteria. If the appropriate infrastructure to provide follow-up is available, home-based therapy with oral (or parenteral) antibiotics is an acceptable option in the care of patients with cancer who have intercurrent febrile neutropenia and a predicted low risk for medical complications.

Infectious Complications of Cancer Therapy

Advances in the management of cancer, particularly the development of new chemotherapeutic agents, have greatly improved the survival and outcome of patients with hematologic malignancies and solid tumors; overall 5-year survival rates in cancer patients have improved from 39% in the 1960s to 60% in the 1990s.1 However, infection, caused by both the underlying malignancy and cancer chemotherapy, particularly myelosuppressive chemotherapy, remains a persistent challenge.

Manejo del paciente con neutropenia de bajo riesgo y fiebre

For years the classical approach to febrile episodes in patients with chemotherapy-induced neutropenia consisted of hospital admission and intravenous administration of broad-spectrum antibiotics. However, since the end of the 1980s, it has been known that not all episodes of neutropenia carry the same risk of developing complications. These low risk febrile patients with neutropenia, that is, those without a clear focus of infection, without criteria for severe sepsis, and with an expected duration of neutropenia of less than 7-10 days, could benefit from outpatient oral antibiotic therapy or, failing this, from intravenous administration through a perfusion pump in the home. The present study analyzes the current situation of the new treatment modalities that aim to improve patients' quality of life and to optimize healthcare resources and costs.

Factors influencing predisposition to sepsis in children with cancers and acquired immunodeficiencies unrelated to human immunodeficiency virus infection

OBJECTIVES

The main objectives of this review are to provide insight into the various factors that affect the risk of sepsis in immunocompromised children and to discuss special issues that should be considered when such patients are enrolled in clinical trials.

STRATEGY

A literature review was conducted, and authoritative references were consulted when appropriate. This was supported by discussion among experts at an international consensus conference on pediatric sepsis.

OUTCOME

The review discusses general issues as they relate to the factors that are associated with a predisposition to sepsis in children with cancers and non-human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-related acquired immunodeficiencies. The host defects that are associated with specific infections are discussed, and an overview of the indicators of immune dysfunction in the previously well child is presented. Selected examples of patients with non-HIV-related acquired immunodeficiencies, including those with cancer or who have undergone solid-organ or hematopoietic stem-cell transplants are discussed. Special challenges that may affect clinical trials include the altered immune response as this relates to the definition of infection and disease and the assessment of outcomes and the heterogeneity of study populations due to the variable manifestations of immune deficiency states.

SUMMARY

Knowledge of the factors that are associated with sepsis in immunocompromised patients is important when such patients are to be entered into clinical trials on sepsis. These factors do not necessarily operate in isolation and may occur concurrently or sequentially. With these considerations in mind, clinical trials involving immunocompromised children can go forward and will very likely lead to significant advances in the care of this understudied population.

Oral versus intravenous antibiotic treatment for febrile neutropenia in cancer patients

BACKGROUND

Fever occurring in a neutropenic patient remains a common life-threatening complication of cancer chemotherapy. The common practice is to admit the patient to hospital and treat empirically with intravenous broad-spectrum antibiotics. Oral therapy could be an alternative approach for selected patients.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the efficacy of oral antibiotics versus intravenous (IV) antibiotic therapy in febrile neutropenic cancer patients.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Cancer Network Register of trials (November 2002), the Cochrane Library (issue 2, 2002), MEDLINE (1966 to 2002), EMBASE (January 1980 to 2002) and LILACS (1982 to 2002). We searched several databases for ongoing trials. We checked the conference proceedings of the Interscience Conference of Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy (ICAAC) 1995 to 2002 and all references of included studies and major reviews were scanned.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials comparing oral antibiotic/s to intravenous antibiotic/s for the treatment of neutropenic cancer patients with fever. The comparison between the two could be started initially (initial oral), or following an initial course of intravenous antibiotic treatment (sequential).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two reviewers independently assessed trial eligibility, methodological quality and extracted data. Data concerning mortality, treatment failures and adverse events were extracted from included studies assuming an "intention-to-treat" basis for the outcome measures whenever possible. Relative risks (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) for dichotomous data were estimated.

MAIN RESULTS

Fifteen trials (median mortality 0, range 0 to 8.8%) were included in the analyses. The mortality rate was similar comparing oral to intravenous antibiotic treatment (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.51 to 1.62, 7 trials, 1223 patients). Treatment failure rates were also similar (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.05, all trials). No significant heterogeneity was shown for all comparisons but adverse events. This effect was stable in a wide range of patients. Quinolones alone or combined with another antibiotics were used with comparable results. Adverse reactions, mostly gastrointestinal were more common with oral antibiotics.

REVIEWERS' CONCLUSIONS

Based on the present data, oral treatment is an acceptable alternative to intravenous antibiotic treatment in febrile neutropenic cancer patients (excluding patients with acute leukaemia) who are haemodynamically stable, without organ failure, not having pneumonia, infection of a central line or a severe soft-tissue infection. The wide confidence interval for mortality allows the present use of oral treatment in groups of patients with an expected low risk for mortality, and further research should be aimed at clarifying the definition of low risk patients.

Early hospital discharge followed by outpatient management versus continued hospitalization of children with cancer, fever, and neutropenia at low risk for invasive bacterial infection

PURPOSE

To compare outcome and cost of ambulatory versus hospitalized management among febrile neutropenic children at low risk for invasive bacterial infection (IBI).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Children presenting with febrile neutropenia at six hospitals in Santiago, Chile, were categorized as high or low risk for IBI. Low-risk children were randomly assigned after 24 to 36 hours of hospitalization to receive ambulatory or hospitalized treatment and monitored until episode resolution. Outcome and cost were determined for each episode and compared between both groups using predefined definitions and questionnaires.

RESULTS

A total of 161 (41%) of 390 febrile neutropenic episodes evaluated from June 2000 to February 2003 were classified as low risk, of which 149 were randomly assigned to ambulatory (n = 78) or hospital-based (n = 71) treatment. In both groups, mean age (ambulatory management, 55 months; hospital-based management, 66 months), sex, and type of cancer were similar. Outcome was favorable in 74 (95%) of 78 ambulatory-treated children and 67 (94%) of 71 hospital-treated children (P = NS). Mean cost of an episode was US 638 dollars (95% CI, 572 dollars to 703 dollars) and US 903 dollars (95% CI, 781 dollars to 1,025 dollars) for the ambulatory and hospital-based groups, respectively (P =.003).

CONCLUSION

For children with febrile neutropenia at low risk for IBI, ambulatory management is safe and significantly cost saving compared with standard hospitalized therapy.

Optimum management of pediatric patients with fever and neutropenia

Fever with neutropenia is a common clinical problem in patients receiving cancer treatment. Prevention and optimum management of infectious complications is critical to the overall success of cancer therapy. This article provides an overview of the current status of this evolving subject. While the basic principles of rapid institution of broad spectrum antibiotics, early intervention with empiric antifungal therapy and continuation of antimicrobials during period of risk are unlikely to change, there is increasing interest in titrating this aggressive approach based on the projected risk of the development of a serious invasive infection. Oral antibiotic therapy and outpatient management are currently being studied in pediatric oncology patients, but even when successful these alternatives to the traditional "in hospital, parenteral antibiotic therapy" approach are unlikely to be applicable in all patient populations and clinical settings. While there is no replacement for clinical acumen and careful monitoring, judicious use of diagnostic resources such as blood cultures and imaging studies is a key component of optimum care. Selection of empiric antibiotics based on ongoing monitoring of antimicrobial susceptibility patterns is emphasized.

Antibiothérapie ambulatoire chez les enfants neutropéniques fébriles

NEW STRATEGIES: Fever in a neutropenic patient requires the rapid initiation of a broad spectrum antibiotic and continued until correction of the neutropenia. Several studies have been conducted recently in order to define the populations of children in whom the antibiotherapy could be suspended early without risk of relapse of fever and/or severe infection. Moreover, the high costs of hospitalisation and the limited number of beds in the departments of Paediatric Oncology Haematology have led to studies on the feasibility of an antibiotherapy at home. THE EARLY SUSPENSION OF THE ANTIBIOTHERAPY: The criteria retained in several studies for the early suspension of the antibiotherapy have been: apyrexia for at least 24 hours, a satisfactory clinical status, the absence of positive haemocultures and haematological signs showing the end of aplasia in patients in remission of their disease. Studies have confirmed the possibility of early suspension of intravenous antibiotics in low-risk patients, without fever and without microbiological signs. THE PLACE OF ORAL ANTIBIOTICS: In several comparative studies, the success rate with intravenous antibiotics and oral antibiotics was comparable. The rate of failures was greater in patients with severe initial neutropenia. OUTPATIENT ANTIBIOTICS: In children, 2 types of studies have been conducted. The first studied the feasibility of an antibiotherapy at home following antibiotherapy in the hospital in order to reduce the costs and duration of hospitalisation. The others proposed an antibiotherapy at home from the start, either with the intravenous or the oral route. Following all these studies, it appeared that, in certain low-risk neutropenic children with fever, not only the antibiotics could be suspended before the complete correction of the neutropenia, but also a large spectrum oral antibiotherapy could replace the intravenous antibiotherapy and outpatient treatment would therefore be feasible.

Approche organisationnelle et économique en France du traitement ambulatoire des neutropénies fébriles

A NEW OBJECTIVE: Keeping neutropenic patients with fever in their homes helps to preserve their quality of life and reduces the costs. However, it is important to specify the conditions and the means necessary for the organisation so that home treatment can be applied safely because of the high risk of morbidity due to infection. THE FUNDAMENTAL CONDITIONS FOR ITS MANAGEMENT: The patients who could potentially benefit from an outpatient treatment strategy when presenting with neutropenia and fever must not have a tumour progressing and must not exhibit signs of co-morbidity and be affected by neutropenia and fever at home. Moreover, full information and the patient's and relatives' consent, a hospital nearby, the permanent presence of someone with the patient, the possibility of a telephone contact, the patient's full compliance, prior consent and excellent communication and excellent patient-physician relationship are all essential conditions. THE PARTICIPANTS AT HOME: The patient is essentially followed-up by the treating physician. Private nurses can intervene at the patient's home. Hospitalisation at home is presently the only alternative medical structure to classical hospitalisation. The development of nursing networks ensure the continuity between the hospital and the town and the good coordination of the health workers caring for the patient. The steps to be taken during an episode of fever are debated: complete discharge from hospital for some, initial outpatient controls in the hospital for several hours for others and the initial hospitalisation for 24 to 72 hours for some others. Whatever the case, haemocultures must be performed before the initiation of any antibiotherapy.

SURVEILLANCE

The optimal clinical surveillance is ensured daily by a private nurse and the treating physician. An assessment every 2 to 3 days in a hospital unit is recommended. CARE NETWORKS: Their development should increase and hence create the continuity between the hospital and the town. The outpatient management of neutropenia with fever is a major source of economy; it allows the patients to be kept at home whilst ensuring the quality and security of their treatment.

Outpatient management of febrile neutropenia in children with cancer

The objectives of this article are to review the studies that have examined the safety and feasibility of outpatient management for children with febrile neutropenia, and to provide recommendations as to which patient populations and treatment strategies are most appropriate for this approach. The outpatient strategies have included either complete outpatient management or employment of early discharge, with the latter methodology predominating in most published studies. Common criteria relied upon to identify children with febrile neutropenia at low risk of serious infections included evidence of hematopoietic recovery and/or an absolute monocyte count >/=100/mm(3), and the absence of both comorbidity and culture positivity. A wide variety of different antibacterial regimens have been employed, with some trials investigating either early discontinuation of treatment or conversion to an oral administration strategy. Trials performed to date among this low risk population indicate a very low rate of readmission and/or complications. Some studies have also estimated substantial overall cost savings with this approach. However, many of these trials are significantly underpowered to detect the low rate of serious complications in the pediatric population with febrile neutropenia. At present, the available evidence indicates that a carefully chosen subpopulation of children with febrile neutropenia can be safely managed on an outpatient basis. Regardless of setting, current clinical guidelines for febrile neutropenia management indicate that all children with febrile neutropenia should be managed with appropriate antibacterial therapy until resolution of febrile neutropenia. Treatment with either an oral antibacterial regimen as initial therapy, or early discontinuation of antibacterial therapy in the outpatient setting should remain investigational at the present time.

Ceftriaxone in febrile neutropenia

Standard management of febrile neutropenia requires prompt administration of empirical, broad-spectrum antibiotic therapy, since febrile neutropenia is associated with a significant risk of infectious complications and mortality. Risk-assessment models have been developed that differentiate febrile patients with neutropenia according to their risk for infectious complications and/or mortality and have prompted a change in the management of these patients. Ceftriaxone is a long-lasting, broad spectrum cephalosporin which has demonstrated efficacy in this indication in many publications. The role of ceftriaxone in febrile neutropenia will be discussed based on literature analysis and on the author's experience.

Outpatient, sequential, parenteral-oral antibiotic therapy for lower risk febrile neutropenia in children with malignant disease: a single-center, randomized, controlled trial in Argentina

BACKGROUND

Recent reports and previous randomized trials conducted at the authors' institution suggested that children with lower risk febrile neutropenic (LRFN) may benefit from substitution of oral antibiotic therapy for parenteral therapy. The objective of this study was to determine the efficacy of parenteral-oral outpatient therapy in the management of children with LRFN who were receiving treatment for malignant disease.

METHODS

From August 2000 to April 2002, 135 children with a median age of 7.5 years (range, 1.6-15.8 years) who had a total of 177 episodes of LRFN were included in a prospective, randomized, single-institution trial. Children with LRFN received a single dose of ceftriaxone and amikacin and completed a risk-assessment work-up. All patients were discharged immediately and, at 24 hours, were allocated randomly to two groups: Group A (89 episodes) received oral ciprofloxacin, and Group B (88 episodes) received intravenous ceftriaxone.

RESULTS

Most patients (61% in Group A and 51% in Group B) were receiving treatment for leukemia (P value not significant [NS]). Twenty-eight children (31%) in Group A and 22 children (25%) in Group B displayed unexplained fever (P value NS). No significant differences in sites of initial infection were found between the two groups. The median duration of neutropenia was 4.2 days and 4.7 days for Group A and Group B, respectively (P value NS); the median duration of fever was 2.3 days and 2.6 days, respectively (P value NS); and the median duration of antibiotic treatment was 4.5 days and 4.8 days, respectively (P value NS). The overall results of the study were excellent. Only four treatment failures in Group A (5%) and 6 treatment failures in Group B (7%) were observed. These patients were readmitted to the hospital and did well with appropriate treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

In children with LRFN who are receiving treatment for malignant disease, outpatient oral ciprofloxacin after 24 hours of a single dose of intravenous ceftriaxone and amikacin was as safe and efficacious as parenteral ceftriaxone. Outpatient management and early antibiotic withdrawal were safe for both groups.

Ciprofloxacin and amoxicillin as continuation treatment of febrile neutropenia in pediatric cancer patients

BACKGROUND

The empiric administration of anti-microbial therapy significantly reduces the morbidity and mortality associated with febrile neutropenic episodes in oncology patients. Outpatient empiric antibiotic therapy can be safely administered to a subset of febrile neutropenic patients at low risk for clinical complications.

PROCEDURE

Pediatric cancer patients presenting with febrile neutropenia after non-myeloablative chemotherapy and who met institutional criteria for early hospital discharge following a minimum of 48-hr inpatient empiric intravenous ceftazidime were eligible for the study. The feasibility and efficacy of an outpatient continuation therapy of oral ciprofloxacin (CPR) 25-30 mg/kg/day divided BID and amoxicillin (AMX) 30-50 mg/kg/day divided TID was assessed.

RESULTS

Thirty febrile neutropenic episodes in 26 patients were treated with outpatient oral CPR/AMX therapy. Oral CPR/AMX therapy was feasible in 28 (93%) and efficacious in 26 (87%) of treatment episodes. CPR/AMX was discontinued due to abdominal pain and diarrhea (n = 2), recurrent fever (n = 3), or gastrointestinal bleeding (n = 1). No patient developed new bacteremia or cardiopulmonary decompensation. Bone/joint pain or gastrointestinal symptoms occurred in 27% of treatment episodes. Duration of neutropenia, lower absolute neutrophil count (ANC) (< 100/mm(3)) at start of oral antibiotic therapy and active malignant disease were associated with failure of oral antibiotic therapy.

CONCLUSIONS

It is feasible to administer oral CPR/AMX as continuation antibiotic therapy for a selected subgroup of febrile neutropenic episodes defined after initial hospitalization and empiric antibiotic therapy. Prospectively randomized trials will be required to analyze adequately the efficacy of an oral CPR/AMX outpatient antibiotic regimen for treatment of febrile neutropenia in pediatric oncology patients.

Prospective evaluation of a model of prediction of invasive bacterial infection risk among children with cancer, fever, and neutropenia

A risk prediction model for invasive bacterial infection (IBI) was prospectively evaluated among children presenting with cancer, fever, and neutropenia. The model incorporated assessment of 5 previously identified risk factors: serum level of C-reactive protein (CRP) >/=90 mg/L, hypotension, identification of relapse of leukemia as the cancer type, platelet count of </=50,000 platelets/mm(3), and recent receipt of chemotherapy [16]. Children were uniformly evaluated at enrollment and were classified as having high or low risk for IBI according to a model that considers the number and type of variables present. Of the 263 febrile episodes evaluated during a 17-month period, 140 (53%) were in IBI-positive children. The sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values of the model were 92%, 76%, 82%, and 90%, respectively. Identification of these 5 risk factors during the first 24 h of hospitalization was helpful in discriminating between children with a high or low risk for IBI.

Evolving concepts of management of febrile neutropenia in children with cancer

BACKGROUND

Recent investigations of febrile neutropenia in pediatric cancer patients have identified subsets of low-risk patients who can be managed with less antibiotic therapy than previously recommended standards.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

PubMed and Medline were searched for prospective trials and reviews of febrile neutropenia in children. Magnitude and duration of fever and neutropenia, comorbidities, and therapeutic strategies were examined.

RESULTS

Twenty-seven prospective trials and five reviews were identified. The child with cancer and low-risk febrile neutropenia is clinically well and afebrile within 24-96 hr of antibiotic therapy and has evidence of marrow recovery with a rising phagocyte count. Disqualifying comorbidities include leukemia at diagnosis or in relapse, uncontrolled cancer, age under 1 year, medical condition(s) that would otherwise require hospitalization and social or economic conditions that may potentially compromise access to care or compliance. Therapeutic strategies include parenteral or oral antibiotics in the hospital with early discharge or parenteral antibiotics in the outpatient setting followed by oral or parenteral therapy and daily reassessment. Although as many as 25% of low-risk patients require modification of therapy and/or hospitalization, life-threatening or fatal infection is exceptional.

CONCLUSION

One-third to one-half the children with febrile neutropenia are at low-risk of serious infection. In the context of clinic trials, they can be safely managed with inpatient or outpatient strategies that maintain close follow-up and reduce the burden of antibiotic therapy. Adoption of these alternative strategies as the standard of care should proceed with caution guided by written protocols.

Infections in the neutropenic patient--new views of an old problem

Infection in the neutropenic patient has remained a major clinical challenge for over three decades. While diagnostic and therapeutic interventions have improved greatly during this period, increases in the number of patients with neutropenia, changes in the etiologic agents involved, and growing antibiotic resistance have continued to be problematic. The evolving etiology of infections in this patient population is reviewed by Dr. Donowitz. Presently accepted antibiotic regimens and practices are discussed, along with ongoing controversies. In Section II, Drs. Maki and Crnich discuss line-related infection, which is a major infectious source in the neutropenic. Defining true line-related bloodstream infection remains a challenge despite the fact that various methods to do so exist. Means of prevention of line related infection, diagnosis, and therapy are reviewed. Fungal infection continues to perplex the infectious disease clinician and hematologist/oncologist. Diagnosis is difficult, and many fungal infections will lead to increased mortality even with rapid diagnosis and therapy. In Section III, Dr. Pappas reviews the major fungal etiologies of infection in the neutropenic patient and the new anti-fungals that are available to treat them. Finally, Dr. Rolston reviews the possibility of outpatient management of neutropenic fever. Recognizing that neutropenics represent a heterogeneous group of patients, identification of who can be treated as an outpatient and with what antibiotics are discussed.

Antibiotics and growth factors in the management of fever and neutropenia in cancer patients

The association of neutropenia and infection continues to be a major cause of morbidity and mortality in cancer patients receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy. Prompt hospitalization and initiation of empirical intravenous broad-spectrum antibiotics has been the standard of care during the past three decades. Recently, risk-assessment models have been developed that allow the identification of febrile neutropenic patients that are at low risk for medical complications and mortality. New treatment strategies are being evaluated in this low-risk patient population to safely reduce toxicity, decrease costs, and improve quality of life. These include early shift from intravenous therapy to oral antibiotics, immediate initiation of oral empiric treatment, early hospital discharge, or outpatient care. A risk-based approach should also be applied to the use of colony-stimulating factors in this setting. Growth factors should not be routinely administered to neutropenic patients with uncomplicated febrile episodes. However, recent data support their use in populations with high-risk neutropenic fever.