Oral ciprofloxacin in the management of children with cancer with lower risk febrile neutropenia

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.

Work-up for Fever During Neutropenia for Both the Stem Cell Transplant Recipient and the Hematologic Malignancy Patient

Fever is a common complication in patients with underlying neutropenia and is associated with significant mortality in neutropenic patients with acute myelogenous leukemia or hematopoietic cell transplant. Fever may be the only sign of infection and requires further clinical assessment, including a history, a physical examination, and additional laboratory and radiographic testing. National and international guidelines recommend initiation of empiric antimicrobial therapy in patients with fever during neutropenia. Stepwise escalation of antibacterial therapy, followed by antifungal therapy for patients with persistent fever, generally is recommended. Consideration should also be given to de-escalation of antimicrobial therapy in the appropriate clinical settings.

Outpatient treatment for people with cancer who develop a low-risk febrile neutropaenic event

BACKGROUND

People with febrile neutropaenia are usually treated in a hospital setting. Recently, treatment with oral antibiotics has been proven to be as effective as intravenous therapy. However, the efficacy and safety of outpatient treatment have not been fully evaluated.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the efficacy (treatment failure and mortality) and safety (adverse events of antimicrobials) of outpatient treatment compared with inpatient treatment in people with cancer who have low-risk febrile neutropaenia.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2018, Issue 11) in the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE via Ovid (from 1948 to November week 4, 2018), Embase via Ovid (from 1980 to 2018, week 48) and trial registries (National Cancer Institute, MetaRegister of Controlled Trials, Medical Research Council Clinical Trial Directory). We handsearched all references of included studies and major reviews.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing outpatient with inpatient treatment for people with cancer who develop febrile neutropaenia. The outpatient group included those who started treatment as an inpatient and completed the antibiotic course at home (sequential) as well as those who started treatment at home.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed trial eligibility, methodological quality, and extracted data. Primary outcome measures were: treatment failure and mortality; secondary outcome measures considered were: duration of fever, adverse drug reactions to antimicrobial treatment, duration of neutropaenia, duration of hospitalisation, duration of antimicrobial treatment, and quality of life (QoL). We estimated risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for dichotomous data; we calculated weighted mean differences for continuous data. Random-effects meta-analyses and sensitivity analyses were conducted.

MAIN RESULTS

We included ten RCTs, six in adults (628 participants) and four in children (366 participants). We found no clear evidence of a difference in treatment failure between the outpatient and inpatient groups, either in adults (RR 1.23, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.85, I² 0%; six studies; moderate-certainty evidence) or children (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.99, I² 0%; four studies; moderate-certainty evidence). For mortality, we also found no clear evidence of a difference either in studies in adults (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.29 to 3.71; six studies; 628 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) or in children (RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.15 to 2.70; three studies; 329 participants; moderate-certainty evidence).According to the type of intervention (early discharge or exclusively outpatient), meta-analysis of treatment failure in four RCTs in adults with early discharge (RR 1.48, 95% CI 0.74 to 2.95; P = 0.26, I² 0%; 364 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) was similar to the results of the exclusively outpatient meta-analysis (RR 1.15, 95% CI 0.62 to 2.13; P = 0.65, I² 19%; two studies; 264 participants; moderate-certainty evidence).Regarding the secondary outcome measures, we found no clear evidence of a difference between outpatient and inpatient groups in duration of fever (adults: mean difference (MD) 0.2, 95% CI -0.36 to 0.76, 1 study, 169 participants; low-certainty evidence) (children: MD -0.6, 95% CI -0.84 to 0.71, 3 studies, 305 participants; low-certainty evidence) and in duration of neutropaenia (adults: MD 0.1, 95% CI -0.59 to 0.79, 1 study, 169 participants; low-certainty evidence) (children: MD -0.65, 95% CI -0.1.86 to 0.55, 2 studies, 268 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). With regard to adverse drug reactions, although there was greater frequency in the outpatient group, we found no clear evidence of a difference when compared to the inpatient group, either in adult participants (RR 8.39, 95% CI 0.38 to 187.15; three studies; 375 participants; low-certainty evidence) or children (RR 1.90, 95% CI 0.61 to 5.98; two studies; 156 participants; low-certainty evidence).Four studies compared the hospitalisation time and found that the mean number of days of hospital stay was lower in the outpatient treated group by 1.64 days in adults (MD -1.64, 95% CI -2.22 to -1.06; 3 studies, 251 participants; low-certainty evidence) and by 3.9 days in children (MD -3.90, 95% CI -5.37 to -2.43; 1 study, 119 participants; low-certainty evidence). In the 3 RCTs of children in which days of antimicrobial treatment were analysed, we found no difference between outpatient and inpatient groups (MD -0.07, 95% CI -1.26 to 1.12; 305 participants; low-certainty evidence).We identified two studies that measured QoL: one in adults and one in children. QoL was slightly better in the outpatient group than in the inpatient group in both studies, but there was no consistency in the domains included.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Outpatient treatment for low-risk febrile neutropaenia in people with cancer probably makes little or no difference to treatment failure and mortality compared with the standard hospital (inpatient) treatment and may reduce time that patients need to be treated in hospital.

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.

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.

Which decision rules meet methodological standards in children with febrile neutropenia? Results of a systematic review and analysis

BACKGROUND

Clinical decision rules (CDRs) have sought to identify the few children with chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia (FN) really at risk of severe infection to reduce the invasive procedures and costs for those at low risk. Several reports have shown that most rules do not perform well enough to be clinically useful. Our objective was to analyze the derivation methods and validation procedures of these CDRs.

PROCEDURE

A systematic review using Medline, Ovid, Refdoc, and the Cochrane Library through December 2012 searched for all CDRs predicting the risk of severe infection and/or complications in children with chemotherapy-induced FN. Their methodological quality was analyzed by 17 criteria for deriving and validating a CDR identified in the literature. The criteria published by the Evidence Based Medicine Working Group were applied to the published validations of each CDR to assess their level of evidence.

RESULTS

The systematic research identified 612 articles and retained 12 that derived CDRs. Overall, the CDRs met a median of 65% of the methodological criteria. The criteria met least often were that the rule made clinical sense, or described the course of action, or that the variables and the CDR were reproducible. Only one CDR, developed in South America, met all methodological criteria and provided the highest level of evidence; unfortunately it was not reproducible in Europe.

CONCLUSION

Only one CDR developed for children with FN met all methodological standards and reached the highest level of evidence.

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.

Oral antibiotics for fever in low-risk neutropenic patients with cancer: a double-blind, randomized, multicenter trial comparing single daily moxifloxacin with twice daily ciprofloxacin plus amoxicillin/clavulanic acid combination therapy--EORTC infectious diseases group trial XV

PURPOSE

This double-blind, multicenter trial compared the efficacy and safety of a single daily oral dose of moxifloxacin with oral combination therapy in low-risk febrile neutropenic patients with cancer.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Inclusion criteria were cancer, febrile neutropenia, low risk of complications as predicted by a Multinational Association for Supportive Care in Cancer (MASCC) score > 20, ability to swallow, and ≤ one single intravenous dose of empiric antibiotic therapy before study drug treatment initiation. Early discharge was encouraged when a set of predefined criteria was met. Patients received either moxifloxacin (400 mg once daily) monotherapy or oral ciprofloxacin (750 mg twice daily) plus amoxicillin/clavulanic acid (1,000 mg twice daily). The trial was designed to show equivalence of the two drug regimens in terms of therapy success, defined as defervescence and improvement in clinical status during study drug treatment (< 10% difference).

RESULTS

Among the 333 patients evaluated in an intention-to-treat analysis, therapy success was observed in 80% of the patients administered moxifloxacin and in 82% of the patients administered combination therapy (95% CI for the difference, -10% to 8%, consistent with equivalence). Minor differences in tolerability, safety, and reasons for failure were observed. More than 50% of the patients in the two arms were discharged on protocol therapy, with 5% readmissions among those in either arm. Survival was similar (99%) in both arms.

CONCLUSION

Monotherapy with once daily oral moxifloxacin is efficacious and safe in low-risk febrile neutropenic patients identified with the help of the MASCC scoring system, discharged early, and observed as outpatients.

Outpatient and oral antibiotic management of low-risk febrile neutropenia are effective in children--a systematic review of prospective trials

BACKGROUND

There is no consensus on whether therapeutic intensity can be reduced safely in children with low-risk febrile neutropenia (FN). Our primary objective was to determine whether there is a difference in efficacy between outpatient and inpatient management of children with low-risk FN. Our secondary objective was to compare oral and parenteral antibiotic therapy in this population.

METHODS

We performed electronic searches of Ovid Medline, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and limited studies to prospective pediatric trials in low-risk FN. Percentages were used as the effect measure.

RESULTS

From 7,281 reviewed articles, 16 were included in the meta-analysis. Treatment failure, including antibiotic modification, was less likely to occur in the outpatient setting compared with the inpatient setting (15 % versus 28 %, P = 0.04) but was not significantly different between oral and parenteral antibiotic regimens (20 % versus 22 %, P = 0.68). Of the 953 episodes treated in the outpatient setting and 676 episodes treated with oral antibiotics, none were associated with infection-related mortality.

CONCLUSION

Based on the combination of results from all prospective studies to date, outpatient and oral antibiotic management of low-risk FN are effective in children and should be incorporated into clinical care where feasible.

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.

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.

Supportive care in children

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To provide an update on the rational approach of febrile neutropenia in children with cancer and discuss future research aspects in the field.

RECENT FINDINGS

Clinical and laboratory variables and new biomarkers associated with an increased risk for a severe outcome including invasive bacterial infection (IBI), sepsis, and mortality have been identified for children with cancer and febrile neutropenia. These variables and biomarkers are currently being used for an early risk assessment in order to identify children at low or high risk for IBI or at high risk for sepsis and death. Early identification of children with a differential risk has allowed the implementation of selective treatment regimens. More recently, host genetic differences have been associated with a differential risk for IBI. The individual gene profile based on selected polymorphisms could further fine-tune the early risk assessment allowing tailor-made management strategies.

SUMMARY

In the last decades, efforts have focused on the stratification of the heterogeneous group of children with cancer and febrile neutropenia according to their risk for developing an IBI. This effort has allowed a less aggressive treatment strategy for children at low risk, including early hospital discharge and use of intravenous and oral antimicrobials at home. More recently, advances have been made in the early identification of children in the other spectrum of infection, those at high risk for sepsis and mortality, with the aim of rapid implementation of aggressive therapy.

Randomized controlled trial comparing oral amoxicillin-clavulanate and ofloxacin with intravenous ceftriaxone and amikacin as outpatient therapy in pediatric low-risk febrile neutropenia

BACKGROUND

Outpatient oral therapy is infrequently used in pediatric low-risk febrile neutropenia (LRFN) as there is insufficient data regarding its equivalence as compared with parenteral therapy.

METHODS

This is a single institutional, randomized control trial in pediatric LRFN aged 2 to 15 years, in which 123 episodes in 88 patients were randomized to outpatient oral ofloxacin 7.5 mg/kg 12 hourly and amoxycillin-clavulanate 12.5 mg/kg 8 hourly or outpatient intravenous (IV) ceftriaxone 75 mg/kg and amikacin 15 mg/kg once daily after blood cultures.

RESULTS

Out of 119 evaluable episodes, one-third were leukemia patients in maintenance and rest were solid tumors. Success was achieved in 55/61 (90.16%) and 54/58 (93.1%) in oral and IV arms, respectively, (P=0.56). There were 3 hospitalizations but no mortality. Median days to resolution of fever, absolute neutrophil count >500/mm(3) and antibiotic use were 3, 5, and 6 days in both arms. There were 5 blood culture isolates (3 gram-positive and 2 gram-negative bacteria). Failure of outpatient therapy was associated with perianal infections, bacteremia, febrile neutropenia onset before day 9 of chemotherapy in solid tumors and Vincristine, actinomycin-D, and cyclophosphamide chemotherapy for rhabdomyosarcoma. All gram-positive isolates were successes, whereas both gram-negative isolates were failures. Diarrhea in IV arm and Vincristine, actinomycin-D, and cyclophosphamide chemotherapy in the oral arm predicted failure in subgroup analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

Outpatient therapy is efficacious and safe in pediatric LRFN. There was no difference in outcome in oral versus IV outpatient therapy. Amoxycillin-clavulanate and ofloxacin may be the oral regimen of choice.

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.

Oral gatifloxacin in the outpatient treatment of children with cancer fever and neutropenia

BACKGROUND

Fever in neutropenic (FN) patients requires immediate broad-spectrum antibiotics, however, such patients do not represent a homogeneous population and the majority of them are at low risk of developing complication. Gatifloxacin (GA) is an alternative, though it has not been thoroughly studied in Pediatrics yet. The aim of this study was to evaluate oral GA in oncology pediatric patients with FN and low risk of infectious complications.

METHODS

We conducted a prospective study in patients submitted to chemotherapy and FN, from the ages of 3 to 21 years old, with solid tumors, acute lymphoid leukemia, and lymphomas without comorbidities and treated as outpatient with oral GA. Safety and adverse effects were monitored.

RESULTS

We evaluated 108 patients with 201 episodes of FN. The average age was 10.8 years, 64.8% of the patients were male. Osteosarcoma accounted for 22% of the episodes, rhabdomyosarcoma for 13%, acute lymphoid leukemia, lymphomas and Ewing sarcoma, for 11% each. Among the 174 episodes exclusively treated as outpatients, the average duration of neutropenia was 4.8 days, the average duration of fever was 2.4 days; the average duration of the treatment was 8.1 days. The treatment was successful in 75.9%, analyzing only the first episodes. No patient died during the study. Adverse events included diarrhea, vomiting, increased liver enzymes, arthralgia, and ECG changes.

CONCLUSION

Oral GA is effective and safe in the management of oncology pediatric patients with FN at low risk of infectious complications in the outpatient setting.

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.

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.

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.

Randomized comparison of antibiotics with and without granulocyte colony-stimulating factor in children with chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia: a report from the Children's Oncology Group

PURPOSE

To determine if granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) with empirical antibiotics accelerates febrile neutropenia resolution compared with antibiotics without it.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Eligible children were treated without prophylactic G-CSF and presented with fever (temperature >38.3 degrees C) and neutropenia afterward. Patients with acute myelogenous leukemia and myelodysplastic syndrome were excluded. Assignments were randomized between G-CSF (5 microg/kg/day) or none beginning within 24 hr of antibiotics. Subcutaneous administration was recommended, but intravenous G-CSF was allowed. Patients remained on study until absolute neutrophil count (ANC) >500/microl and > or =48 hr without fever.

RESULTS

One of 67 patients enrolled was ineligible, 59 had acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL). Thirty-four were assigned to antibiotics, 32 to G-CSF plus antibiotics. Adding G-CSF significantly reduced neutropenia and febrile neutropenia recovery times. Median days to febrile neutropenia resolution was nine earlier with G-CSF (4 vs. 13 days) (P < 0.0001). However, there was no difference in the resolution of fever between arms. Hospitalization median was shorter by 1 day with G-CSF (4 vs. 5 days) (P = 0.04). There was no difference in the duration of IV and oral antibiotic treatment, addition of antifungal therapy, and shock incidence. A trend for decreased incidence of late fever with G-CSF was noted (6.3 vs. 23.5%) (P = 0.08).

CONCLUSIONS

Adding G-CSF to empiric antibiotic coverage accelerates chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia resolution by 9 days in pediatric patients, mainly with ALL, which results in a small but significant difference in the median length of hospitalization.

Ciprofloxacin vs an aminoglycoside in combination with a beta-lactam for the treatment of febrile neutropenia: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

OBJECTIVE

To compare the effectiveness and toxicity of ciprofloxacin vs an aminoglycoside, both in combination with a beta-lactam, for the treatment of febrile neutropenia in the inpatient setting.

METHODS

For this meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared the ciprofloxacin/beta-lactam combination vs an aminoglycoside/beta-lactam combination for the treatment of febrile neutropenia and reported data on effectiveness, mortality, and/or toxicity, we searched PubMed (1950-2004), Current Contents, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and reference lists of retrieved articles, including review articles, as well as abstracts presented at international conferences. Data for 3 primary and 2 secondary outcomes were extracted by 2 investigators.

RESULTS

Eight RCTs were included in the analysis. Comparable or better outcomes were observed with the ciprofloxacin/beta-lactam combination vs an aminoglycoside/beta-lactam combination: clinical cure without modification of the initial regimen (odds ratio [OR], 1.32; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.00-1.74; P=.05), clinical cure in the subset of patients with documented Infections (OR, 1.56; 95% CI, 1.05-2.31; P=.03), all-cause mortality (OR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.54-1.35; P=.49), withdrawal of the study drugs due to toxicity (OR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.57-1.32; P-.51), and nephrotoxicity (OR, 0.30; 95% CI, 0.16-0.59; P<.001). The ciprofloxacin/beta-lactam combination was also associated with better clinical cure compared to the aminoglycoside/beta-actam combination in the subset of RCTs with non-low-risk patients (OR, 1.38; 95% CI, 1.01-1.88; P=-.04), as well as in the subset of studies that included the same beta-lactam in both treatment arms (OR, 1.47; 95% CI, 1.06-2.05; P=.02).

CONCLUSION

The combination of ciprofloxacin with a beta-actam antibiotic should be considered an important therapeutic option in hospitalized febrile neutropenic patients who have not received a quinolone for prevention of infections and in settings in which quinolone resistance is not common.

A pilot study of prophylactic ciprofloxacin during delayed intensification in children with acute lymphoblastic leukemia

BACKGROUND

We hypothesized that prophylactic administration of an appropriate antibiotic following each delayed intensification (DI) in children with acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) would reduce the episodes of fever and bacteremia associated with neutropenia, and hence reduce both the rate and duration of hospitalization.

PROCEDURE

All patients in the study were treated according to a modified Medical Research Council United Kingdom ALL XI (MRC UKALL XI) protocol utilizing three DI courses. Between June and December 2000 patients received prophylactic ciprofloxacin following DI courses. The rates of hospitalization and bacteremias were compared to ALL patients who had received between one and three DI courses prior to June 2000.

RESULTS

There were 69 patients who received a total of 194 DIs (controls 130; study group 64). The rate of hospitalization was 90% in the controls and 58% in the study group (P < 0.001). The median hospital stay was 10.1 days for controls and 6.0 for the study group (P < 0.001). Intensive care unit admissions were reduced from 12 to 1.5% (P = 0.02). The overall rate of proven bacteremia was reduced from 22 to 9% (P = 0.028). There were no Gram-negative bacteremias in the study group compared to 10 (7.7%) in the controls (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Compared to historical controls, patients in this study receiving prophylactic ciprofloxacin had a reduced rate and duration of hospitalization and incidence of Gram-negative bacteremia.

Inpatient versus outpatient management of low-risk pediatric febrile neutropenia: measuring parents' and healthcare professionals' preferences

PURPOSE

Our primary objective was to describe and compare parents' and healthcare professionals' strength of preference scores for outpatient oral antibiotic relative to inpatient parenteral antibiotic treatment for low-risk febrile neutropenic children. Our secondary objective was to identify predictors of strength of preference for oral outpatient treatment.

METHODS

Respondents were parents of children receiving cancer chemotherapy, and pediatric oncology healthcare professionals. First, the inpatient and outpatient options were described, and the respondent indicated their initially preferred option. The respondent next ranked how important seven factors (including "fear/anxiety" and "comfort") were in making their initial choice. The threshold technique was then used to elicit the respondent's strength of preference score for oral outpatient, relative to parenteral inpatient management.

RESULTS

There were 75 parent and 42 healthcare-professional respondents. There was no significant difference (P =.08) in the proportions of parents (40 of 75; 53%) and healthcare professionals (30 of 42; 71%) who initially would choose outpatient management. For parents, stronger preference for oral outpatient therapy was associated with higher anticipated quality of life for the parent and child at home relative to hospital, lower importance rank for "fear/anxiety," and higher importance rank for "comfort." Conversely, for professionals, only lower importance rank for "fear/anxiety" was associated with higher strength of preference scores for outpatient oral antibiotic management.

CONCLUSION

Only 53% of parents would choose outpatient oral antibiotic management for low-risk febrile neutropenia. Predictors of strength of preference scores for outpatient oral antibiotic relative to inpatient parenteral antibiotic treatment differed between parent and professional respondents.

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.

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.

[High and low-risk febrile neutropenic patients]

IDENTIFICATION OF LOW-RISK PATIENTS: These patients exhibit a low probability of dying (risk equal or lesser than 1%) and of developing major complications (risk to the order of 5%). A clinical model developed by Talcott et al. considers at low risk patients at home when the fever starts, without severe co-morbidity and in whom the neoplasia is under control. A prognostic score was established by the MASCC (Multinational Association for Supportive Care in Cancer); it is based on objectively weighted and selected variables. In comparison, the Talcott's classification appears more restrictive (2.5-fold less patients at low risk) but also that it supplies greater safety. IDENTIFICATION OF HIGH-RISK PATIENTS: All the severity scores used in intensive care have their limits. However, the repeated calculation of severity scores (at 48 and 72 hours) might lead to an improvement in their predictive value. The number of organ dysfunction could also be used because the latter provides supplementary clinical information and hence the development of organ dysfunction scores over the past few Years. For febrile neutropenic patients other than in intensive care, the interest of the severity scores and organ dysfunction scores appears limited.

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.

Ciprofloxacin in treatment of fever and neutropenia in pediatric cancer patients

This article reviews clinical trials of outpatient management of fever and neutropenia in pediatric cancer patients. The syndrome of fever and neutropenia is discussed, and strategies of identifying patients at low risk for complex or fatal infections are described. A number of clinical trials in a wide range of clinical settings and countries have demonstrated that low risk pediatric cancer patients with fever and neutropenia can be prospectively identified and safely treated as outpatients. In addition outpatient management has been shown to be less costly than conventional intravenous therapy in hospitalized patients. Oral fluoroquinolones, including ciprofloxacin, have been used as a component of therapy in several trials because of their ease of administration and their activity against the majority of pathogenic bacteria causing illness in this group. The article also discusses the role of antibiotic prophylaxis of fever and neutropenia in certain high risk settings, such as hematopoietic stem cell transplantation. In selected high risk patients, prophylactic use of limited spectrum fluoroquinolones such as ciprofloxacin may reduce the incidence of Gram-negative bacteremias. Use of fluoroquinolone therapy as prophylaxis, however, is controversial because of concerns about an emergence of resistant organisms. Prudent use of fluoroquinolones as therapy and prophylaxis is essential to prolonging the benefits of this class of compounds.

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.

Treatment of febrile neutropenia: what is new?

PURPOSE OF THE REVIEW

To identify the more recent challenges in the treatment of patients with febrile neutropenia following antineoplastic chemotherapy or bone marrow transplant published in the English language in the period late 2000-early 2002 regarding: changes in etiology of bacteremia in neutropenic patients; new options for initial empirical antibacterial therapy; factors associated with the risk of developing infection in cancer patients; prediction of prognosis in febrile neutropenia; oral therapy; need for a specific anti-Gram-positive coverage in persistently febrile and neutropenic patients.

RECENT FINDINGS

Findings may be summarized according with the identified topics as follows: many centers are reporting an increase in the incidence of Gram-negative bacteremias; piperacillin-tazobactam could be safely administered as monotherapy of febrile neutropenia; congenital factors and intensity of chemotherapy and other medical interventions, such as antifungal prophylaxis, are recognized as of increasing importance in the determination of infectious risk; it is now possible to identify patients with a good prognosis (low risk) by means of validated scoring systems; oral therapy is feasible in low risk patients; the empirical addition of a glycopeptide in persistently febrile neutropenic patients is not indicated.

SUMMARY

Many of the identified points may have a great impact in the daily management of febrile granulocytopenic patients. However, all recent epidemiological and therapeutical studies underline the absoloute need for the knowledge of the pattern of infecting organisms in each center.

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.

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.

Paediatric oncology in Argentina: medical and ethical issues

The process of globalisation is affecting health and health care in Argentina, as it is in many other countries. The full extent of this effect is still unclear, but winners and losers in the world economy are emerging--not only different countries, but also sectors or populations within those countries. There are serious inequalities in health-care provision in Argentina, so that not all children with cancer receive the best possible therapy. What happens to those children who don't? How do staff feel when they have to turn away new patients? Only by asking these questions and examining and understanding the answers can we begin the process of improving the status of paediatric oncology in Argentina.