Oral versus intravenous antibiotic treatment for febrile neutropenia in cancer patients

''Myth Busting in Infectious Diseases'': A Comprehensive Review

Antibiotics have played a pivotal role in modern medicine, drastically reducing mortality rates associated with bacterial infections. Despite their significant contributions, the emergence of antibiotic resistance has become a formidable challenge, necessitating a re-evaluation of antibiotic use practices. The widespread belief in clinical practice that bactericidal antibiotics are inherently superior to bacteriostatic ones lacks consistent support from evidence in randomized controlled trials (RCTs). With the latest evidence, certain infections have demonstrated equal or even superior efficacy with bacteriostatic agents. Furthermore, within clinical practice, there is a tendency to indiscriminately order urine cultures for febrile patients, even in cases where alternative etiologies might be present. Consequently, upon obtaining a positive urine culture result, patients often receive antimicrobial prescriptions despite the absence of clinical indications warranting such treatment. Furthermore, it is a prevailing notion among physicians that extended durations of antibiotic therapy confer potential benefits and mitigate the emergence of antimicrobial resistance. Contrary to this belief, empirical evidence refutes such assertions. This article aims to address common myths and misconceptions within the field of infectious diseases.

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.

Classification of Chemotherapy-Induced Febrile Neutropenic Episodes Into One of the Three Febrile Neutropenic Syndromes

Introduction Febrile neutropenia is a commonly encountered medical emergency in patients undergoing cancer treatment and can delay and modify the course of treatment and even lead to dire outcomes, including death. The cause of fever in a post-chemotherapy-induced neutropenic patient can be confusing to treating physicians. A review of the literature demonstrated that blood culture results could determine the cause of febrile neutropenia in only approximately 10% to 25% of patients. The objective of our study was to measure the incidence of positive blood cultures, urine cultures, and other body fluid cultures resulting in chemotherapy-induced neutropenia and further classify fever episodes into three neutropenic fever syndromes, such as microbiologically documented, clinically suspected, or unknown causes of fever, respectively. Methods We conducted a prospective observational study on 399 chemotherapy-induced neutropenic fever episodes with the aim of classifying them into one of the three neutropenic syndromes. We tried to document the cause of the fever in these patients. We also noted the type of cancer treatment regimen they were on and correlated their clinical profile with their body fluid cultures, including blood cultures, urine cultures, and other body fluid cultures. We then categorized each fever episode into one of three neutropenic syndromes. Results We studied 399 febrile neutropenic episodes. We were able to microbiologically document the cause of fever in 39% of the cases, and we obtained growth in 51 out of 399 blood cultures (13%), which was comparable to the available literature, and urine culture showed growth in 62 out of 399 cultures (16%), while other body cultures such as pus culture, bile culture, and bronchioalveolar lavage cultures collectively showed growth in 42 out of 399 episodes (10%). The most common bacteria isolated in both blood and urine cultures were Escherichia coli. Cumulatively, including blood, urine, and body fluid cultures, we were able to classify 39% (155 out of 399 cases) of febrile neutropenic episodes as microbiologically documented. The cause of fever was clinically suspected by means of careful history taking and an extensive physical examination in 31% (125 out of 399) without growth evidence in blood cultures, urine cultures, or any other body fluid culture. The cause of fever remained unknown in 119 cases (30%) of patients and was classified under the unknown cause of fever. Conclusions We conclude by stating that the study of fever in a neutropenic patient should include a thorough history and clinical evaluation of blood, urine, and other body fluid cultures instead of solely relying on blood culture results. We recommend further classifying patients into one of the three neutropenic fever syndromes, such as those that are microbiologically documented, clinically suspected, or unknown. Our blood cultures were able to give us a 13% positivity rate, whereas microbiologically, we were able to isolate an organism likely causing fever in 39% of patients. The cause of fever was suspected clinically in 31% of patients, but we were unsuccessful in microbiologically documenting any culture growth in blood, urine, or any other body fluid culture. The cause of fever remained a mystery and unknown to us without any microbiological or clinical cues in 119 cases (30%) of febrile neutropenic episodes.

Do we overtreat patients with presumed neutropenic sepsis?

PURPOSE

Many aspects of the management of neutropenic sepsis remain controversial. These include the choice of empiric antibiotic, the duration of antibiotic therapy and the possibility that very low-risk cases may be managed safely with oral rather than intravenous therapy.

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study conducted in a district general hospital serving a population of 148 000 in south west Scotland.

RESULTS

Fifty one patients with cancer, whose neutrophil count was less than 1.0×10⁹/L within 21 days of their last chemotherapy, were admitted as a medical emergency in 2019. All received antibiotic because of presumed neutropenic sepsis. A total of 4 patients had positive blood cultures (group 1), 12 patients had a clinical focus of infection but no clear pathogen (group 2), while 35 patients had neither (group 3). Group 3 patients were more likely to have a solid tumour, less likely to be febrile, had shorter time to neutrophil recovery and higher Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer scores, though not all of these comparisons achieved statistical significance. Median intravenous plus oral antibiotic duration in group 3 patients was 9 days with median hospital stay of 7 days, raising the possibility of overtreatment. Retrospectively, 23 (66%) group 3 patients had MASSC Risk Index greater than 21 suggesting they were at low risk of complications.

CONCLUSIONS

It seems likely that many low-risk neutropenic cancer patients with solid tumours could be managed as effectively and as safely with shorter courses of antibiotic, with oral rather than intravenous antibiotic, as outpatients rather than inpatients and with an overall positive impact on antimicrobial stewardship.

Evaluation of the clinical Index of Stable febrile neutropenia risk stratification system for management of febrile neutropenia in gynecologic oncology patients

OBJECTIVE

Scoring systems have been developed to identify low risk patients with febrile neutropenia (FN) who may be candidates for outpatient management. We sought to validate the predictive accuracy of the Clinical Index of Stable Febrile Neutropenia (CISNE) score alone and in conjunction with alternative scoring systems for risk of complications among gynecologic oncology patients.

METHODS

We conducted a single institution retrospective cohort study of patients admitted to an academic gynecologic oncology service for FN. We examined the performance characteristics (sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive value) of three scoring systems (Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer (MASCC), CISNE cut-off 1 (Low risk = 0), CISNE cut-off 2 (Low risk = <3)), and the combination of MASCC and CISNE to predict complications: inpatient death, ICU admission, hypotension, respiratory/renal failure, mental status change, cardiac failure, bleeding, and arrhythmia.

RESULTS

Fifty patients were identified for study inclusion. No low-risk CISNE patients died during hospitalization. Fewer CISNE low-risk patients experienced complications compared to high-risk patients, regardless of cut-off. Sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values of the scoring systems were: CISNE 1-37.1%, 86.7%, 86.7%, 37.1%; CISNE 2-85.7%, 46.7%, 78.9%, 58.3%; MASCC-82.9%, 66.7%, 85.3%, 62.5%; MASCC + CISNE 1-37.1%, 93.3%, 92.9%, 38.9%; MASCC + CISNE 2-80%, 73.3%, 87.5%, 61.1%.

CONCLUSIONS

The CISNE scoring system is an appropriate tool for the identification of patients with gynecologic cancers and FN who may benefit from close outpatient management. CISNE cut-off 2 performed comparably to the MASCC, but CISNE cut-off 1 had a higher specificity and positive predictive value.

Optimising Antimicrobial Selection and Duration in the Treatment of Febrile Neutropenia in Children

Febrile neutropenia (FN) is a frequent complication of cancer treatment in children. Owing to the potential for overwhelming bacterial sepsis, the recognition and management of FN requires rapid implementation of evidenced-based management protocols. Treatment paradigms have progressed from hospitalisation with broad spectrum antibiotics for all patients, through to risk adapted approaches to management. Such risk adapted approaches aim to provide safe care through incorporating antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) principles such as implementation of comprehensive clinical pathways incorporating de-escalation strategies with the imperative to reduce hospital stay and antibiotic exposure where possible in order to improve patient experience, reduce costs and diminish the risk of nosocomial infection. This review summarises the principles of risk stratification in FN, the current key considerations for optimising empiric antimicrobial selection including knowledge of antimicrobial resistance patterns and emerging technologies for rapid diagnosis of specific infections and summarises existing evidence on time to treatment, investigations required and duration of treatment. To aid treating physicians we suggest the key features based on current evidence that should be part of any FN management guideline and highlight areas for future research. The focus is on treatment of bacterial infections although fungal and viral infections are also important in this patient group.

Implementation of pharmacist-managed early switch from intravenous to oral therapy using electronic identification at a tertiary academic hospital

Overutilization of intravenous (IV) medications can result in drug shortages, which is one of the major health care crisis, in addition to increasing costs, length of hospital stays (LOS) and the associated complications. We hypothesized that IV therapy was overused at our hospital where oral (PO) was applicable, and that the implementation of IV-PO protocol could result in a cost-effective practice. Hence, we aimed at assessing impact and outcomes of implementing such a protocol. A single center, prospective quasi-interventional study conducted at tertiary academic hospital. A protocol was implemented targeting 17 medications, with educational sessions to medical staff during a 5-month phase. IV orders of 48 h or more, among adult patients at medical or surgical wards with no contraindication to PO route were eligible. Once eligible, pharmacists send interventions using hospital's computerized order entry system, and physicians' responses were monitored on daily basis. Efficacy was estimated by percentage of switch recommendations that resulted in effective switch to PO medication. Cost-minimization analysis was used for course cost between the control phase and intervention phase. Length of hospital stay (LOS), readmissions within 90 days and in-hospital mortality were analyzed as secondary outcomes. During intervention phase, 781 patients had at least one IV order switched to PO. Gastric acid-reducing agents (GARAs) accounted for the most IV prescriptions (50.4%), followed by antibiotics (39.6%). Pharmacists carried out 2677 interventions to which switch recommendations were issued in 1185 (44.3%). Primary switch recommendations (N = 677) led to effective switch in 60.7% cases. These included per protocol switch (8.9%), switch to another PO (2.5%), spontaneous switch by physician (17.6%) and IV discontinuation (31.8%). The overall efficacy was estimated as 62.8%. The intervention was associated with reduced IV consumption from 4,574-18,597 vials in control phase to 3,654-15,546 vials in intervention phase, which resulted in overall cost saving of 50,960.8 SAR ($13,589.5), with an average monthly cost saving of 10,192.2 SAR ($2,717.9). Pharmacist-managed early switch from IV-PO therapy, with physicians' education, showed significant reduction in IV medication use in our hospital. By reducing unnecessary IV use, this strategy enabled considerable cost savings, besides the potential advantages of convenience and safety.

National cost savings from an ambulatory program for low-risk febrile neutropenia patients in Australia

Objective The management of low-risk febrile neutropenia (FN) patients through ambulatory programs has demonstrated comparative safety and effectiveness to in-patient strategies. However, there is limited evidence of benefits of changing practice, particularly on a national scale. The aim of this study was to estimate costs and benefits of the program over a 10-year time horizon. Methods A comparative cost analysis from a health system perspective was performed, comparing costs and length of stay (LOS) of patients enrolled in an ambulatory program to a historical cohort who did not receive the program. Generalised linear models were used for analysis and bootstrapped to account for uncertainty. National data of identified FN admissions were used to inform future projections, with varying proportions of low-risk patients and eligibility for the ambulatory program. Results The overall LOS for patients in ambulatory cohort was 1.9 days shorter (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.0-2.8 days), a 50% reduction in in-patient bed-days. Although patients in the ambulatory cohort incurred additional costs due to care received outside hospital (mean (± s.d.) A$828.03 ± 124.30), the mean total cost incurred remained substantially lower than that of the historical cohort (A$2979 lower; 95% CI A$772-5391). On a national scale, this could translate into A$62.7 million in costs averted and 41347 bed-days saved over 10 years if the low-risk prediction rate and eligibility for ambulatory programs remained at currently observed rates. Conclusions The wider implementation of a safe and effective ambulatory program to manage low-risk FN patients can result in significant return-on-investment for the healthcare system by eliminating avoidable costs due to unnecessary lengthy hospital admissions. What is known about the topic? There is strong evidence demonstrating out-patient treatment of low-risk FN patients to be an effective and cost-effective strategy compared with continued in-patient hospitalisation. What does this paper add? This study demonstrates the sustainability of the ambulatory program in ensuring cost benefits and in-patient beds through real-life implementation data. It also provides evidence of the substantial cost and bed-days potentially averted when the cost savings and difference in LOS are estimated on a national scale over a 10-year time horizon. What are the implications for practitioners? The management of low-risk FN patients through ambulatory or out-patient programs is a safe and effective approach. There is strong evidence demonstrating the likely cost savings and considerable bed-days saved, which can be reallocated to meet other medical demands.

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.

How to Manage Febrile Neutropenia During the COVID Pandemic?

This letter to the editor reflects on the recently published article about management of cancer patients during the COVID-19 pandemic by Al-Shamsi et al., specifically as regards the management of febrile neutropenia in the context of the pandemic.

The cost-effectiveness of empirical antibiotic treatments for high-risk febrile neutropenic patients: A decision analytic model

PURPOSE

Febrile neutropenia has a significant clinical and economic impact on cancer patients. This study evaluates the cost-effectiveness of different current empiric antibiotic treatments.

METHODS

A decision analytic model was constructed to compare the use of cefepime, meropenem, imipenem/cilastatin, and piperacillin/tazobactam for treatment of high-risk patients. The analysis was performed from the perspective of U.S.-based hospitals. The time horizon was defined to be a single febrile neutropenia episode. Cost-effectiveness was determined by calculating costs and deaths averted. Cost-effectiveness acceptability curves for various willingness-to-pay thresholds (WTP), were used to address the uncertainty in cost-effectiveness.

RESULTS

The base-case analysis results showed that treatments were equally effective but differed mainly in their cost. In increasing order: treatment with imipenem/cilastatin cost $52,647, cefepime $57,270, piperacillin/tazobactam $57,277, and meropenem $63,778. In the probabilistic analysis, mean costs were $52,554 (CI: $52,242-$52,866) for imipenem/cilastatin, $57,272 (CI: $56,951-$57,593) for cefepime, $57,294 (CI: $56,978-$57,611) for piperacillin/tazobactam, and $63,690 (CI: $63,370-$64,009) for meropenem. Furthermore, with a WTP set at $0 to $50,000, imipenem/cilastatin was cost-effective in 66.2% to 66.3% of simulations compared to all other high-risk options.

DISCUSSION

Imipenem/cilastatin is a cost-effective strategy and results in considerable health care cost-savings at various WTP thresholds. Cost-effectiveness analyses can be used to differentiate the treatments of febrile neutropenia in high-risk patients.

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.

Early discontinuation of antibiotics for febrile neutropenia versus continuation until neutropenia resolution in people with cancer

BACKGROUND

People with cancer with febrile neutropenia are at risk of severe infections and mortality and are thus treated empirically with broad-spectrum antibiotic therapy. However, the recommended duration of antibiotic therapy differs across guidelines.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the safety of protocol-guided discontinuation of antibiotics regardless of neutrophil count, compared to continuation of antibiotics until neutropenia resolution in people with cancer with fever and neutropenia, in terms of mortality and morbidity. To assess the emergence of resistant bacteria in people with cancer treated with short courses of antibiotic therapy compared with people with cancer treated until resolution of neutropenia.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2018, Issue 10) in the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, Embase, and LILACS up to 1 October 2018. We searched the metaRegister of Controlled Trials and the US National Institutes of Health Ongoing Trials Register ClinicalTrials.gov for ongoing and unpublished trials. We reviewed the references of all identified studies for additional trials and handsearched conference proceedings of international infectious diseases and oncology and haematology conferences.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared a short antibiotic therapy course in which discontinuation of antibiotics was guided by protocols regardless of the neutrophil count to a long course in which antibiotics were continued until neutropenia resolution in people with cancer with febrile neutropenia. The primary outcome was 30-day or end of follow-up all-cause mortality.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently reviewed all studies for eligibility, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias for all included trials. We calculated risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) whenever possible. For dichotomous outcomes with zero events in both arms of the trials, we conducted meta-analysis of risk differences (RDs) as well. For continuous outcomes, we extracted means with standard deviations (SD) from the studies and computed mean difference (MD) and 95% CI. If no substantial clinical heterogeneity was found, trials were pooled using the Mantel-Haenszel fixed-effect model.

MAIN RESULTS

We included eight RCTs comprising a total of 662 distinct febrile neutropenia episodes. The studies included adults and children, and had variable design and criteria for discontinuation of antibiotics in both study arms. All included studies but two were performed before the year 2000. All studies included people with cancer with fever of unknown origin and excluded people with microbiological documented infections.We found no significant difference between the short-antibiotic therapy arm and the long-antibiotic therapy arm for all-cause mortality (RR 1.38, 95% CI 0.73 to 2.62; RD 0.02, 95% CI -0.02 to 0.05; low-certainty evidence). We downgraded the certainty of the evidence to low due to imprecision and high risk of selection bias. The number of fever days was significantly lower for people in the short-antibiotic treatment arm compared to the long-antibiotic treatment arm (mean difference -0.64, 95% CI -0.96 to -0.32; I² = 30%). In all studies, total antibiotic days were fewer in the intervention arm by three to seven days compared to the long antibiotic therapy. We found no significant differences in the rates of clinical failure (RR 1.23, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.77; very low-certainty evidence). We downgraded the certainty of the evidence for clinical failure due to variable and inconsistent definitions of clinical failure across studies, possible selection bias, and wide confidence intervals. There was no significant difference in the incidence of bacteraemia occurring after randomisation (RR 1.56, 95% CI 0.91 to 2.66; very low-certainty evidence), while the incidence of any documented infections was significantly higher in the short-antibiotic therapy arm (RR 1.67, 95% CI 1.08 to 2.57). There was no significant difference in the incidence of invasive fungal infections (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.32 to 2.31) and development of antibiotic resistance (RR 1.49, 95% CI 0.62 to 3.61). The data on hospital stay were too sparse to permit any meaningful conclusions.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We could make no strong conclusions on the safety of antibiotic discontinuation before neutropenia resolution among people with cancer with febrile neutropenia based on the existing evidence and its low certainty. Results of microbiological outcomes favouring long antibiotic therapy may be misleading due to lower culture positivity rates under antibiotic therapy and not true differences in infection rates. Well-designed, adequately powered RCTs are required that address this issue in the era of rising antibiotic resistance.

Validation of the Clinical Index of Stable Febrile Neutropenia (CISNE) model in febrile neutropenia patients visiting the emergency department. Can it guide emergency physicians to a reasonable decision on outpatient vs. inpatient treatment?

Advances in oncology have enabled physicians to treat low-risk febrile neutropenia (FN) in outpatient settings. This study was aimed to explore the usefulness of the CISNE model and identify better triage in the emergency setting. This is a retrospective cohort study on 400 adult FN patients presenting to the Emergency Department of National Cancer Center, Korea from January 2010 to December 2016. All had been treated with cytotoxic chemotherapy for solid tumors in the previous 30 days. The primary outcome was the frequency of any serious complications during the duration of illness. Apparently stable patients numbered 299 (74.8%) of 400, and the remainder comprised clinically unstable patients. The stable patients fell into three cohorts according to the risk scores: CISNE I (low risk), 56 patients (18.7%); CISNE II (intermediate), 124 (41.5%) and CISNE III (high), 119 (39.8%). The primary outcome occurred in 10.7%, 19.4% and 33.6%, respectively, according to the cohort. Compared with the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer Risk Index Score (MASCC RIS), CISNE I stratum had significantly lower sensitivity (0.22 vs. 0.95 of MASCC low risk) but higher specificity (0.91 vs. 0.17) to predict zero occurrence of the primary outcome. The CISNE model was useful for identifying low-risk FN patients for outpatient treatment. The combination of the CISNE and MASCC RIS may help emergency physicians cope with FN more confidently.

A cohort study on protocol-based nurse-led out-patient management of post-chemotherapy low-risk febrile neutropenia

PURPOSE

International guidelines adopt risk stratification approach to manage patients with low-risk febrile neutropenia patients. We developed this out-patient program using shared-care model with professional input and patient empowerment, so as to reduce patients' psychological burden from hospitalization and to improve the cost-effectiveness of management.

METHOD

This is a prospective cohort study to compare the efficacy and safeness of the out-patient program when compared with traditional in-patient care. Patients with solid tumors, developed febrile neutropenia with Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer score of at least 21, and good performance status were included. After initial assessment and the first dose of oral antibiotics, patients were observed in the ambulatory center. Stable patients were discharged home after 4 h of observation and nurse counseling. Patients' condition and clinical progress were regularly reviewed by specialist nurses within the following week by telephone and nurse clinic follow-up. The primary objective of the study is success rate, which defined as the resolution of fever and infection, without hospitalization or any change in antibiotics.

RESULTS

From September 2014 to December 2016, a total of 38 patients were enrolled. Majority were female with breast cancer (97%). Two patients required hospitalization due to persistent fever. The success rate of the out-patient program was not significantly different from the historical in-patient cohort (94.9 versus 97.4%, p = 0.053). No mortality was observed. Patients' compliance to the program was 100%, to telephone follow-up, nurse clinic visits, and daily temperature record.

CONCLUSION

Out-patient management of patients with low-risk febrile neutropenia is effective and safe through implementation of a structured protocol with joint inputs and engagement from clinicians, oncology nurses, and patients.

Outpatient Parenteral Antimicrobial Therapy in Pediatric Medicaid Enrollees

BACKGROUND

Outpatient parenteral antimicrobial therapy (OPAT) is overused in cases where highly bioavailable oral alternatives would be equally effective. However, the scope of OPAT use for children nationwide is poorly understood. Our objective was to characterize OPAT use and clinical outcomes for a large population of pediatric Medicaid enrollees treated with OPAT.

METHODS

We analyzed the Truven MarketScan Medicaid claims database between 2009 and 2012. An OPAT episode was identified by capturing children with claims data indicating home infusion therapy for an intravenous antimicrobial. We characterized OPAT use by describing patient demographics, diagnoses, and antimicrobials prescribed. We categorized an antimicrobial as highly bioavailable if ≥80% systemic exposure was expected from the peroral dose. We also determined the percentage of OPAT recipients in whom a follow-up healthcare encounter occurred during the OPAT episode in either the emergency department or as a hospital admission. We reviewed the primary diagnoses associated with these healthcare encounters to determine whether it was related to OPAT.

RESULTS

We identified 3433 OPAT episodes in 2687 patients. A total of 4774 antimicrobials were prescribed during these episodes. Ceftriaxone and vancomycin were the most commonly prescribed antimicrobials. Highly bioavailable antimicrobials accounted for 34% of antimicrobials used for OPAT. An emergency department visit or hospital admission occurred during 38% of OPAT episodes, among which 61% were OPAT-related.

CONCLUSIONS

The high rate of medical encounters associated with OPAT in this cohort and the common prescribing of highly bioavailable antimicrobials underscore the opportunities for antimicrobial stewardship of pediatric OPAT.

A nomogram for predicting complications in patients with solid tumours and seemingly stable febrile neutropenia

BACKGROUND

We sought to develop and externally validate a nomogram and web-based calculator to individually predict the development of serious complications in seemingly stable adult patients with solid tumours and episodes of febrile neutropenia (FN).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

The data from the FINITE study (n=1133) and University of Salamanca Hospital (USH) FN registry (n=296) were used to develop and validate this tool. The main eligibility criterion was the presence of apparent clinical stability, defined as events without acute organ dysfunction, abnormal vital signs, or major infections. Discriminatory ability was measured as the concordance index and stratification into risk groups.

RESULTS

The rate of infection-related complications in the FINITE and USH series was 13.4% and 18.6%, respectively. The nomogram used the following covariates: Eastern Cooperative Group (ECOG) Performance Status ⩾2, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, chronic cardiovascular disease, mucositis of grade ⩾2 (National Cancer Institute Common Toxicity Criteria), monocytes <200/mm(3), and stress-induced hyperglycaemia. The nomogram predictions appeared to be well calibrated in both data sets (Hosmer-Lemeshow test, P>0.1). The concordance index was 0.855 and 0.831 in each series. Risk group stratification revealed a significant distinction in the proportion of complications. With a ⩾116-point cutoff, the nomogram yielded the following prognostic indices in the USH registry validation series: 66% sensitivity, 83% specificity, 3.88 positive likelihood ratio, 48% positive predictive value, and 91% negative predictive value.

CONCLUSIONS

We have developed and externally validated a nomogram and web calculator to predict serious complications that can potentially impact decision-making in patients with seemingly stable FN.

Biomarker candidates for the detection of an infectious etiology of febrile neutropenia

PURPOSE

Infections and subsequent septicemia are major complications in neutropenic patients with hematological malignancies. Here, we identify biomarker candidates for the early detection of an infectious origin, and monitoring of febrile neutropenia (FN).

METHODS

Proteome, metabolome, and conventional biomarkers from 20 patients with febrile neutropenia without proven infection (FNPI) were compared to 28 patients with proven infection, including 17 patients with bacteremia.

RESULTS

Three peptides (mass to charge ratio 1017.4-1057.3; p-values 0.011-0.024), six proteins (mass to charge ratio 6881-17,215; p-values 0.002-0.004), and six phosphatidylcholines (p-values 0.007-0.037) were identified that differed in FNPI patients compared to patients with infection or bacteremia. Seven of these marker candidates discriminated FNPI from infection at fever onset with higher sensitivity and specificity (ROC-AUC 0.688-0.824) than conventional biomarkers i.e., procalcitonin, C-reactive protein, or interleukin-6 (ROC-AUC 0.535-0.672). In a post hoc analysis, monitoring the time course of four lysophosphatidylcholines, threonine, and tryptophan allowed for discrimination of patients with or without resolution of FN (ROC-AUC 0.648-0.919) with higher accuracy compared to conventional markers (ROC-AUC 0.514-0.871).

CONCLUSIONS

Twenty-one promising biomarker candidates for the early detection of an infectious origin or for monitoring the course of FN were found which might overcome known shortcomings of conventional markers.

Hospital discharges for fever and neutropenia in pediatric cancer patients: United States, 2009

Background

Fever and neutropenia (FN) is a common complication of pediatric cancer treatment, but hospital utilization patterns for this condition are not well described.

Methods

Data were analyzed from the Kids’ Inpatient Database (KID), an all-payer US hospital database, for 2009. Pediatric FN patients were identified using: age ≤19 years, urgent or emergent admit type, non-transferred, and a combination of ICD-9-CM codes for fever and neutropenia. Sampling weights were used to permit national inferences.

Results

Pediatric cancer patients accounted for 1.5 % of pediatric hospital discharges in 2009 (n = 110,967), with 10.1 % of cancer-related discharges meeting FN criteria (n = 11,261). Two-fifths of FN discharges had a “short length of stay” (SLOS) of ≤3 days, which accounted for approximately $65.5 million in hospital charges. Upper respiratory infection (6.0 %) and acute otitis media (AOM) (3.7 %) were the most common infections associated with SLOS. Factors significantly associated with SLOS included living in the Midwest region (OR = 1.65, 1.22–2.24) or West region (OR 1.54, 1.11–2.14) versus Northeast, having a diagnosis of AOM (OR = 1.39, 1.03–1.87) or viral infection (OR = 1.63, 1.18–2.25) versus those without those comorbidities, and having a soft tissue sarcoma (OR = 1.47, 1.05–2.04), Hodgkin lymphoma (OR = 2.33, 1.62–3.35), or an ovarian/testicular tumor (OR = 1.76, 1.05–2.95) compared with patients without these diagnoses.

Conclusion

FN represents a common precipitant for hospitalizations among pediatric cancer patients. SLOS admissions are rarely associated with serious infections, but contribute substantially to the burden of hospitalization for pediatric FN.

An unsupported preference for intravenous antibiotics

Philip Bejon and colleagues reflect on the widespread belief in the superiority of intravenous antibiotics.

Management of breast cancer patients with chemotherapy-induced neutropenia or febrile neutropenia

Chemotherapy-induced neutropenia (CIN) is a common toxicity caused by the administration of anticancer drugs. This side effect is associated with life-threatening infections and may alter the chemotherapy schedule, thus impacting on early and long-term outcomes. Elderly breast cancer patients with impaired health status or advanced disease as well as patients undergoing dose-dense anthracycline/taxane- or docetaxel-based regimens have the highest risk of CIN. A careful assessment of the baseline risk for CIN allows the selection of patients who need primary prophylaxis with granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) and/or antimicrobial agents. Neutropenic cancer patients may develop febrile neutropenia and CIN-related severe medical complications. Specific risk assessment scores, along with comprehensive clinical evaluation, are able to define a group of febrile patients with low risk for complications who can be safely treated as outpatients. Conversely, patients with higher risk of severe complications should be hospitalized and should receive intravenous antibiotic therapy with or without G-CSF.

Protocol for a systematic review of reductions in therapy for children with low-risk febrile neutropenia

BACKGROUND

Febrile neutropenia is a common complication of therapy in children with cancer. Some patients are at low risk of complications, and research has considered reduction in therapy for these patients. A previous systematic review broadly considered whether outpatient treatment and oral antibiotics were safe in this context and concluded that this was likely to be the case. Since that review, there has been further research in this area. Therefore, we aim to provide a more robust answer to these questions and to additionally explore whether the exact timing of discharge, including entirely outpatient treatment, has an impact on outcomes.

METHODS/DESIGN

The search will cover MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, EMBASE, CDSR, CENTRAL, LILACS, HTA and DARE. A full search strategy is provided. Key conference proceedings and reference lists of included papers will be hand searched. Prominent authors/clinicians in the field will be contacted. We will include randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials along with prospective single-arm studies that examine the location of therapy and/or the route of administration of antibiotics in children or young adults (aged less than 18 years) who attend paediatric services with fever and neutropenia due to treatment for cancer and are assessed to be at low risk of medical complications. Studies will be screened and data extracted by one researcher and independently checked by a second. All studies will be critically appraised using tools appropriate to the study design. Data from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) will be combined to provide comparative estimates of treatment failure, safety and adequacy. Information from quasi-randomised trials and single-arm studies will provide further data on the safety and adequacy of regimes. Random effects meta-analysis will be used to combine studies. A detailed analysis plan, including assessment of heterogeneity and publication bias, is provided.

DISCUSSION

This study will aim to specifically define the features of a low-risk strategy that will maintain levels of safety and adequacy equivalent to those of traditional treatments. This will both inform the development of services and provide patients and families with data to help them make an informed decision about care.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42014005817.