Clinical practice patterns of managing low-risk adult febrile neutropenia during cancer chemotherapy in the USA

Cost-effectiveness of home-based care of febrile neutropenia in children with cancer

INTRODUCTION

Home-based treatment of febrile neutropenia (FN) in children with cancer with oral or intravenous antibiotics is safe and effective. There are limited data on the economic impact of this model of care. We evaluated the cost-effectiveness of implementing an FN programme, incorporating home-based intravenous antibiotics for carefully selected patients, in a tertiary paediatric hospital.

METHODS

A decision analytic model was constructed to compare costs and outcomes of the home-based FN programme, with usual in-hospital treatment with intravenous antibiotics. The programme included a clinical decision rule to stratify patients by risk for severe infection and home-based eligibility criteria using disease, chemotherapy and patient-level factors. Health outcomes (quality of life) and probabilities of FN risk classification and home-based eligibility were based on prospectively collected data between 2017 and 2019. Patient-level costs were extracted from hospital administrative records. Cost-effectiveness was expressed as the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY).

FINDINGS

The mean health care cost of home-based FN treatment in low-risk patients was Australian dollars (A$) 7765 per patient compared to A$20,396 for in-hospital treatment (mean difference A$12,632 [95% CI: 12,496-12,767]). Overall, the home-based FN programme was the dominant strategy, being more effective (0.0011 QALY [95% CI: 0.0011-0.0012]) and less costly. Results of the model were most sensitive to proportion of children eligible for home-based care programme.

CONCLUSION

Compared to in-hospital FN care, the home-based FN programme is cost-effective, with savings arising from cheaper cost of caring for children at home. These savings could increase as more patients eligible for home-based care are included in the programme.

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.

Efficacy of oral levofloxacin monotherapy against low-risk FN in patients with malignant lymphoma who received chemotherapy using the CHOP regimen

The safety and feasibility of oral fluoroquinolone monotherapy in patients with low-risk febrile neutropenia (FN) were demonstrated in recent studies. Levofloxacin (LVFX) is a commonly prescribed antibiotic; however, evidence for its efficacy against FN is limited. Therefore, in this study, we retrospectively investigated the efficacy of LVFX against low-risk FN in patients with malignant lymphoma at our institution. Treatment success was defined as recovery from fever and neutropenia without alteration of the initial regimen. We recruited 29 patients between January 2013 and December 2018. The median age of the cohort was 64 (range: 21–87) years; 13 (44.8%) were aged over 65 years. In total, 22 patients had diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL). Therapy was successful in 24 (82.8%) patients, whereas 5 had treatment failure requiring a change from LVFX to intravenous broad-spectrum antibacterial agents. No deaths related to FN were observed. Two patients required FN-related chemotherapy dose reduction in subsequent cycles. Although this cohort comprised many elderly patients, our study confirmed the efficacy of LVFX in patients with low-risk FN. This may improve the treatment of low-risk FN and malignant lymphoma.

Appropriateness of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor use in patients receiving chemotherapy by febrile neutropenia risk level

OBJECTIVE

Inappropriate granulocyte colony-stimulating factor use with myelosuppressive chemotherapy has been reported. Using the Oncology Services Comprehensive Electronic Records electronic medical record database, prophylactic granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (pegfilgrastim/filgrastim) use in cancer patients was assessed by febrile neutropenia risk level.

METHODS

Patients with nonmetastatic or metastatic breast, head/neck, colorectal, ovarian/gynecologic, lung cancer, or non-Hodgkin's lymphoma who received myelosuppressive chemotherapy from June 2013 to May 2014 were included. Prophylactic granulocyte colony-stimulating factor use with high-risk, intermediate-risk, and low-risk chemotherapy and distribution of National Comprehensive Cancer Network risk factors with intermediate-risk regimens were assessed.

RESULTS

Overall, 86,189 patients received ∼4.2 million chemotherapy cycles (high risk, 9%; intermediate risk, 48%; low risk, 43%). Prophylactic granulocyte colony-stimulating factor was given in 24% of cycles (high risk, 59%; intermediate risk, 29%; low risk, 11%). For nonmetastatic solid tumors, granulocyte colony-stimulating factor was given in 78% (high risk), 31% (intermediate risk), and 6% (low risk) of cycles. For metastatic solid tumors or non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, granulocyte colony-stimulating factor was given in 50% (high risk), 27% (intermediate risk), and 11% (low risk) of cycles. Among patients receiving intermediate-risk regimens with granulocyte colony-stimulating factor, febrile neutropenia risk factors were identified in 56% (95% confidence interval, 51.1-60.9%) of patients with nonmetastatic solid tumors (n = 400) and in 70% (64.5-73.5%) of patients with metastatic solid tumors or non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (n = 400).

CONCLUSION

Prophylactic granulocyte colony-stimulating factor use was appropriately highest for high-risk regimens and lowest for low-risk regimens yet still potentially underused in high risk regimens, overused in low-risk regimens, and not appropriately targeted in intermediate-risk regimens, indicating a need for further education on febrile neutropenia risk evaluation and appropriate granulocyte colony-stimulating factor use.

Challenges in rehabilitation of patients with nontraumatic spinal cord dysfunction due to tumors : A narrative review

The incidence of cancer-associated non-traumatic spinal cord dysfunction is rising due to population aging and better cancer treatment. The overall benefit of rehabilitation in specialized facilities for traumatic spinal cord dysfunction has been confirmed many times. Because of their fragility and multiple comorbidities cancer patients still face challenges to complete rehabilitation in the spinal rehabilitation facilities. In this narrative review we describe specific aspects, challenges in rehabilitation and opportunities to improve care. A literature search was performed in the PubMed database from 1 January 1978 to 30 November 2018. The focus was to find publications that discuss challenges and opportunities for rehabilitation of patients with non-traumatic spinal cord dysfunction due to a tumor. Most publications described the benefits of rehabilitation in specialized facilities. There were only few publications about survival and functional outcomes after rehabilitation for this patient population. Overall benefits including fewer complications associated with spinal cord dysfunction, less pain and depression, and better quality of life were shown. Within the past decades increasing number of publications revealed a growing interest for this group of patients. Despite major progress in cancer treatment, patients still have a limited vital prognosis and access to specialized rehabilitation units because of the concerns about the medical complexity. Patients with spinal cord tumors can benefit in areas of functionality, mood, quality of life, and survival from inpatient rehabilitation programs, in spite of the increased medical comorbidities.

Management of chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia in pediatric oncology patients: A North American survey of pediatric hematology/oncology and pediatric infectious disease physicians

BACKGROUND

Chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia (FN) is traditionally managed with hospital admission for parenteral antibiotics until neutropenia resolves. Recent studies have explored risk stratification and the safety of managing "low-risk" patients as outpatients. Few studies have directly assessed pediatric provider preferences for managing FN.

PROCEDURE

We conducted a survey of practicing US and Canadian pediatric hematology/oncology (PHO) and pediatric infectious disease (PID) physicians to assess their FN management preferences using case scenarios with varying risk profiles.

RESULTS

Twenty-one percent (n = 186) of PHO and 32% (n = 123) of PID physicians completed the survey. Overall, both groups of providers agreed regarding which patients with FN could be managed outpatient. For a child with acute lymphoblastic leukemia receiving maintenance chemotherapy with an absolute neutrophil count (ANC) of 400 cells/μl, 35% (n = 66) of PHO and 49% (n = 60) of PID physicians would consider outpatient management (P = 0.02). Of those physicians selecting inpatient management, 41% (n = 49) of PHO and 52% (n = 33) of PID physicians would be willing to discharge the patient without an increase in ANC, if afebrile with a negative blood culture (P = 0.16). For a similar patient with an ANC of 100 cells/μl, only 23% (n = 35) of PHO and 42% (n = 39) of PID physicians would consider discharge without an increase in ANC (P = 0.002).

CONCLUSIONS

Despite the lack of established guidelines for low-risk pediatric FN, a significant proportion of North American physicians report willingness to modify traditional management. This reinforces the need for evidence-based low-risk criteria and outpatient management guidelines to optimize consistency of care for these patients.

Reducing Overuse of Colony-Stimulating Factors in Patients With Lung Cancer Receiving Chemotherapy: Evidence From a Decision Support–Enabled Program

Purpose:

Colony-stimulating factors (CSFs) are frequently overused for the primary prevention of febrile neutropenia (FN) in patients receiving chemotherapy.

Methods:

A retrospective cohort study design was used to analyze commercial claims data in adults with lung cancer initiated on chemotherapy from April 1, 2013, to March 30, 2015. The tool was implemented at oncology practices in phases across 14 US states. Patients were assigned to intervention and nonintervention states according to whether they resided in service areas where the tool had been implemented. Patients were followed up to 6 months after initiating chemotherapy. Difference in pre- and postimplementation CSF use and FN incidence rates were compared with the use of difference-in-differences (DID) models that were adjusted for baseline FN risk factors.

Results:

The study population of 3,467 patients (intervention states: pre, 707; post, 1,150; nonintervention states: pre, 636; post, 974) showed no significant differences in FN risk factors at baseline. In adjusted results before and after implementation, CSF use decreased from 48.4% to 35.6% in the intervention states versus 43.2% to 44.4% in the nonintervention states (DID, −8.7%; 95% CI, −14.65% to −2.67%; P ≤ .001). The rates of FN were consistent for both groups in both periods, with no statistical difference in trend for the intervention (2.8% to 4.3%) versus the nonintervention (3.1% to 5.1%) states (DID, −0.13; 95% CI, −0.35 to 0.10; P = .927).

Conclusion:

These findings demonstrate that a decision support-enabled utilization management tool can improve risk-appropriate, guideline-adherent CSF use in patients with lung cancer.

Can mortality of cancer patients with fever and neutropenia be improved?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Neutropenic fever is the most common infective complication in patients receiving cytotoxic chemotherapy, and may result in severe sepsis, septic shock and mortality. Advancements in approaches to empiric antimicrobial therapy and prophylaxis have resulted in improved outcomes. Mortality may, however, still be as high as 50% in high-risk cancer populations. The objective of this review is to summarize factors associated with reduced mortality in patients with neutropenic fever, highlighting components of clinical care with potential for inclusion in quality improvement programs.

RECENT FINDINGS

Risks for mortality are multifactorial, and include patient, disease and treatment-related factors. Historically, guidelines for management of neutropenic fever have focused upon antimicrobial therapy. There is, however, a recognized need for early identification of sepsis to enable timely administration of antibiotic therapy and for this to be integrated with a whole of systems approach within healthcare facilities. Use of Systemic Inflammatory Response Syndrome criteria is beneficial, but validation is required in neutropenic fever populations.

SUMMARY

In the context of emerging and increasing infections because of antimicrobial-resistant bacteria in patients with neutropenic fever, quality improvement initiatives to reduce mortality must encompass antimicrobial stewardship, early detection of sepsis, and use of valid tools for clinical assessment. C-reactive protein and procalcitonin hold potential for inclusion into clinical pathways for management of neutropenic fever.

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.

Two cases of bacteremia caused by Leptotrichia trevisanii in patients with febrile neutropenia

We present two cases of bacteremia caused by Leptotrichia trevisanii: a 12-year-old girl with recurrent myeloid leukemia of the mandible and a 66-year-old man with esophageal carcinoma. As this filamentous bacillus showed indefinite Gram staining and the identification based on biochemical enzymatic reactions was not definitive, identification required 16s rRNA analysis. For this organism, drug sensitivity testing showed susceptiblity to each β-lactam antibiotics and clindamycin, but resistance to fluoroquinolone and erythromycin. This filamentous bacillus needs careful identification and appropriate antibiotic treatment.

Deviations from guideline-based therapy for febrile neutropenia in cancer patients and their effect on outcomes

IMPORTANCE

Although febrile neutropenia (FN) is a major source of morbidity and mortality for patients with solid tumors, little is known about the use of guideline-based care.

OBJECTIVES

To examine compliance with guideline-based recommendations for FN treatment, explore the factors that influence adherence to consensus guidelines, and analyze how the use of guideline-based care affects the outcomes.

DESIGN

The Perspective database was used to examine the treatment of cancer patients with FN from January 1, 2000, through March 31, 2010. To capture initial decision making, we examined treatment within 48 hours of hospital admission. We determined use of guideline-based antibiotics and nonguideline-based treatments, vancomycin, and granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (GCSF). Hierarchical models were developed to examine the factors associated with treatment. Patients were stratified into low- and high-risk groups, and the effect of the initial treatment on outcome (nonroutine hospital discharge and death) was examined.

SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

Twenty-five thousand two hundred thirty-one patients with solid tumors hospitalized for neutropenia.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE

Use of guideline-based antibiotics, vancomycin, and GCSF and their affect on outcome.

RESULTS

Among 25 231 patients admitted with FN, guideline-based antibiotics were administered to 79%, vancomycin to 37%, and GCSF to 63%. Patients treated at high FN-volume hospitals (odds ratio [OR], 1.56; 95% CI, 1.34-1.81) by high FN-volume physicians (OR, 1.19; 95% CI, 1.03-1.38) and patients managed by hospitalists (OR, 1.49; 95% CI, 1.18-1.88) were more likely to receive guideline-based antibiotics (P < .05). Vancomycin use increased from 17% in 2000 to 55% in 2010, while GCSF use only decreased from 73% to 55%. Among low-risk patients with FN, prompt initiation of guideline-based antibiotics decreased discharge to a nursing facility (OR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.65-0.92) and death (OR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.42-0.95).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

While use of guideline-based antibiotics is high, use of the nonguideline-based treatments, vancomycin, and GCSF is also high. Physician and hospital factors are the strongest predictors of both guideline- and nonguideline-based treatment.

The Multinational Association for Supportive Care in Cancer (MASCC) risk index score: 10 years of use for identifying low-risk febrile neutropenic cancer patients

The Multinational Association for Supportive Care in Cancer risk index score developed, through a multinational collaboration, was published in 2000 with the aim to identify patients with chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia at low risk of serious medical complication development. It has been endorsed as a reliable tool since 2002 by Infectious Diseases Society of America. Ten years after, we thought worth to review its use, its characteristics in the external validations that occurred after the initial publication and also to review how the recognition of a group of patients at low risk has changed the management of febrile neutropenia. We also raise the issue of identification of high-risk patients that remains a challenge today.

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.

Antimicrobial prophylaxis and outpatient management of fever and neutropenia in adults treated for malignancy: American Society of Clinical Oncology clinical practice guideline

PURPOSE

To provide guidelines on antimicrobial prophylaxis for adult neutropenic oncology outpatients and on selection and treatment as outpatients of those with fever and neutropenia.

METHODS

A literature search identified relevant studies published in English. Primary outcomes included: development of fever and/or infections in afebrile neutropenic outpatients and recovery without complications and overall mortality in febrile neutropenic outpatients. Secondary outcomes included: in afebrile neutropenic outpatients, infection-related mortality; in outpatients with fever and neutropenia, defervescence without regimen change, time to defervescence, infectious complications, and recurrent fever; and in both groups, hospital admissions, duration, and adverse effects of antimicrobials. An Expert Panel developed guidelines based on extracted data and informal consensus.

RESULTS

Forty-seven articles from 43 studies met selection criteria.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Antibacterial and antifungal prophylaxis are only recommended for patients expected to have < 100 neutrophils/μL for > 7 days, unless other factors increase risks for complications or mortality to similar levels. Inpatient treatment is standard to manage febrile neutropenic episodes, although carefully selected patients may be managed as outpatients after systematic assessment beginning with a validated risk index (eg, Multinational Association for Supportive Care in Cancer [MASCC] score or Talcott's rules). Patients with MASCC scores ≥ 21 or in Talcott group 4, and without other risk factors, can be managed safely as outpatients. Febrile neutropenic patients should receive initial doses of empirical antibacterial therapy within an hour of triage and should either be monitored for at least 4 hours to determine suitability for outpatient management or be admitted to the hospital. An oral fluoroquinolone plus amoxicillin/clavulanate (or plus clindamycin if penicillin allergic) is recommended as empiric therapy, unless fluoroquinolone prophylaxis was used before fever developed.

Prevention of bacterial infection in pediatric oncology: what do we know, what can we learn?

Bacterial sepsis continues to be a leading cause of morbidity and toxic death in children receiving intensive therapy for cancer. Empiric therapy for suspected infections and treatment of documented infections are well-established standards of care. The routine use of prophylactic strategies is much less common in pediatric oncology. This paper will review the current literature on the use and risks of antimicrobial prophylaxis as well as non-pharmacological methods for infection prevention and will address areas in need of further research.

Safety of early discharge for low-risk patients with febrile neutropenia: a multicenter randomized controlled trial

PURPOSE

Febrile neutropenia commonly complicates cancer chemotherapy. Outpatient treatment may reduce costs and improve patient comfort but risk progression of undetected medical problems.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

By using our validated algorithm, we identified medically stable inpatients admitted for febrile neutropenia (neutrophils < 500/μL) after chemotherapy and randomly assigned them to continued inpatient antibiotic therapy or early discharge to receive identical antibiotic treatment at home. Our primary outcome was the occurrence of any serious medical complication, defined as evidence of medical instability requiring urgent medical attention.

RESULTS

We enrolled 117 patients with 121 febrile neutropenia episodes before study termination for poor accrual. We excluded five episodes as ineligible and three because of inadequate documentation of the study outcome. Treatment groups were clinically similar, but sociodemographic imbalances occurred because of block randomization. The median presenting absolute neutrophil count was 100/μL. Hematopoietic growth factors were used in 38% of episodes. The median neutropenia duration was 4 days (range, 1 to 15 days). Five outpatients were readmitted to the hospital. Major medical complications occurred in five episodes (8%) in the hospital arm and four (9%) in the home arm (95% CI for the difference, -10% to 13%; P = .56). No study patient died. Patient-reported quality of life was similar on both arms.

CONCLUSION

We found no evidence of adverse medical consequences from home care, despite a protocol designed to detect evidence of clinical deterioration. These results should reassure clinicians who elect to treat rigorously characterized low-risk patients with febrile neutropenia in suitable outpatient settings with appropriate surveillance for unexpected clinical deterioration.

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

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

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

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

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

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

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

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

Advances in the treatment of neutropenia

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The present review updates treatment of neutropenia from articles published from January 2008 through April 2009.

RECENT FINDINGS

Chemotherapy-induced neutropenia occurs most commonly in the first cycle of treatment. Older patients, patients with multiple comorbidities, and those receiving more myelotoxic drugs are prone to develop neutropenia and its complications. Current guidelines recommend the prophylactic use of the myeloid growth factors for the first cycle of chemotherapy for patients with more than a 20% risk of febrile neutropenia. Meta analysis from randomized trials shows that granulocyte colony-stimulating factor prophylaxis is associated with patients receiving more intensive chemotherapy, having better survival, but also having a higher risk of secondary acute myeloid leukemia. Antibiotics are standard treatment of febrile neutropenia and are increasingly used for prophylaxis in 'low-risk' patients.

SUMMARY

The myeloid growth factor granulocyte colony-stimulating factor has radically changed our approach to the prevention of febrile neutropenia. Antibiotics remain the mainstay of treatment of febrile neutropenia.

Antibiotics for the prevention of febrile neutropenia

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Febrile neutropenia causes significant morbidity and mortality in patients receiving antineoplastic chemotherapy. Antibiotic prophylaxis reduces the incidence of fever during chemotherapy, but its routine use remains controversial for patients at low risk of neutropenic infection. This article reviews recent research to clarify the issue.

RECENT FINDINGS

Randomized controlled trials and meta-analyses demonstrate that antibiotic prophylaxis reduces the incidence of febrile neutropenia and infection-related mortality both in patients receiving high-dose chemotherapy and in those receiving moderately myelosuppressive chemotherapy for solid tumours. The evidence that antibiotic prophylaxis results in adverse patient outcomes, through colonization or infection with resistant microorganisms is limited and unconvincing. Retrospective reanalysis of trial data indicates that for patients on moderately myelosuppressive out-patient chemotherapy, the greatest risk of infection and the greatest prophylactic benefit is on the first cycle.

SUMMARY

Current guidelines recommend that antibiotic prophylaxis is considered in all patients at high and intermediate risk of febrile neutropenia. Clinical evidence now also supports antibiotic prophylaxis for low-risk patients. The impact of antibiotic prophylaxis during cyclical out-patient chemotherapy on microbial resistance should be determined. The hypothesis that, for low-risk patients, prophylaxis should be targeted to first chemotherapy cycles to retain efficacy but limit antibiotic exposure should be tested.

Expression of CD11b/CD18 adhesion molecules on circulating phagocytes-a novel aid to diagnose infection in patients with cancer

GOALS OF WORK

No blood marker available to date is useful for distinguishing infection-related from neoplasm-related fever. We evaluated the expression of the peripheral blood phagocyte CD11b/CD18 adhesion molecule complex for this purpose.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Neutrophil and monocyte CD11b/CD18 expression was assessed in two cohorts of patients with advanced solid cancer (n = 120) and in healthy controls (n = 63). The cancer series included 89 patients with verified infection, 23 without infection, and eight with neoplastic fever. CD11b/CD18 expression was measured using flow cytometry, and serum C-reactive protein (CRP) concentration was determined with immunoturbidimetric assay.

RESULTS

Cancer patients with infection had higher blood neutrophil and monocyte CD11b/CD18 expression levels than patients with neoplastic fever, those with advanced cancer without infection, or healthy controls (p < 0.01 for all analyses). High CD11b/CD18 values were measured exclusively in individuals diagnosed with infection. Receiver-operating characteristic area under the curve (AUC) for neutrophil and monocyte CD11b/CD18 expression for the discrimination of infection from neoplastic fever was 0.80 (95% CI, 0.70 to 0.88), which was superior (p = 0.039 and p = 0.049, respectively) to serum CRP on admission (AUC 0.51, 0.40 to 0.62).

CONCLUSIONS

Peripheral blood phagocytic cell CD11b/CD18 expression is useful for making a differential diagnosis between infection and neoplasm-related fever in cancer patients.