Strategies for minimizing complications of neutropenia: Prophylactic myeloid growth factors or antibiotics

The emerging roles of the gut microbiome in allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation

Allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (allo-HSCT) is used for the treatment of hematologic cancers and disorders. However, graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) in which the donor immune cells attack the genetically-disparate recipient is a significant cause of morbidity. Acute GVHD is an inflammatory condition and the gastrointestinal system is a major organ affected but is also tied to beneficial graft-versus-tumor (GVT) effects. There is increasing interest on the role of the microbiome on immune function as well as on cancer progression and immunotherapy outcomes. However, there are still significant unanswered questions on the role the microbiome plays in GVHD progression or how to exploit the microbiome in GVHD prevention or treatment. In this review, concepts of HSCT with the focus on GVHD pathogenesis as well as issues in preclinical models used to study GVHD will be discussed with an emphasis on the impact of the microbiome. Factors affecting the microbiome and GVHD outcome such as obesity are also examined. The bridging of preclinical models and clinical outcomes in relation to the role of the microbiome will also be discussed along with possibilities for therapeutic exploitation.

Cost-efficiency and expanded access of prophylaxis for chemotherapy-induced (febrile) neutropenia: economic simulation analysis for the US of conversion from reference pegfilgrastim to biosimilar pegfilgrastim-cbqv

AIMS

In this pharmacoeconomic simulation, we: (1) modeled the cost-efficiency of converting patients from reference pegfilgrastim to biosimilar pegfilgrastim-cbqv for prophylaxis of chemotherapy-induced (febrile) neutropenia (CIN/FN) from the US payer perspective, (2) simulated how savings enable, on a budget-neutral basis, expanded access to pegfilgrastim-cbqv, and (3) estimated the number-needed-to-convert (NNC) to purchase one additional dose of pegfilgrastim-cbqv.

METHODS

In a hypothetical panel of 20,000 patients, we modeled cost-savings utilizing: two reference formulations (pre-filled syringe [PFS] and on-body injector [OBI]), three medication cost inputs (average sales price [ASP], wholesale acquisition cost [WAC], and an age-proportionate blended ASP/WAC rate), administration cost for injection (PFS) and device application (OBI), conversion rates of 10-100%, and 1-6 cycles of prophylaxis. Cost-savings were used to estimate additional doses of pegfilgrastim-cbqv that could be purchased and the NNC to purchase one additional dose.

RESULTS

Using ASP and 10% conversion from reference OBI to pegfilgrastim-cbqv, savings range from $326,744 (1 cycle) to $2.0M (6 cycles) which could provide 93-556 additional doses of pegfilgrastim-cbqv, respectively; the NNC to purchase one additional dose of pegfilgrastim-cbqv ranges from 21.6 (1 cycle) down to 3.6 patients (6 cycles). The WAC model saves $41.1M per cycle and $246.7M over 6 cycles at 100% conversion from reference PFS which could provide 9,709-58,253 additional pegfilgrastim-cbqv doses; the NNC ranges from 2.1 (1 cycle) to 0.3 (6 cycles). Using the blended ASP/WAC rate, converting 50% from reference OBI to pegfilgrastim-cbqv would save $10.2M per cycle and $60.9M over 6 cycles providing 2,638-15,829 additional doses of pegfilgrastim-cbqv; NNCs are 3.8 (1 cycle) and 0.6 patients (6 cycles).

CONCLUSIONS

Converting 20,000 patients from reference to pegfilgrastim-cbqv over 6 cycles can generate savings up to $246.7M, enough to purchase up to 58,253 additional doses of pegfilgrastim-cbqv. This simulation provides economic justification for prophylaxis with biosimilar pegfilgrastim-cbqv.

Chemotherapy-induced neutropenia/febrile neutropenia prophylaxis with biosimilar filgrastim in solid tumors versus hematological malignancies: MONITOR-GCSF study

Aim: This study aimed to report patterns of biosimilar filgrastim prophylaxis and outcomes of chemotherapy-induced neutropenia (CIN)/febrile neutropenia (FN) in patients with hematological malignancies or solid tumors. Patients & methods: MONITOR-GCSF is a real-world study of 1447 cancer patients receiving CIN/FN prophylaxis with biosimilar filgrastim (solid tumors: 77.2%; hematological malignancies: 22.8%). Results: Differences in prophylaxis intensity and day of initiation relative to guideline recommendations were observed. In hematology patients, higher rates of CIN and FN occurred at cycle level, and rate of FN was higher at patient level (9.1 vs 5.0% in solid tumor patients). Conclusion: Adequate GCSF support in hematology and solid tumor patients is important to prevent CIN/FN and related hospitalizations and chemotherapy disturbances.

Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Short- versus Long-Acting Granulocyte Colony-Stimulating Factors for Reduction of Chemotherapy-Induced Febrile Neutropenia

Introduction

Short- and long-acting granulocyte-colony stimulating factors (G-CSFs) are approved for the reduction of febrile neutropenia. A systematic literature review was performed to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-RCTs reporting the use of G-CSFs following chemotherapy treatment.

Methods

Medline^®/Medline in-process, Embase^®, and the Cochrane Library were searched for studies published between January 2003 and June 2016. A hand-search of relevant conference proceedings was conducted for meetings held between 2012 and 2016. Eligible studies were restricted to those reporting a direct, head-to-head comparison of short- versus long-acting G-CSFs for reduction of chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia. Risk-of-bias assessments were performed for full publications only.

Results

The search strategy yielded 4044 articles for electronic screening. Thirty-six publications were evaluated for the meta-analysis: 11 of 12 RCTs and 2 of 24 non-RCTs administered doses of the short-acting G-CSF filgrastim for ≥ 7 days. In RCT studies, there was no statistically significant difference in outcomes of interest between short- and long-acting G-CSFs. In non-RCTs, the overall risk was lower with long-acting G-CSF than with short-acting G-CSF for incidence of febrile neutropenia [overall relative risk (RR) = 0.67, P  = 0.023], hospitalizations (overall RR = 0.68, P  < 0.05), and chemotherapy dose delays (overall RR = 0.68, P  = 0.020).

Conclusions

Overall, the weight of evidence from RCTs indicates little difference in efficacy between the short- and long-acting G-CSFs if dosed according to recommended guidelines. There is some evidence for greater efficacy for long-acting G-CSFs in non-RCTs, which may be a result of under-dosing of short-acting G-CSFs in general practice in real-world usage.

Funding

Hospira Inc, which was acquired by Pfizer Inc in September 2015, and Pfizer Inc.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1007/s12325-018-0798-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Preventing chemotherapy-induced myelosuppression by repurposing the FLT3 inhibitor quizartinib

We describe an approach to inhibit chemotherapy-induced myelosuppression. We found that short-term exposure of mice to the FLT3 inhibitor quizartinib induced the transient quiescence of multipotent progenitors (MPPs). This property of quizartinib conferred marked protection to MPPs in mice receiving fluorouracil or gemcitabine. The protection resulted in the rapid recovery of bone marrow and blood cellularity, thus preventing otherwise lethal myelosuppression. A treatment strategy involving quizartinib priming that protected wild-type bone marrow progenitors, but not leukemic cells, from fluorouracil provided a more effective treatment than conventional induction therapy in mouse models of acute myeloid leukemia. This strategy has the potential to be extended for use in other cancers where FLT3 inhibition does not adversely affect the effectiveness of chemotherapy. Thus, the addition of quizartinib to cancer treatment regimens could markedly improve cancer patient survival and quality of life.

Harnessing the immune system in the battle against breast cancer

Breast cancer is the most prevalent malignancy in women and the second most common cause of cancer-related death worldwide. Despite major innovations in early detection and advanced therapeutics, up to 30% of women with node-negative breast cancer and 70% of women with node-positive breast cancer will develop recurrence. The recognition that breast tumors are infiltrated by a complex array of immune cells that influence their development, progression, and metastasis, as well as their responsiveness to systemic therapies has sparked major interest in the development of immunotherapies. In fact, not only the native host immune system can be altered to promote potent antitumor response, but also its components can be manipulated to generate effective therapeutic strategies. We present here a review of the major approaches to immunotherapy in breast cancers, both successes and failures, as well as new therapies on the horizon.

Impact of Pretreatment Neutrophil Count on Chemotherapy Administration and Toxicity in Dogs with Lymphoma Treated with CHOP Chemotherapy

BACKGROUND

Prechemotherapy absolute neutrophil count (ANC) cutoffs are arbitrary and vary across institutions and clinicians. Similarly, subjective guidelines are utilized for the administration of prophylactic antibiotics in neutropenic dogs.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the impact of various ANC cutoffs on chemotherapy administration in dogs with lymphoma treated with CHOP chemotherapy and to determine whether an association between prechemotherapy ANC and subsequent toxicity exists. The secondary objective was to evaluate a currently used ANC cutoff to indicate prescription of prophylactic antibiotics.

ANIMALS

Dogs diagnosed with lymphoma treated with CHOP chemotherapy (n = 64).

METHODS

Six hundred and fifteen ANCs were stratified into 6 classes. The 3 ANC cutoffs 1.5 × 103 /μL, 2.0 × 103 /μL, and 2.5 × 103 /μL were assessed. The presence of an association between prechemotherapy ANC class and toxicity was determined. Afebrile neutropenic dogs with ANC <1.5 × 103 /μL but above the criteria for prophylactic antibiotics were evaluated.

RESULTS

Chemotherapy was not administered in 7% of visits with an ANC cutoff of 1.5 × 103 /μL; chemotherapy would not have been administered in 10% and 16% of visits with an ANC cutoff of 2.0 × 103 /μL or 2.5 × 103 /μL, respectively. There was no association among the 3 lower prechemotherapy ANC classes and toxicity. All dogs with ANC 0.75-1.5 × 103 /μL recovered spontaneously without medical intervention.

CONCLUSION AND CLINICAL IMPORTANCE

The number of dose delays was minimized with a prechemotherapy ANC cutoff of 1.5 × 103 /μL, and the prechemotherapy ANC class 1.5-1.99 × 103 /μL was not associated with an increased toxicity. Further investigation of an ANC cutoff near 0.75 × 103 /μL in which to prescribe prophylactic antibiotics is indicated.

Cost-efficiency analyses for the US of biosimilar filgrastim-sndz, reference filgrastim, pegfilgrastim, and pegfilgrastim with on-body injector in the prophylaxis of chemotherapy-induced (febrile) neutropenia

AIMS

Guidelines recommend prophylaxis with granulocyte colony-stimulating factor for chemotherapy-induced (febrile) neutropenia (CIN/FN) based on regimen myelotoxicity and patient-related risk factors. The aim was to conduct a cost-efficiency analysis for the US of the direct acquisition and administration costs of the recently approved biosimilar filgrastim-sndz (Zarxio EP2006) with reference to filgrastim (Neupogen), pegfilgrastim (Neulasta), and a pegfilgrastim injection device (Neulasta Onpro; hereafter pegfilgrastim-injector) for CIN/FN prophylaxis.

METHODS

A cost-efficiency analysis of the prophylaxis of one patient during one chemotherapy cycle under 1-14 days' time horizon was conducted using the unit dose average selling price (ASP) and Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes for subcutaneous prophylactic injection under four scenarios: cost of medication only (COSTMED), patient self-administration (SELFADMIN), healthcare provider (HCP) initiating administration followed by self-administration (HCPSTART), and HCP providing full administration (HCPALL). Two case studies were created to illustrate real-world clinical implications. The analyses were replicated using wholesale acquisition cost (WAC).

RESULTS

Using ASP + CPT, cost savings achieved with filgrastim-sndz relative to reference filgrastim ranged from $65 (1 day) to $916 (14 days) across all scenarios. Relative to pegfilgrastim, savings with filgrastim-sndz ranged from $834 (14 days) up to $3,666 (1 day) under the COSTMED, SELFADMIN, and HPOSTART scenarios; and from $284 (14 days) up to $3,666 (1 day) under the HPOALL scenario. Similar to the cost-savings compared to pegfilgrastim, filgrastim-sndz achieved savings relative to pegfilgrastim-injector: from $834 (14 days) to $3,666 (1 day) under the COSTMED scenario, from $859 (14 days) to $3,692 (1 day) under SELFADMIN, from $817 (14 days) to $3,649 (1 day) under HPOSTART, and from $267 (14 days) to $3,649 (1 day) under HPOALL. Cost savings of filgrastim-sndz using WAC + CPT were even greater under all scenarios.

CONCLUSIONS

Prophylaxis with filgrastim-sndz, a biosimilar filgrastim, was associated consistently with significant cost-savings over prophylaxis with reference filgrastim, pegfilgrastim, and pegfilgrastim-injector, and this across various administration scenarios.

Predictive modeling of the outcomes of chemotherapy-induced (febrile) neutropenia prophylaxis with biosimilar filgrastim (MONITOR-GCSF study)

BACKGROUND

Risk models of chemotherapy-induced (CIN) and febrile neutropenia (FN) have to date focused on determinants measured at the start of chemotherapy. We extended this static approach with a dynamic approach of CIN/FN risk modeling at the start of each cycle.

DESIGN

We applied predictive modeling using multivariate logistic regression to identify determinants of CIN/FN episodes and related hospitalizations and chemotherapy disturbances (CIN/FN consequences) in analyses at the patient ('ever' during the whole period of chemotherapy) and cycle-level (during a given chemotherapy cycle). Statistical dependence of cycle data being 'nested' under patients was managed using generalized estimation equations. Predictive performance of each model was evaluated using bootstrapped c concordance statistics.

RESULTS

Static patient-level risk models of 'ever' experiencing CIN/FN adverse events and consequences during a planned chemotherapy regimen included predictors related to history, risk factors, and prophylaxis initiation and intensity. Dynamic cycle-level risk models of experiencing CIN/FN adverse events and consequences in an upcoming cycle included predictors related to history, risk factors, and prophylaxis initiation and intensity; as well as prophylaxis duration, CIN/FN in prior cycle, and treatment center characteristics.

CONCLUSIONS

These 'real-world evidence' models provide clinicians with the ability to anticipate CIN/FN adverse events and their consequences at the start of a chemotherapy line (static models); and, innovatively, to assess risk of CIN/FN adverse events and their consequences at the start of each cycle (dynamic models). This enables individualized patient treatment and is consistent with the EORTC recommendation to re-appraise CIN/FN risk at the start of each cycle. Prophylaxis intensity (under-, correctly-, or over-prophylacted relative to current EORTC guidelines) is a major determinant. Under-prophylaxis is clinically unsafe. Over-prophylaxis of patients administered chemotherapy with intermediate or low myelotoxicity levels may be beneficial, both in patients with and without risk factors, and must be validated in future studies.

Reducing Time to Antibiotic Administration for Febrile Neutropenia in the Emergency Department

The Emergency Department (ED) Febrile Neutropenia Pathway quality initiative demonstrated value by decreasing time to antibiotic administration in patients with cancer presenting to the ED compared with historical and direct admissions controls.

Emergency Room Visits and Hospital Admission Rates After Curative Chemotherapy for Breast Cancer

The authors conclude that over half of all patients receiving curative chemotherapy for breast cancer visited the emergency room at least once, and 13% required hospital admissions.

Granulocyte colony-stimulating factors as prophylaxis against febrile neutropenia

Myelosuppression secondary to chemotherapy remains a serious adverse effect of cancer therapy that causes high morbidity and mortality. Several current European and American guidelines recommend consideration of primary prophylaxis with colony-stimulating factors (CSFs) when the risk of febrile neutropenia is higher than 20 %. The main factors associated with a high risk of febrile neutropenia include the chemotherapy regimen, tumor type, and patient-related factors such as old age and/or comorbidities. The purpose of this paper is to summarize the most relevant clinical trials and updated recommendations of the main guidelines on the role of granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (G-CSFs) in febrile neutropenia, examining whether the combination of G-CSF with chemotherapy improves overall survival. Future directions for G-CSF use are also discussed.

Strategies for the empirical management of infection in cancer patients with emphasis on the emergence of resistant gram-negative bacteria

Combinations of antibiotics (namely penicillins and aminoglycosides) have been advocated in the 1970s for the empirical therapy of FN in cancer patients in order to take advantage of the possible synergism between these agents and to extend the potential antimicrobial spectrum of empirical therapy. Later, with the development of potent broad spectrum antibiotics, the need for combinations became less obvious as monotherapy with these new agents appeared as effective and less toxic than previously used combinations. However, today we are facing a major challenge through the emergence of multi-resistant microrganisms. With such bacteria, we might be coming back to the pre-antibiotic era when no active agents were available. This situation is due, in part, by the excessive use of antibiotics, namely as a prophylaxis for infection, and is complicated by the fact that very few new effective antibiotics are being developed by the pharmaceutical industry. Under these circumstances, it is likely that we will have to resort to "old timers" such as the polymyxins. It is also possible that combination therapy will come back in favor to take advantage of the synergism and extend the spectrum of coverage, just as it has been the case for the management of resistant tuberculosis. At the same time, the development of multidisciplinary antimicrobial stewardship is mandatory for efficient infection control and minimizing emergence of antimicrobial resistance.

Febrile neutropenia in hematologic malignancies

Febrile neutropenia (FN) can occur at any time during the course of a malignancy, especially hematologic malignancies, from diagnosis to end-stage disease. The majority of FN episodes are typically confined to the period of initial diagnosis and active treatment. Because of suppressed inflammatory responses, fever is often the sole sign of infection. As FN is a true medical emergency, prompt identification of and intervention in FN can prolong survival and improve quality of life. This article reviews FN in the setting of hematologic malignancies, specifically myelodysplastic syndromes and acute leukemias, providing an overview of the definition of fever and neutropenia, diagnostic approach, categories of risk/risk assessment, management in patients at low and high risk, and prophylaxis of infections.

Evaluation and Management of Bacterial and Fungal Infections Occurring in Patients with a Hematological Malignancy: A 2011 Update

Patients with a hematological malignancy are a heterogeneous patient population who are afflicted with diseases that range from rapidly fatal acute leukemia to indolent lymphoma or chronic leukemia. Treatment options for these patients range from observation to hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT), but all patients are more susceptible to infection. The problem of infection is dynamic with continued shifts in pathogenic organisms and microbial susceptibilities, new treatment regimens that further diminish immune function, and patients receiving treatment who are now older and frailer. The classic patterns of immunodeficiency for patients with a hematological malignancy include: periods of profound neutropenia, increased iatrogenic risks (i.e., central vascular catheters), and cellular immune suppression that affects HSCT recipients, patients with lymphoid malignancies, and those receiving treatment with corticosteroids or agents like alemtuzumab [1–4]. Recent advances in antimicrobial drug development, new technology, clinical trial results, and further clinical experience have enhanced the database on which to make infection prophylaxis and treatment decisions. However, the practicing clinician must remember that the majority of basic infection management principles for patients who are neutropenic remain unchanged.

Supportive care in hemato-oncology: a review in light of the latest guidelines

Recent developments in cancer therapy have resulted in increases in treatment success rates and survival. One of thebasic goals of such therapy is improving patient quality of life. Chemotherapy protocols for solid or hematologicalmalignancies-most of which include multiple agents-negatively impact patient quality of life. Additionally, there havebeen developments in supportive care, which seeks to ameliorate or minimize the negative effects of chemotherapy.Herein we present a review and brief summarization of some of the agents used for supportive care in cancer patientsin light of the latest guidelines.

Use of antibacterial prophylaxis in patients with chemotherapy-induced neutropenia

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Antibiotic prophylaxis has been found to have multiple benefits in patients receiving intensive chemotherapy at high risk for infection. Interest continues in identifying what additional groups of high-risk patients might potentially benefit from its use. However, concerns about the potential emergence of antibiotic resistance have led to multiple recent studies exploring this issue.

RECENT FINDINGS

The use of antibiotic prophylaxis in pediatric leukemia, myelodysplastic syndromes, and hematopoietic stem cell transplant populations has been evaluated in recent studies. Several centers have noted increased rates of antibiotic resistance in patients receiving prophylaxis.

SUMMARY

Several single-center studies have emphasized the concern for the emergence of antibiotic resistance associated with the routine use of fluoroquinolone prophylaxis. The potential for antibiotic resistance continues to be worrisome and warrants further ongoing studies.

Prevention of neutropenia-related events in elderly patients with hematological cancer

The aging of the population makes it necessary to define more precisely the needs of elderly patients in terms of anticancer therapy as the number of older cancer patients is expected to increase. There is evidence that many elderly cancer patients can benefit from relatively aggressive treatments, provided major side effects can be prevented or treated. In patients with hematological malignancies, infection is the most common and threatening complication resulting from chemotherapy administration. Discussion of the prevention of infection in the setting described above is the aim of this paper.

The shape of the myelosuppression time profile is related to the probability of developing neutropenic fever in patients with docetaxel-induced grade IV neutropenia

PURPOSE

Chemotherapy-induced neutropenia is associated with the risk of developing febrile neutropenia (FN). The aim was to describe the time course of myelosuppression in breast cancer patients treated with docetaxel and to investigate how the shape of the predicted myelosuppression time course and earlier proposed risk factors influence the probability of developing FN.

METHODS

Neutrophil counts from 140 breast cancer patients with observed grade IV neutropenia during the first course of docetaxel treatment were included. Twenty-six of the patients (19%) experienced FN. The myelosuppression time course was described using a semi-mechanistic myelosuppression model in NONMEM. The individual myelosuppression model parameters [baseline neutrophil count, mean transit time (MTT) and drug effect parameter (EC(50))], myelosuppression descriptors (nadir, duration of grade IV neutropenia) and earlier suggested risk factors (age, performance status, haemoglobin and liver function) were explored to be related to FN by logistic regression.

RESULTS

The neutrophil time course following docetaxel treatment was well described by the model. EC(50) and MTT were both significantly related to the probability of developing FN where low parameter values result in a rapid decline, low nadir and an increased risk of FN. None of the evaluated risk factors or myelosuppression descriptors were significant.

CONCLUSION

The probability to develop FN in patients who experience grade IV neutropenia was dependent on the myelosuppression time profile. Patients with a rapid neutrophil decline and high drug sensitivity had a higher probability to develop FN. Model-based parameter estimates were superior predictors over descriptive values such as the nadir or duration of neutropenia.

Comparative cost-efficiency across the European G5 countries of various regimens of filgrastim, biosimilar filgrastim, and pegfilgrastim to reduce the incidence of chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia

OBJECTIVES

This cost-efficiency analysis of the granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (G-CSF) filgrastim (originator Neupogen® and biosimilar Zarzio®) and pegfilgrastim (Neulasta®) examined against a time horizon of 1-14 days of treatment and across the European Union G5 countries (a) when, cost-wise, using Neulasta® 6 mg versus Neupogen® or Zarzio® 300 µg may be cost-saving in reducing the incidence of chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia; and (b) if cost-wise, treatment with Zarzio® 300 µg yields a savings advantage over Neupogen® 300 µg.

METHODS

Cost-efficiency analysis of the direct costs a buyer or payer would incur when purchasing or covering any of these agents for managing one patient during one cycle of chemotherapy under regimens of 1-14 days of standard filgrastim using the population-weighted average unit dose cost of each agent per their public pack cost across the European G5 countries.

RESULTS

The cost of Neupogen® treatment ranged from €128.16 (1 day) to €1794.30 (14 days), compared to €95.46 and €1336.46 for Zarzio®, thus yielding potential cost savings from €32.70 to €457.84 for the latter. Neulasta® turns cost-saving at day 12 of Neupogen® treatment. At no point over a 14-day treatment period did Neulasta® yield a savings advantage over Zarzio®.

CONCLUSION

Prophylaxis or treatment of febrile neutropenia with Zarzio® is cost-efficient under all possible treatment scenarios relative to Neupogen® and to Neulasta®. In the absence of convincing evidence that pegfilgrastim is pharmacotherapeutically superior to standard filgrastim, there is no cost-efficiency rationale to treat with Neulasta® over Zarzio®, though there may be a small window of approximately 3 days where Neulasta® is cost-efficient over Neupogen®. Regardless, our analysis shows Zarzio® to be the most cost-efficient approach to reducing the incidence of febrile neutropenia in chemotherapy-treated patients.

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.

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.

Prevention of febrile neutropenia in chemotherapy-treated cancer patients: Pegylated versus standard myeloid colony stimulating factors. Do we have a choice?

The pertinent literature on clinical studies comparing the respective value of myeloid colony stimulating factors to pegfilgrastim as a prevention of febrile neutropenia in chemotherapy-treated cancer patients has been reviewed. Pegfilgrastim is definitely not inferior to filgrastim or other myeloid colony stimulating agents with respect to duration of grade IV neutropenia and delivery of full chemotherapy dose on time; several comparative studies indicate a trend to less frequent febrile neutropenia with pegfilgrastim.