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

Inpatient-level care at home delivered by virtual wards and hospital at home: a systematic review and meta-analysis of complex interventions and their components

BACKGROUND

Technology-enabled inpatient-level care at home services, such as virtual wards and hospital at home, are being rapidly implemented. This is the first systematic review to link the components of these service delivery innovations to evidence of effectiveness to explore implications for practice and research.

METHODS

For this review (registered here https://osf.io/je39y ), we searched Cochrane-recommended multiple databases up to 30 November 2022 and additional resources for randomised and non-randomised studies that compared technology-enabled inpatient-level care at home with hospital-based inpatient care. We classified interventions into care model groups using three key components: clinical activities, workforce, and technology. We synthesised evidence by these groups quantitatively or narratively for mortality, hospital readmissions, cost-effectiveness and length of stay.

RESULTS

We include 69 studies: 38 randomised studies (6413 participants; largely judged as low or unclear risk of bias) and 31 non-randomised studies (31,950 participants; largely judged at serious or critical risk of bias). The 69 studies described 63 interventions which formed eight model groups. Most models, regardless of using low- or high-intensity technology, may have similar or reduced hospital readmission risk compared with hospital-based inpatient care (low-certainty evidence from randomised trials). For mortality, most models had uncertain or unavailable evidence. Two exceptions were low technology-enabled models that involve hospital- and community-based professionals, they may have similar mortality risk compared with hospital-based inpatient care (low- or moderate-certainty evidence from randomised trials). Cost-effectiveness evidence is unavailable for high technology-enabled models, but sparse evidence suggests the low technology-enabled multidisciplinary care delivered by hospital-based teams appears more cost-effective than hospital-based care for those with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) exacerbations.

CONCLUSIONS

Low-certainty evidence suggests that none of technology-enabled care at home models we explored put people at higher risk of readmission compared with hospital-based care. Where limited evidence on mortality is available, there appears to be no additional risk of mortality due to use of technology-enabled at home models. It is unclear whether inpatient-level care at home using higher levels of technology confers additional benefits. Further research should focus on clearly defined interventions in high-priority populations and include comparative cost-effectiveness evaluation.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

https://osf.io/je39y .

Admission avoidance hospital at home

BACKGROUND

Admission avoidance hospital at home provides active treatment by healthcare professionals in the patient's home for a condition that would otherwise require acute hospital inpatient care, and always for a limited time period. This is the fourth update of this review.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effectiveness and cost of managing patients with admission avoidance hospital at home compared with inpatient hospital care.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, and CINAHL on 24 February 2022, and checked the reference lists of eligible articles. We sought ongoing and unpublished studies by searching ClinicalTrials.gov and WHO ICTRP, and by contacting providers and researchers involved in the field.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials recruiting participants aged 18 years and over. Studies comparing admission avoidance hospital at home with acute hospital inpatient care.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We followed the standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane and the Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) Group. We performed meta-analysis for trials that compared similar interventions, reported comparable outcomes with sufficient data, and used individual patient data when available. We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of the body of evidence for the most important outcomes.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 20 randomised controlled trials with a total of 3100 participants; four trials recruited participants with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease; two trials recruited participants recovering from a stroke; seven trials recruited participants with an acute medical condition who were mainly older; and the remaining trials recruited participants with a mix of conditions. We assessed the majority of the included studies as at low risk of selection, detection, and attrition bias, and unclear for selective reporting and performance bias. For an older population, admission avoidance hospital at home probably makes little or no difference on mortality at six months' follow-up (risk ratio (RR) 0.88, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.68 to 1.13; P = 0.30; I2 = 0%; 5 trials, 1502 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); little or no difference on the likelihood of being readmitted to hospital after discharge from hospital at home or inpatient care within 3 to 12 months' follow-up (RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.34; P = 0.11; I2 = 41%; 8 trials, 1757 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); and probably reduces the likelihood of living in residential care at six months' follow-up (RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.41 to 0.69; P < 0.001; I2 = 67%; 4 trials, 1271 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Hospital at home probably results in little to no difference in patient's self-reported health status (2006 patients; moderate-certainty evidence). Satisfaction with health care received may be improved with admission avoidance hospital at home (1812 participants; low-certainty evidence); few studies reported the effect on caregivers. Hospital at home reduced the initial average hospital length of stay (2036 participants; low-certainty evidence), which ranged from 4.1 to 18.5 days in the hospital group and 1.2 to 5.1 days in the hospital at home group. Hospital at home length of stay ranged from an average of 3 to 20.7 days (hospital at home group only). Admission avoidance hospital at home probably reduces costs to the health service compared with hospital admission (2148 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), though by a range of different amounts and using different methods to cost resource use, and there is some evidence that it decreases overall societal costs to six months' follow-up.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Admission avoidance hospital at home, with the option of transfer to hospital, may provide an effective alternative to inpatient care for a select group of older people who have been referred for hospital admission. The intervention probably makes little or no difference to patient health outcomes; may improve satisfaction; probably reduces the likelihood of relocating to residential care; and probably decreases costs.

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.

Ambulatory management of low-risk febrile neutropenia in adult oncological patients. Systematic review

PURPOSE

Recent clinical practice guidelines have recommended ambulatory management of febrile neutropenia in patients with low risk of complications. Although some centers have begun developing management protocols for these patients, there appears to be a certain reluctance to implement them in clinical practice. Our aim is to evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of this strategy according to available evidence and to propose new lines of research.

METHODS

Systematic review using a triple aim approach (efficacy, cost-effectiveness, and quality of life), drawing from literature in MEDLINE (PubMed), Embase, and Cochrane Library databases. The review includes studies that assess ambulatory management for efficacy, cost-efficiency, and quality of life.

RESULTS

The search yielded 27 articles that met our inclusion criteria.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, based on current evidence, ambulatory management of febrile neutropenia is safe, more cost-effective than inpatient care, and capable of improving quality of life in oncological patients with this complication. Ambulatory care seems to be an effective alternative to hospitalization in these patients.

Fluoroquinolone prophylaxis in patients with neutropenia at high risk of serious infections: Exploring pros and cons

BACKGROUND

The use of fluoroquinolones to prevent infections in neutropenic patients with cancer or undergoing hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) is a controversial issue, with international guidelines providing conflicting recommendations. Although potential benefits are clear, concerns revolve around efficacy, potential harms, and antimicrobial resistance (AMR) implications.

DISCUSSION

Fluoroquinolone prophylaxis reduces neutropenic fever (NF) bloodstream infections and other serious bacterial infections, based on evidence from systematic reviews, randomized controlled trials, and observational studies in adults and children. Fluoroquinolone prophylaxis may also reduce infection-related morbidity and healthcare costs; however, evidence is conflicting. Adverse effects of fluoroquinolones are well recognized in the general population; however, studies in the cancer cohort where it is used for a defined period of neutropenia have not reflected this. The largest concern for routine use of fluoroquinolone prophylaxis remains AMR, as many, but not all, observational studies have found that fluoroquinolone prophylaxis might increase the risk of AMR, and some studies have suggested negative impacts on patient outcomes as a result.

CONCLUSIONS

The debate surrounding fluoroquinolone prophylaxis calls for individualized risk assessment based on patient characteristics and local AMR patterns, and prophylaxis should be restricted to patients at the highest risk of serious infection during the highest risk periods to ensure that the risk-benefit analysis is in favor of individual and community benefit. More research is needed to address important unanswered questions about fluoroquinolone prophylaxis in neutropenic patients with cancer or receiving HSCT.

Assessing Safe Discharge Criteria for Pediatric Oncology Patients Admitted for Febrile Neutropenia

Recent studies suggest outpatient therapy, oral antibiotics, or earlier discharge could be appropriate in some pediatric patients admitted with febrile neutropenia; supporting data are lacking. Retrospective chart review of patients admitted from September 2005 through October 2016 identified 131 "early discharge" febrile neutropenia admissions with discharge absolute neutrophil count (ANC) <500/µl and negative cultures. All were afebrile and discharged without outpatient antibiotics. Eleven of 131 patients (8%) were readmitted. Two patients called back for late positive cultures. Nine were readmitted with febrile neutropenia; 2 had positive cultures on readmission. All 4 patients with positive cultures were safely treated with appropriate antibiotics. The remaining 7 patients had uneventful readmissions. Average ANC (SD) at discharge was lower for patients readmitted versus those not readmitted (69 [70] vs. 196 [145], P≤0.001), as was absolute phagocyte count (APC) at discharge (97 [82] vs. 453 [431], P≤0.001). APC on admission was not significantly lower for those readmitted (165 [254] vs. 321 [388], P=0.09). Few patients required readmission; those with bacterial infections were easily identified and appropriately treated. Higher ANC or APC criteria for discharge would increase length of hospital stay without decreasing morbidity. A subset of patients admitted with febrile neutropenia can be safely discharged before count recovery without oral antibiotics.

Home hospital as a disposition for older adults from the emergency department: Benefits and opportunities

The $1 trillion industry of acute hospital care in the United States is shifting from inside the walls of the hospital to patient homes. To tackle the limitations of current hospital care in the United States, on November 25, 2020, the Center for Medicare & Medicaid Services announced that the acute hospital care at home waiver would reimburse for "home hospital" services. A "home hospital" is the home-based provision of acute services usually associated with the traditional inpatient hospital setting. Prior work suggests that home hospital care can reduce costs, maintain quality and safety, and improve patient experiences for select acutely ill adults who require hospital-level care. However, most emergency physicians are unfamiliar with the evidence of benefits demonstrated by home hospital services, especially for older adults. Therefore, the lead author solicited narrative inputs on this topic from selected experts in emergency medicine and home hospital services with clinical experience, publications, and funding on home hospital care. Then we sought to identify information most relevant to the practice of emergency medicine. We outline the proven and potential benefits of home hospital services specific to older adults compared to traditional acute care hospitalization with a focus on the emergency department.

Potential reduction of hospital stay length with outpatient management of low-risk febrile neutropenia in a regional cancer center

Background

Febrile neutropenia is a serious complication of chemotherapy. The Multinational Association for Supportive Care in Cancer (MASCC) risk index score identifies patients at low risk of serious complications. Outpatient management programs have been successfully piloted in other Australian metropolitan cancer centers.

Aim

To assess current management of febrile neutropenia at our regional cancer center and determine potential impacts of an outpatient management program.

Method

We performed a retrospective review of medical records for all patients admitted at our regional institution with febrile neutropenia between 1 January 2016, and 31 December 2018. We collected information regarding patient characteristics, determined the MASCC risk index score, and if low risk, we determined the eligibility for outpatient care and potential reduction in length of stay and cost benefit.

Results

A total of 98 hospital admissions were identified. Of these, 66 had a MASCC low‐risk index score. Fifty‐eight patients met the eligibility criteria for outpatient management. Seventy‐one percent were female. The most common tumor type was breast cancer. Forty‐eight percent were treated with curative intent. The median length of stay was 3 days. The median potential reduction in length of stay for each admission was 2 days. The total potential reduction in length of stay was 198 days. No admission resulted in serious complications.

Conclusion

This review demonstrates a significant number of hospital admission days can be avoided. We intend to conduct a prospective pilot study at our center to institute an outpatient management program for such low‐risk patients with potential reduction in hospital length of stay. This will have significant implications on health resource usage, service provision planning, and patient quality of life.

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.

Mortality and admission to intensive care units after febrile neutropenia in patients with cancer

Febrile neutropenia (FN) is a critical complication of chemotherapy associated with increased in‐hospital mortality. However, associations with increased mortality and intensive care unit (ICU) admissions during longer follow‐up are not established. Patients treated with standard first‐line chemotherapy for solid cancers at Rigshospitalet, Denmark in 2010‐2016 were included. Incidence rate ratios (IRR) of all‐cause, infectious and cardiovascular mortality, and ICU admissions after FN were analyzed by Poisson regression. Risk factors at the time of FN were analyzed in the subpopulation of patients with FN; all‐cause mortality was further stratified by the time periods 0‐30, 31‐365, and 366+ days after FN. We included 9018 patients with gastric (14.4%) and breast (13.1%) cancer being the most common, 51.2% had locally advanced or disseminated disease and the patients had a median Charlson Comorbidity Index score of 0 (interquartile range, 0‐0). During follow‐up, 845 (9.4%) experienced FN and 4483 (49.7%) died during 18 775 person‐years of follow‐up. After adjustment, FN was associated with increased risk of all‐cause mortality, infectious mortality, and ICU admissions with IRRs of 1.39 (95% CI, 1.24‐1.56), 1.94 (95% CI, 1.43‐2.62), and 2.28 (95% CI, 1.60‐3.24). Among those with FN, having a positive blood culture and low lymphocytes were associated with excess risk of death and ICU admissions (predominantly the first 30 days after FN), while elevated C‐reactive protein and low hemoglobin predicted mortality the first year after FN. The risk of death varied according to the time since FN; adjusted IRR per additional risk factor present for the time periods 0‐30, 31‐365, and 366+ days after FN were 2.00 (95% CI, 1.45‐2.75), 1.36 (95% CI, 1.17‐1.57), and 1.17 (95% CI, 0.98‐1.41). FN was associated with increased mortality and risk of ICU admissions. An objectively identifiable subgroup of patients among those with FN carried this excess risk.

Emergency Ambulatory Management of Low-Risk Febrile Neutropenia: Multinational Association for Supportive Care in Cancer Fits-Real-World Experience From a UK Cancer Center

BACKGROUND

Emergency patient presentations with febrile neutropenia are a heterogeneous group. A small minority of these patients proceed to develop significant medical complications. Risk stratification using scores, such as the Multinational Association for Supportive Care in Cancer score, have been advocated to identify patients who are at low risk of adverse outcome suitable for treatment on an ambulatory care pathway.

OBJECTIVES

We sought to report the experience of 100 patients presenting acutely with neutropenic fever managed in an emergency ambulatory fashion.

METHODS

Patients presenting as an emergency with low-risk febrile neutropenia managed in an ambulatory setting between January 2017 and February 2019 at a tertiary cancer hospital in England were prospectively studied. Patients with a fever >38.0°C and an absolute neutrophil count <1.0 × 10⁹/L were included. All patients with a Multinational Association for Supportive Care in Cancer score ≥21 and a National Early Warning Score ≤3 were potentially eligible for the pathway. Complications were classified as serious if the patient developed persistent hypotension, respiratory failure, intensive care unit admission, altered mental status, disseminated intravascular coagulation, renal failure requiring renal replacement therapy, electrocardiogram changes requiring antidysrhythmic treatment, and 30-day mortality.

RESULTS

One hundred patients with low-risk febrile neutropenia consecutively managed in an emergency ambulatory fashion were prospectively analyzed. Eighty-one patients were female and the median age was 51 y (range 17-79 y). No patients developed serious complications. Eight (8% [95% confidence interval 4.1-15.0%]) patients had a 7-day readmission.

CONCLUSION

Outpatient ambulatory care for emergency patients with low-risk febrile neutropenia can be delivered in a safe and effective fashion. Collaboration between acute care physicians and oncologists is required to develop local models based on national guidelines to facilitate individualised care for emergency oncology patients.

Outcomes of a clinical pathway for primary outpatient management of pediatric patients with low-risk febrile neutropenia

BACKGROUND

Fever and neutropenia is a common reason for nonelective hospitalization of pediatric oncology patients. Herein we report nearly five years of experience with a clinical pathway designed to guide outpatient management for patients who had low-risk features.

PROCEDURES

Through a multidisciplinary collaboration, we implemented a clinical pathway at our institution using established low-risk criteria to guide outpatient management of pediatric oncology patients. Comprehensive chart review of all febrile neutropenia episodes was conducted to characterize outcomes of patients with low-risk febrile neutropenia following clinical pathway implementation.

RESULTS

Between April 1, 2013, and October 1, 2017, there were 169 cases of febrile neutropenia managed in our Pediatric Oncology Unit. Sixty-seven (40%) of these episodes were defined as low risk and managed either entirely in the outpatient setting (41 episodes, 24%) or with a step-down strategy involving a very brief inpatient stay (26 episodes, 15%). There were no intensive care unit admissions or deaths among the low-risk patients. Of those identified as low risk, seven patients (10%) required subsequent hospitalization during the follow-up period, two for inadequate oral intake, two for persistent fevers, one for cellulitis, one for seizure unrelated to the febrile episode, and one for a positive blood culture.

CONCLUSIONS

Following implementation of a clinical pathway, the majority of patients designated as low risk were managed primarily in the outpatient setting without major morbidity or mortality, suggesting that carefully selected low-risk patients can be successfully treated with outpatient management and subsequent admission if warranted.

Neutropénie fébrile aux urgences, stratification du risque et conditions du retour à domicile

La neutropénie fébrile (NF) est une situation fréquemment rencontrée aux urgences avec un taux de mortalité non négligeable variant de 5 à 40 %. Cette variabilité importante met en avant l’importance de stratifier le risque afin de permettre un traitement ambulatoire per os de certains patients à faible risque. En plus du MASCC (The Multinational Association for Supportive Care in Cancer) score, d’autres outils permettent d’évaluer ce risque ou sont à l’étude dans ce but, tels que le dosage de la CRP, la procalcitonine ou encore le score CISNE. Après une prise en charge rapide aux urgences incluant l’administration sans délai d’un traitement adéquat, la poursuite de l’antibiothérapie per os à domicile est envisageable chez les patients à faible risque. La combinaison amoxicilline–acide clavulanique et ciprofloxacine est le plus souvent recommandée, mais la moxifloxacine ou la lévofloxacine en monothérapie peuvent également être utilisées pour les patients traités à domicile. Le retour à domicile permet de réduire fortement les coûts engendrés par l’hospitalisation, de diminuer le risque d’infection nosocomiale et d’améliorer la qualité de vie des patients avec NF à faible risque. Dans cette optique, plusieurs critères doivent être remplis, et une discussion avec le patient reste primordiale à la prise de décision. Parmi ceux-ci, nous retiendrons notamment un score MASCC supérieur à 21, une durée attendue de neutropénie inférieure à sept jours, l’accord du patient et de son entourage ainsi que la proximité entre le domicile et un service de soin adapté.

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.

Retrospective audit of neutropenic fever after chemotherapy: how many patients could benefit from oral antibiotic management?

Guidelines suggest that carefully selected patients with neutropenic fever (NF) may be suitable for early discharge on oral antibiotics. Despite these recommendations, many centres manage NF with intravenous antibiotic protocols and inpatient care. We have conducted a retrospective audit of patients with NF, and found that 12 of 40 (30%) patients were eligible for early discharge on oral antibiotics and ambulatory care. Further studies into the barriers to ambulatory management in NF are warranted.

Managing febrile neutropenia in adult cancer patients: an integrative review of the literature

ABSTRACT Objective: To analyze the interventions performed by health professionals with a view to managing chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia. Method: Integrative literature review, the sample of 12 primary articles was selected from the following databases: LILACS, SciELO, BVS, PubMed, CINAHL and Web of Science. Results: There was a prevalence of studies, realized by doctors, focused on pharmacological treatment and on the association of methods for greater diagnostic accuracy of febrile neutropenia. A study was found on pharmaceutical management regarding antibiotic dosing efficacy and a study indicating that nurses could contribute to the identification of elderly patients who would benefit from prophylactic use of growth factor. Conclusion: There was a shortage of studies involving the participation of other health professionals, besides the doctors, and a knowledge gap regarding interprofessional practice in the management of interventions specific to their area of specialism, joint interventions and non-pharmacological interventions.

Comparison of the MASCC and CISNE scores for identifying low-risk neutropenic fever patients: analysis of data from three emergency departments of cancer centers in three continents. Support Care Cancer. 2018;26:1465-1470. [PMID: 29168032 DOI: 10.1007/s00520-017-3985-0]

PURPOSE

Patients with febrile neutropenia are a heterogeneous group with a minority developing serious medical complications. Outpatient management of low-risk febrile neutropenia has been shown to be safe and cost-effective. Scoring systems, such as the Multinational Association for Supportive Care in Cancer (MASCC) score and Clinical Index of Stable Febrile Neutropenia (CISNE), have been developed and validated to identify low-risk patients. We aimed to compare the performance of these two scores in identifying low-risk febrile neutropenic patients.

METHODS

We performed a pooled analysis of patients presenting with febrile neutropenia to three tertiary cancer emergency centers in the USA, UK, and South Korea in 2015. The primary outcome measures were the occurrence of serious complications. Admission to an intensive care unit (ICU) and 30-day mortality were secondary outcomes. The predictive performance of each score was analyzed.

RESULTS

Five hundred seventy-one patients presented with febrile neutropenia. With MASCC risk index, 508 (89.1%) were classified as low-risk febrile neutropenia, compared to 60 (10.5%) with CISNE classification. Overall, the MASCC score had a greater discriminatory power in the detection of low-risk patients than the CISNE score (AUC 0.772, 95% CI 0.726-0.819 vs. 0.681, 95% CI 0.626-0.737, p = 0.0024).

CONCLUSION

Both MASCC and CISNE scores have reasonable discriminatory value in predicting patients with low-risk febrile neutropenia. Risk scores should be used in conjunction with clinical judgment for the identification of patients suitable for outpatient management of neutropenic fever. Developing more accurate scores, validated in prospective settings, will be useful in facilitating more patients being managed in an outpatient setting.

Acute Oncology Care: A narrative review of the acute management of neutropenic sepsis and immune-related toxicities of checkpoint inhibitors

Cancer care has become increasingly specialized and advances in therapy have resulted in a larger number of patients receiving care. There has been a significant increase in the number of patients presenting with cancer related emergencies including treatment toxicities and those directly related to the malignancy. Suspected neutropenic sepsis is an acute medical emergency and empirical antibiotic therapy should be administered immediately. The goal of empirical therapy is to cover the most likely pathogens that will cause life-threatening infections in neutropenic patients. Patients with febrile neutropenia are a heterogeneous group with only a minority of treated patients developing significant medical complications. Outpatient management of low risk febrile neutropenia patients identified by the MASCC score is a safe and effective strategy. Immunotherapy with "checkpoint inhibitors" has significantly improved outcomes for patients with metastatic melanoma and evidence of benefit in a wide range of malignancies is developing. Despite these clinical benefits a number of immune related adverse events have been recognised which can affect virtually all organ systems and are potentially fatal. The timing of the onset of the adverse events is dependent on the organ system affected and unlike anti-neoplastic therapy can be delayed significantly after initiation or completion of therapy. The field of Acute Oncology is changing rapidly. Alongside, the traditional challenge of neutropenic sepsis there are many emerging toxicities. Further research into the optimal management, strategies and pathways of acutely unwell patients with cancer is required.

The time has come for new models in febrile neutropenia: a practical demonstration of the inadequacy of the MASCC score

Since its publication more than 15 years ago, the MASCC score has been internationally validated any number of times and recommended by most clinical practice guidelines for the management of febrile neutropenia (FN) around the world. We have used an empirical data-supported simulated scenario to demonstrate that, despite everything, the MASCC score is impractical as a basis for decision-making. A detailed analysis of reasons supporting the clinical irrelevance of this model is performed. First, seven of its eight variables are "innocent bystanders" that contribute little to selecting low-risk candidates for ambulatory management. Secondly, the training series was hardly representative of outpatients with solid tumors and low-risk FN. Finally, the simultaneous inclusion of key variables both in the model and in the outcome explains its successful validation in various series of patients. Alternative methods of prognostic classification, such as the Clinical Index of Stable Febrile Neutropenia, have been specifically validated for patients with solid tumors and should replace the MASCC model in situations of clinical uncertainty.

Application of the MASCC and CISNE Risk-Stratification Scores to Identify Low-Risk Febrile Neutropenic Patients in the Emergency Department. Ann Emerg Med. 2017;69:755-764. [PMID: 28041827 DOI: 10.1016/j.annemergmed.2016.11.007]

STUDY OBJECTIVE

Although validated risk-stratification tools have been used to send low-risk febrile neutropenic patients home from clinic and inpatient settings, there is a dearth of research evaluating these scores in the emergency department (ED). We compare the predictive accuracy of the Multinational Association for Supportive Care in Cancer (MASCC) and Clinical Index of Stable Febrile Neutropenia (CISNE) scores for patients with chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia and presenting to the ED.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective cohort study to evaluate all patients with febrile neutropenia (temperature ≥38°C [100.4°F], absolute neutrophil count <1,000 cells/μL) who presented to 2 academic EDs from June 2012 through January 2015. MASCC and CISNE scores were calculated for all subjects, and each visit was evaluated for several outcome variables, including inpatient length of stay, upgrade in level of care, clinical deterioration, positive blood culture results, and death. Descriptive statistics are reported and continuous variables were analyzed with Wilcoxon rank sum.

RESULTS

During our study period, 230 patients presented with chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia. The CISNE score identified 53 (23%) of these patients as low risk and was highly specific in the identification of a low-risk cohort for all outcome variables (98.3% specific, 95% confidence interval [CI] 89.7% to 99.9%; positive predictive value 98.1%, 95% CI 88.6% to 99.9%). Median length of stay was shorter for low-risk versus high-risk CISNE patients (3-day difference; P<.001). The MASCC score was much less specific (54.2%; 95% CI 40.8% to 67.1%) in the identification of a low-risk cohort.

CONCLUSION

Our results suggest that the CISNE score may be the most appropriate febrile neutropenia risk-stratification tool for use in the ED.

Admission avoidance hospital at home

BACKGROUND

Admission avoidance hospital at home provides active treatment by healthcare professionals in the patient's home for a condition that otherwise would require acute hospital inpatient care, and always for a limited time period. This is the third update of the original review.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effectiveness and cost of managing patients with admission avoidance hospital at home compared with inpatient hospital care.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, two other databases, and two trials registers on 2 March 2016. We checked the reference lists of eligible articles. We sought unpublished studies by contacting providers and researchers who were known to be involved in the field.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials recruiting participants aged 18 years and over. Studies comparing admission avoidance hospital at home with acute hospital inpatient care.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We followed the standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane and the Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) Group. We performed meta-analysis for trials that compared similar interventions and reported comparable outcomes with sufficient data, requested individual patient data from trialists, and relied on published data when this was not available. We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of the body of evidence for the most important outcomes.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 16 randomised controlled trials with a total of 1814 participants; three trials recruited participants with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, two trials recruited participants recovering from a stroke, six trials recruited participants with an acute medical condition who were mainly elderly, and the remaining trials recruited participants with a mix of conditions. We assessed the majority of the included studies as at low risk of selection, detection, and attrition bias, and unclear for selective reporting and performance bias. Admission avoidance hospital at home probably makes little or no difference on mortality at six months' follow-up (risk ratio (RR) 0.77, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.60 to 0.99; P = 0.04; I2 = 0%; 912 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), little or no difference on the likelihood of being transferred (or readmitted) to hospital (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.23; P = 0.84; I2 = 28%; 834 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), and may reduce the likelihood of living in residential care at six months' follow-up (RR 0.35, 95% CI 0.22 to 0.57; P < 0.0001; I2 = 78%; 727 participants; low-certainty evidence). Satisfaction with healthcare received may be improved with admission avoidance hospital at home (646 participants, low-certainty evidence); few studies reported the effect on caregivers. When the costs of informal care were excluded, admission avoidance hospital at home may be less expensive than admission to an acute hospital ward (287 participants, low-certainty evidence); there was variation in the reduction of hospital length of stay, estimates ranged from a mean difference of -8.09 days (95% CI -14.34 to -1.85) in a trial recruiting older people with varied health problems, to a mean increase of 15.90 days (95% CI 8.10 to 23.70) in a study that recruited patients recovering from a stroke.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Admission avoidance hospital at home, with the option of transfer to hospital, may provide an effective alternative to inpatient care for a select group of elderly patients requiring hospital admission. However, the evidence is limited by the small randomised controlled trials included in the review, which adds a degree of imprecision to the results for the main outcomes.

Clinical research in febrile neutropenia in cancer patients: Past achievements and perspectives for the future

Febrile neutropenia (FN) is responsible for significant morbidity and mortality. It can also be the reason for delaying or changing potentially effective treatments and generates substantial costs. It has been recognized for more than 50 years that empirical administration of broad spectrum antibiotics to patients with FN was associated with much improved outcomes; that has become a paradigm of management. Increase in the incidence of microorganisms resistant to many antibiotics represents a challenge for the empirical antimicrobial treatment and is a reason why antibiotics should not be used for the prevention of neutropenia. Prevention of neutropenia is best performed with the use of granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (G-CSFs). Prophylactic administration of G-CSFs significantly reduces the risk of developing FN and consequently the complications linked to that condition; moreover, the administration of G-CSF is associated with few complications, most of which are not severe. The most common reason for not using G-CSF as a prophylaxis of FN is the relatively high cost. If FN occurs, in spite of prophylaxis, empirical therapy with broad spectrum antibiotics is mandatory. However it should be adjusted to the risk of complications as established by reliable predictive instruments such as the Multinational Association for Supportive Care in Cancer. Patients predicted at a low level of risk of serious complications, can generally be treated with orally administered antibiotics and as out-patients. Patients with a high risk of complications should be hospitalized and treated intravenously. A short period of time between the onset of FN and beginning of empirical therapy is crucial in those patients. Persisting fever in spite of antimicrobial therapy in neutropenic patients requires a special diagnostic attention, since invasive fungal infection is a possible cause for it and might require the use of empirical antifungal therapy.

Fluoroquinolone resistance in bacteremic and low risk febrile neutropenic patients with cancer

BACKGROUND

The low risk febrile neutropenic patients with Multinational Association for Supportive Care in Cancer (MASCC) score of more than 20 are recommended to be treated with fluoroquinolone-based oral treatment by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guideline. This recommendation relies, at least partially, on the high sensitivity of the blood culture isolates to fluoroquinolone in clinical trials conducted in Western countries. Whether this also applies in middle or low income countries like China where antibiotic resistance is becoming prevalent recently has not been evaluated.

METHODS

All the positive blood culture results from January 2010 to December 2013 in the 2 large Chinese cancer centers were reviewed. The patients were included into the study with the following criteria: febrile neutropenia, solid tumor or lymphoma, MASCC score >20, positive blood cultures within two days of the onset of fever, and detailed treatment history.

RESULTS

A total of 38 patients were included in this analysis. Two patients had polymicrobial bacteremia (Enterococcus faecalis and Flavimonas oryzihabitans). Other isolates included coagulase-negative staphylococcus, micrococcal species, viridans streptococci, Klebsiella pneumoniae, and Escherichia coli. The majority of the monomicrobial isolates from these 36 patients was Escherichia coli (28 patients, 74%). Notably, in contrast to the high sensitivity to fluoroquinolone from blood culture of the low risk patients in previous reports in Westen countries, a very high drug resistance was observed: 13 out of 28 Escherichia coli isolates (46%) or 14 out of all 38 positive cultures (37%).

CONCLUSION

The results warrant further validations in prospective clinical trials in countries where antibiotic resistance is prevalent to ensure appropriate antibiotic administration.

Cancer chemotherapy treatment patterns and febrile neutropenia in the US Veterans Health Administration

BACKGROUND

The Veterans Health Administration (VHA) is the largest integrated health care system in the United States and a major cancer care provider.

OBJECTIVE

To use VHA database to conduct a population-based study of patterns of myelosuppressive chemotherapy use and to assess the incidence and management of febrile neutropenia (FN) among VHA patients with lung, colorectal, or prostate cancer or non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL).

METHODS

Data were extracted for the initial myelosuppressive chemotherapy course for 27,899 patients who began treatment in the period 2006 to 2011. FN-related costs were defined as claims containing FN diagnosis.

RESULTS

Most patients were men (98.0%); most were 65 years or older (55.8%). Patients received a mean 3.4 to 3.9 chemotherapy cycles/course (median cycle duration 34-43 days). The incidence of FN among patients with lung, colorectal, or prostate cancer or NHL was 10.2%, 4.6%, 5.4%, and 17.3%, respectively. Primary or secondary prophylactic antibiotics/colony-stimulating factors were received by 21% and 12% of patients, respectively. Antibiotics were more commonly given as primary or secondary prophylaxis for patients with lung, colorectal, and prostate cancer; colony-stimulating factors were more common for patients with NHL. Among patients with FN, those with lung cancer had the highest inpatient mortality (10%); patients with NHL had the highest costs ($24,571) and the longest hospital length of stay (15.4 days).

CONCLUSIONS

VHA cancer care was generally consistent with National Comprehensive Cancer Network recommendations; however, compared with the general population, chemotherapy cycles were longer, combination chemotherapy was used less, and treatment to prevent FN was used less, differences that may be attributed to the unique VHA patient population. The impact of these practices warrants further investigation.

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.

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.

Incidence, treatment, and consequences of chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia in the inpatient and outpatient settings

Objective

To examine the incidence, treatment, and consequences of febrile neutropenia across inpatient and outpatient care settings.

Methods

Data were obtained from Humedica's National Electronic Health Record-Derived Longitudinal Patient-Level Database (2007–2010). The study population included adult patients who received myelosuppressive chemotherapy for a solid tumor or non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. For each patient, each chemotherapy regimen course and each cycle within each regimen course was characterized. Febrile neutropenia episodes were identified on a cycle-specific basis based on any of the following: (1) absolute neutrophil count <1.0 × 109/L and evidence of infection or fever; (2) inpatient diagnosis of neutropenia, fever, or infection; (3) outpatient diagnosis of neutropenia and non-prophylactic antimicrobial use; or (4) mention of febrile neutropenia in physician notes. Febrile neutropenia episodes were categorized as inpatient or outpatient based on the initial setting of care (i.e. acute-care inpatient facility vs. ambulatory care facility). Febrile neutropenia consequences included hospital length of stay and mortality (inpatient cases only), as well as number of febrile neutropenia-related outpatient encounters.

Results

Among the 2131 patients in this study, 401 experienced a total of 458 febrile neutropenia episodes. Risk of febrile neutropenia during the chemotherapy regimen course was 16.8% (95% CI: 15.3, 18.4). In cycle 1 alone, risk of febrile neutropenia was 8.1% (7.1, 9.3). Most febrile neutropenia episodes (83.2%) were initially treated in the inpatient setting; the hospital mortality rate was 8.1% (5.8, 11.1), and mean hospital length of stay was 8.4 days (7.7, 9.1). Among febrile neutropenia episodes initially treated in the outpatient setting (16.8%), the mean number of outpatient management encounters was 2.6 (2.1, 3.1), most of which were in the physician’s office (69.2%) or emergency department (26.9%).

Conclusions

Febrile neutropenia remains a common occurrence among patients receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy and typically results in extended hospitalization and, for many patients, death. A minority of patients are, however, treated exclusively on an outpatient basis.

Antimicrobial stewardship in patients with cancer

Consensus guidelines recommend antimicrobial stewardship in all hospitals with the following goals in mind: appropriate and judicious use of antimicrobial agents leading to increased drug safety, reduced antimicrobial utilization, reduction in the development and selection of resistant organisms, cost containment, and improved patient outcomes. Patients with cancer, especially those with hematologic malignancies and neutropenia, develop serious infections often and receive antimicrobial therapy frequently. Consequently, there is considerable opportunity to practice antimicrobial stewardship in this population. Several antimicrobial stewardship strategies such as antimicrobial restriction, cycling, prospective audit and feedback, and de-escalation have been evaluated in patients with cancer. The primary focus has been on the prevention and treatment of bacterial infections in febrile neutropenic patients. These efforts should be expanded to include fungal, viral, and other infections.

Home Health Care of Patients With Febrile Neutropenia

Febrile neutropenia is a potentially life-threatening oncologic emergency characterized by a dangerously low neutrophil count that places the patient at great risk. In these patients, fever may be the only sign of infection, which requires prompt treatment. With the increasing focus in shifting health care from inpatient centers to outpatient arenas, home health care clinicians will likely have an increased role in the care of neutropenic fever patients in the future. The article describes both the pharmacologic treatment and nonpharmacologic support required of these patients with particular attention to treatment that may be required in the patient’s home.

The Multinational Association for Supportive Care in Cancer (MASCC) risk index score: 10 years of use for identifying low-risk febrile neutropenic cancer patients. Support Care Cancer. 2013;21:1487-1495. [PMID: 23443617 DOI: 10.1007/s00520-013-1758-y]

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.

A meta-analysis of "hospital in the home"

OBJECTIVE

To assess the effect of "hospital in the home" (HITH) services that significantly substitute for inhospital time on mortality, readmission rates, patient and carer satisfaction, and costs.

DATA SOURCES

MEDLINE, Embase, Social Sciences Citation Index, CINAHL, EconLit, PsycINFO and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, from the earliest date in each database to 1 February 2012.

STUDY SELECTION

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing HITH care with inhospital treatment for patients aged > 16 years.

DATA EXTRACTION

Potentially relevant studies were reviewed independently by two assessors, and data were extracted using a collection template and checklist.

DATA SYNTHESIS

61 RCTs met the inclusion criteria. HITH care led to reduced mortality (odds ratio [OR], 0.81; 95% CI, 0.69 to 0.95; P = 0.008; 42 RCTs with 6992 patients), readmission rates (OR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.59 to 0.95; P = 0.02; 41 RCTs with 5372 patients) and cost (mean difference, -1567.11; 95% CI, -2069.53 to -1064.69; P < 0.001; 11 RCTs with 1215 patients). The number needed to treat at home to prevent one death was 50. No heterogeneity was observed for mortality data, but heterogeneity was observed for data relating to readmission rates and cost. Patient satisfaction was higher in HITH in 21 of 22 studies, and carer satisfaction was higher in and six of eight studies; carer burden was lower in eight of 11 studies, although not significantly (mean difference, 0.00; 95% CI, -0.19 to 0.19).

CONCLUSION

HITH is associated with reductions in mortality, readmission rates and cost, and increases in patient and carer satisfaction, but no change in carer burden.

A retrospective study of the clinical and economic burden during hospitalizations among cancer patients with febrile neutropenia

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to provide up-to-date estimates of the clinical and economic burden that occurs during inpatient treatment of cancer patients with febrile neutropenia (FN).

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study was conducted using 2007-2010 hospital discharge data from the Premier database. The study population included adult patients with discharge diagnoses of neutropenia (ICD-9 code 288.0x) with fever or infection and receipt of intravenous antibiotics and female breast cancer, lung cancer, colorectal cancer, ovarian cancer, non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL), or Hodgkin lymphoma. Primary study outcomes were inpatient mortality, hospital length of stay (LOS), and total hospitalization cost for each patient's first FN-related hospitalization. Logistic regressions (for mortality) and multivariate linear regressions (for LOS and cost) were conducted to assess the effect of comorbidities and infection types on study outcomes, adjusting for other patient and hospital characteristics.

RESULTS

Among 16,273 cancer patients hospitalized with FN, the inpatient case fatality rate was 10.6%, mean LOS was 8.6 days, and mean total hospitalization cost was $18,880. Lung cancer patients had the highest inpatient case fatality rate (15.7%), and NHL patients had the longest LOS (10.1 days) and the highest cost ($24,218). Multivariate analyses showed that most comorbidities were associated with a greater risk of mortality, longer LOS, and higher cost. Septicemia/bacteremia and pneumonia were associated with a greater risk of mortality, and most types of infection were associated with a longer LOS and higher cost.

LIMITATIONS

The total burden of FN may be under-estimated in this study because outpatient treatment and any patient deaths or costs that occurred outside of Premier hospitals could not be captured.

CONCLUSIONS

FN-related hospitalizations among cancer patients are costly and accompanied by considerable mortality risk. Substantial differences in the clinical and economic burden of FN exist depending on cancer types, comorbidities, and infection types.

Myeloid toxicity of cancer treatment

Myelotoxicity is one of the most common treatment-related adverse events for patients receiving systemic antineoplastic therapy or radiotherapy to bone marrow-producing regions. Myeloid cytopenias, including neutropenia, thrombocytopenia, and anemia, are the most common manifestations of treatment-related myelotoxicity and one of the most common reasons for dose modifications, dose delays, or discontinuation of therapy, potentially limiting therapeutic benefit. Risk factors for myelotoxicity can be broadly categorized into three types: disease-related, host-related, and treatment- related. Familiarity with factors predictive of high-risk febrile neutropenia, bleeding due to thrombocytopenia, and cardiopulmonary compromise due to anemia will provide the advanced practitioner (AP) in oncology with critical tools for rapid identification of patients at risk, prompt implementation of established guidelines for management, and avoidance of clinical deterioration. The AP in oncology is often the primary point of contact for management of cytopenias, including administration of myeloid growth factors, transfusion of blood products, and management of acute events such as neutropenic fevers. Each of these interventions requires familiarity with the risk and benefits of treatment. This article will review the physiology of the bone marrow, risk factors for cytopenias, and current guidelines and recommendations for prevention and treatment of myeloid toxicity of cancer treatment.

Clinical and economic burden of emergency department presentations for neutropenia following outpatient chemotherapy for cancer in Victoria, Australia

OBJECTIVE

To examine the clinical characteristics and financial charges associated with treating adult cancer patients receiving chemotherapy in outpatient clinics who presented to the emergency department (ED) with neutropenia.

DESIGN AND SETTING

A retrospective audit was conducted across two health services involving ED episodes and subsequent hospital admissions of patients who received chemotherapy through day oncology from January 1 to December 31, 2007 and presented to the ED with neutropenia. ED data were collected from the Victorian Emergency Minimum Dataset and charges were collected from Health Information Services. Descriptive and bivariate statistics were used to describe the patient and clinical characteristics and financial outcomes, and to explore associations between these factors.

RESULTS

In total, 200 neutropenic episodes in 159 outpatients were seen in the ED over the survey period. The mean patient age was 56.6 years (standard deviation, 13.2 years) and 47.2% were male. Overall, 70.0% of ED episodes were triaged as Australasian Triage Scale 2 (emergency). The median ED wait time was 10 minutes and the median ED length of stay was 6.8 hours. The median charge for each ED episode was $764.08 Australian dollars. The total combined ED and inpatient charge per episode was in the range of $144.27-$174,732.68, with a median charge of $5,640.87.

CONCLUSIONS

This study provides important insights into the clinical and economic burden of neutropenia from both the ED and inpatient perspectives. Alternative treatment models, such as outpatient treatment, early discharge programs or prophylactic interventions to reduce the clinical and economic burden of neutropenia on our health system, must be explored.

Initial Management of Low-Risk Pediatric Fever and Neutropenia: Efficacy and Safety, Costs, Quality-of-Life Considerations, and Preferences

Initial management options for pediatric low-risk fever and neutropenia (FN) include outpatient compared with inpatient management and oral compared with intravenous therapy. Single-arm and randomized trials have been conducted in children. Meta-analyses provide support for the equivalence of outpatient and inpatient approaches. Outpatient oral management may be associated with a higher risk of readmission compared with outpatient intravenous management in children with FN, although other outcomes such as treatment failure and discontinuation of the regimen because of adverse effects were similar. Importantly, there have been no reported deaths among low-risk children treated as outpatients or with oral antibiotics. Costs, whether derived directly or through cost-effectiveness analysis, are consistently reduced when an outpatient approach is used. Quality of life (QoL) and preferences should be considered in order to evaluate different strategies, plan programs, and anticipate uptake of outpatient programs. Using parent-proxy report, child QoL is consistently higher with outpatient approaches, although research evaluating child self-report is limited. Preferences incorporate estimated QoL, but, in addition, factor in issues such as costs, fear, anxiety, and logistical issues. Only approximately 50% of parents prefer outpatient management. Future research should develop tools to facilitate outpatient care and to measure caregiver burden associated with this strategy. Additional work should also focus on eliciting child preferences for outpatient management. Finally, studies of effectiveness of an ambulatory approach in the real-world setting outside of clinical trials are important.

Costs of home versus inpatient treatment for fever and neutropenia: analysis of a multicenter randomized trial

PURPOSE

For patients with cancer who have febrile neutropenia, relative costs of home versus hospital treatment, including unreimbursed costs borne by patients and families, are poorly characterized. We estimated costs from a randomized trial of patients with low-risk febrile neutropenia for whom outpatient care was feasible, comparing inpatient treatment with discharge to home care after inpatient observation.

METHODS

We collected direct medical and self-reported indirect costs for 57 inpatient and 35 outpatient treatment episodes of patients enrolled in a randomized trial from 1996 through 2000. Charges from hospital bills were converted to costs using Medicare cost-to-charge ratios. Patients kept daily logs of out-of-pocket payments and time spent by informal caregivers providing care. Dollar amounts were standardized to June 2008.

RESULTS

Mean total charges for the hospital arm were 49% higher than for the home treatment arm ($16,341 v $10,977; P < .01). Mean estimated total costs for the hospital arm were 30% higher ($10,143 v $7,830; P < .01). Inspection of sparse available data suggests that payments made were similar by treatment arm. Inpatients and their caregivers spent more out of pocket than their outpatient counterparts (mean, $201 v $74; P < .01). Informal caregivers for both treatment arms reported similar time caring and lost from work.

CONCLUSION

Home intravenous antibiotic treatment was less costly than continued inpatient care for carefully selected patients with cancer having febrile neutropenia without significantly increased indirect costs or caregiver burden.