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

A concept analysis of transitional care for people with cancer

AIM

Transitional care as the journey between different caregivers in multiple healthcare centres is crucial for the provision of care to people with cancer, but it is often complex and poorly coordinated. This study aimed to analyse the concept of transitional care for people with cancer.

DESIGN

Rodgers' evolutionary concept analysis.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was conducted on the databases of PubMed (including MEDLINE), EMBASE, Scopus and Web of Science to retrieve articles published between 2000 and 2022.

RESULTS

Twenty-nine eligible articles were selected and their findings were classified in terms of related concepts and alternative terms, antecedents, attributes and consequences. Attributes included three main categories, namely 'nurse-related attributes', 'organisation-related attributes' and 'patient-related attributes'. Antecedents of transitional care for people with cancer were categorized into two main categories: 'patient-related antecedents' and 'caregiver-related antecedents'. Consequences were categorized into 'psychological consequences' and 'objective consequences'.

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.

Home is best. Self-administration of subcutaneous Bortezomib at home in patients with multiple myeloma - A mixed method study

OBJECTIVES

To examine the perspectives of patients and healthcare professionals of self-administration of subcutaneous (SC) injection of Bortezomib in the homes of patients with Multiple Myeloma (MM), and to assess organizational aspects.

METHODS

A prospective, clinical, parallel mixed-method design with a qualitative core and a quantitative supplementary component was conducted at a single hematological centre in Denmark. Qualitative data were obtained from individual, semi-structured interviews with patients (n = 10) and a focus group interview with healthcare professionals (n = 5); data were analyzed using a hermeneutic approach. Quantitative data were acquired from time registrations performed by patients and nurses and descriptively analyzed applying a micro-costing approach, using cost data per individual.

RESULTS

In general, patients and healthcare professionals were pleased with self-administration as patient empowerment increased. Qualitative findings yielded three themes: "Home is best", "Everyone is different", and "Safety first". Quantitative data were confirmative and revealed self-administration to be time saving for patients and nurses. In a Danish context, delivery of the medicine to the patient's home was slightly more expensive than administration at the hospital.

CONCLUSIONS

Self-administration of SC Bortezomib in the homes of patients with MM is advantageous for patients and healthcare professionals. It is feasible, safe, and timesaving. These advantages come with a negligible increase in expenses.

Usefulness analysis of the 2018 ASCO/IDSA guideline for outpatient management of fever and neutropenia in adults treated for malignancy

Although the clinical practice guideline for outpatient management of febrile neutropenia (FN) in adults treated for malignancy was updated by the ASCO/IDSA in 2018, most patients with FN in our hospital have been hospitalized. We performed this study to analyze the usefulness of the guideline. The medical records of patients hospitalized for FN in Kyungpook National University Chilgok Hospital from May 2016 to April 2018 were retrospectively reviewed. The feasibility of candidates for outpatient management according to the guideline was evaluated based on the outcomes. A total of 114 patients were enrolled and categorized into two groups, low-risk (38.6%) and high-risk (61.4%). The proportion of feasible candidates for outpatient management was 70.2% and was higher in the low-risk than in the high-risk group (90.0% vs. 57.1%; P < 0.001). The low-risk group had no mortality, no resistance to oral amoxicillin/clavulanate or ciprofloxacin, a higher rate of successful empirical antibiotics, and lower rates of glycopeptide or carbapenem administration. A significant number of hospitalized cancer patients treated for FN after chemotherapy were found to be feasible candidates for outpatient management. The guideline can be a useful tool to reduce labor of healthcare workers and hospitalization costs.

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.

The risk of overestimating cost savings from hospital-at-home schemes: A literature review

BACKGROUND

The concept of hospital-at-home means that home treatment is provided to patients who would otherwise have been treated in the hospital. This may lead to lower costs, but estimates of savings may be overstated if inpatient hospital costs are priced incorrectly.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to evaluate the quality of cost analyses of hospital-at-home studies for acute conditions published from 1996 through 2019 and to present an overview of evidence.

DESIGN

Literature review DATA SOURCES: The PubMed and NHS EED databases were searched.

REVIEW METHODS

The overall quality of studies was evaluated based on Quality of Health Economic Studies (QHES) score, design, sample size, alignment of cost calculation with study perspective, time horizon, use of tariffs or real resource use and clarity of calculations. Furthermore, we systematically assessed whether cost savings were likely to be overestimated, based on criteria about the costing of inpatient hospital days, informal care costs and bias.

RESULTS

We identified 48 studies. The average QHES score was 60 out of a maximum of 100 points. Almost all studies violated one or more criteria for the risk of overestimation of cost savings. The most frequent problems were the use of average unit prices per inpatient day (not taking into account the decreasing intensity of care) and biased designs. Most studies found cost differences in favour of hospital-at-home; the range varied from savings of €8773 to a cost increase of €2316 per patient.

CONCLUSION

Overall quality of studies was not good, with some exceptions. Many cost savings were probably overestimated.

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.

DNA Methylation Events as Markers for Diagnosis and Management of Acute Myeloid Leukemia and Myelodysplastic Syndrome

During the onset and progression of hematological malignancies, many changes occur in cellular epigenome, such as hypo- or hypermethylation of CpG islands in promoter regions. DNA methylation is an epigenetic modification that regulates gene expression and is a key event for tumorigenesis. The continuous search for biomarkers that signal early disease, indicate prognosis, and act as therapeutic targets has led to studies investigating the role of DNA in cancer onset and progression. This review focuses on DNA methylation changes as potential biomarkers for diagnosis, prognosis, response to treatment, and early toxicity in acute myeloid leukemia and myelodysplastic syndrome. Here, we report that distinct changes in DNA methylation may alter gene function and drive malignant cellular transformation during several stages of leukemogenesis. Most of these modifications occur at an early stage of disease and may predict myeloid/lymphoid transformation or response to therapy, which justifies its use as a biomarker for disease onset and progression. Methylation patterns, or its dynamic change during treatment, may also be used as markers for patient stratification, disease prognosis, and response to treatment. Further investigations of methylation modifications as therapeutic biomarkers, which may correlate with therapeutic response and/or predict treatment toxicity, are still warranted.

ReCAP: Hospitalizations in Older Adults With Advanced Cancer: The Role of Chemotherapy

PURPOSE

Hospital readmissions are often cited as a marker of poor quality of care. Limited data suggest some readmissions may be preventable depending upon definitions and available outpatient support.

METHODS

General criteria to define preventable and not preventable admissions were developed before data collection began. The records of sequential nonsurgical oncology readmissions were reviewed independently by two reviewers. When the reviewers disagreed about assigning admissions as preventable or not preventable, a third reviewer was the tie breaker. The reasons for assigning admissions as preventable or not preventable were analyzed.

RESULTS

Seventy-two readmissions occurring among 69 patients were analyzed. The first two reviewers agreed that 18 (25%) of 72 were preventable and that 29 (40%) of 72 were not. A third reviewer found four of the split 25 cases to be preventable; therefore, the consensus preventability rate was 22 (31%) of 72. The most common causes of preventability were overwhelming symptoms in patients who qualified for hospice but were not participating in hospice and insufficient communication between patients and the care team about symptom burden. The most common reason for assignment of a not preventable admission was a high symptom burden among patients without strong indications for hospice or for whom aggressive outpatient management was inadequate. The median survival after readmission was 72 days.

CONCLUSION

A substantial proportion of oncology readmissions could be prevented with better anticipation of symptoms in high-risk ambulatory patients and enhanced communication about symptom burden between patients and physicians before an escalation that leads to an emergency department visit. Managing symptoms in patients who are appropriate for hospice is challenging. Readmission is a marker of poor prognosis.

Economic Burden Associated with Hospitalization for Radiation Cystitis: Results from a Statewide Inpatient Database

INTRODUCTION

Radiation cystitis is associated with a significant burden to patients and the health care system. However, the regional burden of treatment and its associated costs remains poorly described. We assessed the health care costs and need for intervention among patients admitted to the hospital with radiation cystitis.

METHODS

Using data from the Ohio Hospital Association we identified patients admitted with a diagnosis of radiation cystitis from 2009 to 2013. The primary outcome was the adjusted inpatient cost (adjusted to 2013 U.S. dollars) associated with in-hospital treatment of radiation cystitis. Secondary outcomes included percentage of patients requiring endoscopic urological procedures, blood transfusions and nephrostomy tubes. We used a generalized estimating equation model to determine in-hospital costs. Multivariate logistic regression analyses were used to determine factors associated with requiring an invasive procedure.

RESULTS

We identified 1,111 patients admitted to Ohio hospitals between 2009 and 2013 with a diagnosis of radiation cystitis. Mean patient age (±SD) was 73.9 (±12.5) years. Median length of stay was 4 days (IQR 3-8). The adjusted median cost of hospitalization per admission in 2013 for these patients was $7,151 (IQR $4,251-$16,569). Overall 28.9% of patients required blood transfusions, 34.4% required endourological procedures and 3.4% required nephrostomy tubes. The odds of undergoing an invasive procedure were associated with increasing length of stay, need for blood transfusion and male gender.

CONCLUSIONS

This study is the first population based study to our knowledge to assess the treatment burden and health care costs from radiation cystitis. A diagnosis of radiation cystitis carries with it a significant economic and treatment associated burden.

Outpatient management without initial assessment for febrile patients undergoing adjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer

The purpose of this study was to retrospectively analyze the feasibility of outpatient management without initial assessment for febrile patients undergoing adjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer. A total of 131 consecutive patients with breast cancer treated with adjuvant or neoadjuvant chemotherapy from 2011 to 2013 at Osaka Medical College Hospital (Osaka, Japan) were retrospectively reviewed. In the case of developing a fever (body temperature, ≥38°C), the outpatients had been instructed to take previously prescribed oral antibiotics for 3 days without any initial assessment, and if no improvement had occurred by then, they were required to visit the hospital for examination and to undergo treatment based on the results of a risk assessment for complications. The primary aim of the present study was to assess the outcome of febrile episodes, while the secondary aim was to assess the incidence of febrile episodes, hospitalizations, and the type of chemotherapy. The 131 patients received 840 chemotherapy administrations. Fifty-five patients (42.0%) had a total of 75 febrile episodes after 840 chemotherapy administrations (8.9%). Treatment failure occurred in 12 of the 75 episodes (16.0%) in 11 of the 55 patients (20.0%). Only four episodes required hospitalization. Treatment success was achieved in 63 episodes (84.0%). In conclusion, the feasibility of outpatient management without initial assessment was evaluated in the present study for febrile patients undergoing adjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer, and the outpatient strategy regimen may be safe and convenient for these patients.

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.

Transition journey from hospital to home in patients with cancer and their caregivers: a qualitative study

BACKGROUND

The National Cancer Institute Singapore initiated the NUH2 Home program in January 2014, referred to as "Caring Across the Cancer Continuum," a nurse-led cancer transitional care service (CTCS) that provides home care to patients with cancer and their caregivers. The study aimed to explore the transition experiences of patients with cancer and their caregivers.

METHOD

Using a purposive sampling, 12 patients with cancer and 12 caregivers were recruited. Audiotape interviews were conducted until data saturation was achieved. Each interview was transcribed verbatim, and thematic analyses were performed to extract significant themes and subthemes.

RESULTS

Four themes emerged from the data including (1) ongoing concerns, (2) needing timely help, (3) resuming control and normality of life, and (4) appreciating the transition care. The transition journey of patients and caregivers provided them with an ability to regain control and normality in their lives, be reassured and confident in being able to care for themselves and manage the physiological and psychological strains associated with the multiple vicissitudes associated with having cancer and its treatment while at home.

CONCLUSION

Our study addressed the nature, patterns, conditions, and responses to transition care. Our findings provided relevant contextual knowledge to further improve the transition care service based on the recommendations of the patients with cancer and their caregivers who first experienced the new service.

Comparison of in-patient costs for children treated on the AAML0531 clinical trial: A report from the Children's Oncology Group

BACKGROUND

A better understanding of drivers of treatment costs may help identify effective cost containment strategies and prioritize resources. We aimed to develop a method for estimating inpatient costs for pediatric patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) enrolled on NCI-funded Phase III trials, compare costs between AAML0531 treatment arms (standard chemotherapy ± gemtuzumab ozogamicin (GMTZ)), and evaluate primary drivers of costs for newly diagnosed pediatric AML.

PROCEDURE

Patients from the AAML0531 trial were matched on hospital, sex, and dates of birth and diagnosis to the Pediatric Health Information Systems (PHIS) database to obtain daily billing data. Inpatient treatment costs were calculated as adjusted charges multiplied by hospital-specific cost-to-charge ratios. Generalized linear models were used to compare costs between treatment arms and courses, and by patient characteristics.

RESULTS

Inpatient costs did not differ by randomized treatment arm. Costs varied by course with stem cell transplant being most expensive, followed by Intensification II (cytarabine/mitoxantrone) and Induction I (cytarabine/daunorubicin/etoposide). Room/board and pharmacy were the largest contributors to inpatient treatment cost, representing 74% of the total cost. Higher AML risk group (P = 0.0003) and older age (P < 0.0001) were associated with significantly higher daily inpatient cost.

CONCLUSIONS

Costs from external data sources can be successfully integrated into NCI-funded Phase III clinical trials. Inpatient treatment costs did not differ by GMTZ exposure but varied by chemotherapy course. Variation in cost by course was driven by differences in duration of hospitalization through room/board charges as well as increased clinical and pharmacy charges in specific courses.

The impact of chemotherapy dose intensity and supportive care on the risk of febrile neutropenia in patients with early stage breast cancer: a prospective cohort study

Background

Febrile neutropenia (FN) is a major dose-limiting toxicity of cancer chemotherapy resulting in considerable morbidity, mortality, and cost. This study evaluated the time course of neutropenic events and patterns of supportive care interventions in patients receiving chemotherapy for early-stage breast cancer treated in oncology community practices.

Methods

A prospective cohort study of adult cancer patients initiating a new chemotherapy regimen was conducted at 115 US sites. Toxicity associated with chemotherapy including neutropenic and infectious complications was recorded over four cycles. Clinical interventions were recorded including reductions in chemotherapy dose intensity and use of supportive care measures.

Results

A total of 1,202 patients with stage I–III breast cancer were evaluated. The majority of neutropenic (116 of 196) and infection events (179 of 325) occurred in the initial cycle. A decrease in occurrence of FN and infection was observed in the subsequent cycles, along with an increase in utilization of colony stimulating factors (CSFs), antibiotics and reductions in chemotherapy dose intensity. The overall risk of FN in all patients was 16.3%. In patients who started treatment at or near full dose intensity, the FN risk reached 21.0% without primary CSF prophylaxis and it was 9.0% with prophylaxis. There was no significant difference in FN rates by menopausal or hormone receptors status.

Conclusions

The risk of neutropenic complications is greatest in the initial cycle when most patients receive full-dose chemotherapy. A decrease in neutropenic events during subsequent cycles is associated with reduced dose intensity or increased use of supportive care measures. However, the cumulative risk of FN remains high in patients with early-stage breast cancer receiving full dose chemotherapy without prophylactic measures.

Ertapenem usage in cancer patients with and without neutropenia: a report on 97 cases from a comprehensive cancer center

PURPOSE

Ertapenem is being increasingly utilized in cancer patients, but published data regarding its usage are limited. Our objective was to describe the various indications for ertapenem therapy and its safety and efficacy in cancer patients.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective cohort study of cancer patients who received monotherapy with ertapenem for at least 72 h, between January 2007 and February 2013.

RESULTS

Among 97 unique patients who received ertapenem monotherapy, the most common indications were: (1) To facilitate discharge from the hospital of stable patients still requiring antimicrobial therapy (46 %). (2) Primary therapy of various documented infections (bacteremia, pneumonia, urinary tract infection, skin and skin structure infection) with ertapenem (28 %). (3) De-escalation from a different broad-spectrum agent or regimen to ertapenem within the hospital setting in patients not ready for discharge (25 %). The median age of the 97 patients studied was 59 years (range 9-87 years) with 52 % being men. Most patients had underlying hematologic malignancies (54 %), and 7 % were recipients of hematopoietic stem cell transplantation. Twenty-nine patients (30 %) were neutropenic, 26 % were diabetic, and 6 % had chronic lung disease. Primary ertapenem monotherapy was successful in all patients, de-escalation in 95.8 % of patients, and the strategy of discharge on outpatient therapy with ertapenem in 95.6 % of patients. Patients failing de-escalation or early discharge responded to alternative regimens. We documented no significant ertapenem associated toxicity or adverse events.

CONCLUSIONS

Ertapenem appears to be safe and effective for several indications in cancer patients.

Costs of care in a matched pair comparison of intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) versus conventional radiation therapy (CRT) for the treatment of head and neck cancer

OBJECTIVES

Intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) has been rapidly adopted for the treatment of head and neck cancer. Limited comparative effectiveness data suggest that IMRT reduces the incidence of xerostomia and improves quality of life. We assess the cost of IMRT versus the older conventional radiation therapy (CRT) relative to other potential drivers of cost in patients with head and neck cancer.

METHODS

We compared patients treated with definitive radiation with or without chemotherapy for squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck treated between 2000 and 2009. IMRT-treated patients were matched to CRT-treated patients by site, stage, and smoking status. Itemized billing charges were obtained for each patient and used to estimate cost using the Medicare fee schedule. Multivariate analysis was used to assess the influence of demographic, clinical, and treatment variables on total, pretreatment, during treatment, and follow-up costs.

RESULTS

Models indicate that compared with CRT, IMRT was associated with, on average, a $5881 increase in total costs (P=0.043), a $1700 decrease in pretreatment costs (P=0.014), a $4768 increase in costs during treatment (P=0.004), and no significant difference in follow-up costs. Positron emission tomography scans, cancer recurrence, and comorbidity were also associated with higher total costs in this sample.

CONCLUSIONS

Use of IMRT relative to CRT was strongly correlated with higher total costs, but disease control, patient comorbidity, and use of positron emission tomography also had significant effects on overall costs. Cost-effectiveness models should be developed to assess whether the potential benefits of IMRT are worth the associated investment.

Economic burden of chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia in patients with lymphoma: a systematic review

The primary objective of this review was to identify the cost components that were most frequently associated with the economic burden of febrile neutropenia (FN) among patients with lymphoma. The secondary objective was to identify any parameter associated with higher FN cost. Ten cost of illness (COI) studies were identified. General characteristics on study design, country, perspective, and patient population were extracted and systematically reported. It was observed that majority (70%) of the studies employed the perspective of healthcare provider. 20% of the studies considered long-term costs. Estimated costs were adjusted to 2013 US dollars and ranged from US$5819 to US$34,756. The cost components that were most frequently associated with economic burden were ward and medication costs. Inpatient management, male gender, discharged dead, and comorbidity were positively associated with higher FN costs. Future COI studies on FN should focus on the accurate estimation on ward and medication costs.

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

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

Patterns of chemotherapy-associated toxicity and supportive care in US oncology practice: a nationwide prospective cohort study

Neutropenic complications remain an important dose-limiting toxicity of cancer chemotherapy-associated with considerable morbidity, mortality, and cost. Risk of the initial neutropenic event is greatest during the first cycle. The purpose of this study was to better understand timing of neutropenic events in relation to delivered chemotherapy dose intensity and utilization of supportive care during cancer treatment. A prospective cohort study of adult patients with solid tumors or lymphoma initiating chemotherapy was conducted at 115 randomly selected US practice sites between 2002 and 2006. Chemotherapy-associated toxicities were captured in up to four treatment cycles including severe neutropenia, febrile neutropenia, and infection. Documented interventions included colony-stimulating factor (CSF), antibiotics use, and reductions in chemotherapy relative dose intensity (RDI). A total of 3638 patients with breast (39.7%), lung (23.7%), colorectal (13.6%), ovarian (8.3%) cancers, or lymphoma (14.7%) were eligible for this analysis. The majority of neutropenic and infection events occurred in the first cycle. A significant inverse relationship was observed between reductions in neutropenic and infectious events and increased utilization of measures to reduce these complications in subsequent cycles. More than 60% of patients with stage IV solid tumors underwent reductions in RDI. Patients with lymphoma and stage I–III solid tumors had less dose reductions while receiving more prophylactic CSFs. Approximately, 15% of patients received prophylactic antibiotics. While the risk of neutropenic complications remains greatest during the initial cycle of chemotherapy, subsequently instituted clinical measures in efforts to reduce the risk of these events vary with cancer type and stage.

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.

Inpatient versus outpatient management of neutropenic fever in gynecologic oncology patients: is risk stratification useful?

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to evaluate the utility of risk stratification of gynecologic oncology patients with neutropenic fever (NF).

METHODS

A retrospective chart review of gynecologic cancer patients admitted with NF from 2007 to 2011 was performed, wherein demographic, oncologic, and NF characteristics (hospitalization length, complications, and death) were collected. The Multinational Association for Supportive Care in Cancer (MASCC) risk index score was calculated; low risk was considered ≥ 21. SAS 9.2 was used for statistical analyses.

RESULTS

Eighty-three patients met the study criteria. Most (92%) were Caucasian and had advanced stage disease (71%). Primary tumors were 58% ovary, 35% endometrium, and 6% cervix. All patients were receiving chemotherapy on admission (72% for primary, 28% for recurrent disease). Forty-eight percent had a positive culture, and most (58%) positive cultures were urine. Seventy-six percent of patients were considered low risk. High-risk patients were more likely to have a severe complication (10% versus 50%, p=0.0003), multiple severe complications (3% versus 20%, p=0.0278), ICU admission (2% versus 40%, p<0.0001), overall mortality (2% versus 15%, p=0.0417), and death due to neutropenic fever (0% versus 15%, p=0.0124). MASCC had a positive predictive value of 50% and negative predictive value of 90%. The median MASCC score for all patients was 22 (range, 11-26), but the median MASCC score for those with death or a severe complication was 17 (range, 11-24).

CONCLUSION

Based on this pilot data, MASCC score appears promising in determining suitability for outpatient management of NF in gynecologic oncology patients. Prospective study is ongoing to confirm safety and determine impact on cost.

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 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.

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.

Eliciting patients' preferences for outpatient treatment of febrile neutropenia: a discrete choice experiment

BACKGROUND

Studies have demonstrated that patients at low risk for febrile neutropenia (FN) complications can be treated safely and effectively at home. Information on patient preferences for outpatient treatment of this condition will help to optimize health care delivery to these patients. The purpose of this study was to elicit non-Hodgkin lymphoma patients' preferences on attributes related to outpatient treatment of FN.

METHODS

We used a self-administered discrete choice experiment questionnaire based on the attributes of out-of-pocket costs, unpaid caregiver time required daily, and probability of return to the hospital. Ten paired scenarios in which levels of the attributes were varied were presented to study patients. For each pair, patients indicated the scenario they preferred. Adjusted odds ratios (ORs) of accepting a scenario that described outpatient care for FN were estimated.

RESULTS

Eighty-eight patients completed the questionnaire. Adjusted ORs [95 % confidence intervals] of accepting outpatient care for FN were 0.84 [0.75, 0.95] for each $10 increase in out-of-pocket cost; 0.82 [0.68, 0.99] for each 1 h increase in daily unpaid caregiver time; and 0.53 [0.50, 0.57] for each 5 % increase in probability of return to the hospital.

CONCLUSIONS

Probability of return to the hospital was the most important attribute to patients when considering home-based care for FN. Patients considered out-of-pocket costs and unpaid caregiver time to be less important than probability of return to the hospital. This study identifies factors that could be incorporated into outpatient delivery systems for FN care to ensure adequate patient uptake and satisfaction with such programs.

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.

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

PURPOSE

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

PATIENTS AND METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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