Randomized comparison between antibiotics alone and antibiotics plus granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor (Escherichia coli-derived in cancer patients with fever and neutropenia

Partially clustered designs for clinical trials: Unifying existing designs using consistent terminology

INTRODUCTION

Clinical trial designs based on the assumption of independent observations are well established. Clustered clinical trial designs, where all observational units belong to a cluster and outcomes within clusters are expected to be correlated, have also received considerable attention. However, many clinical trials involve partially clustered data, where only some observational units belong to a cluster. Examples of such trials occur in neonatology, where participants include infants from both singleton and multiple births, and ophthalmology, where one or two eyes per participant may need treatment. Partial clustering can also arise in trials of group-based treatments (e.g. group education or counselling sessions) or treatments administered individually by a discrete number of health care professionals (e.g. surgeons or physical therapists), when this is compared to an unclustered control arm. Trials involving partially clustered data have received limited attention in the literature and the current lack of standardised terminology may be hampering the development and dissemination of methods for designing and analysing these trials.

METHODS AND EXAMPLES

In this article, we present an overarching definition of partially clustered trials, bringing together several existing trial designs including those for group-based treatments, clustering due to facilitator effects and the re-randomisation design. We define and describe four types of partially clustered trial designs, characterised by whether the clustering occurs pre-randomisation or post-randomisation and, in the case of pre-randomisation clustering, by the method of randomisation that is used for the clustered observations (individual randomisation, cluster randomisation or balanced randomisation within clusters). Real life examples are provided to highlight the occurrence of partially clustered trials across a variety of fields. To assess how partially clustered trials are currently reported, we review published reports of partially clustered trials.

DISCUSSION

Our findings demonstrate that the description of these trials is often incomplete and the terminology used to describe the trial designs is inconsistent, restricting the ability to identify these trials in the literature. By adopting the definitions and terminology presented in this article, the reporting of partially clustered trials can be substantially improved, and we present several recommendations for reporting these trial designs in practice. Greater awareness of partially clustered trials will facilitate more methodological research into their design and analysis, ultimately improving the quality of these trials.

Maximum daily dose of G-CSF is critical for preventing recurrence of febrile neutropenia in patients with gynecologic cancer: A case-control study

No study has evaluated the effect of therapeutic granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) in preventing recurrence of febrile neutropenia (FN) and survival outcomes in gynecologic cancer patients. Objective of this study is to optimize and to identify the use of G-CSF and identify the critical factors for preventing the recurrence of FN in women undergoing chemotherapy for the treatment of gynecologic cancer. The medical records of consecutive patients who underwent chemotherapy for the treatment of gynecologic cancer and experienced FN at least once were retrospectively reviewed. Clinico-laboratory variables were compared between those with and without recurrence of FN to identify risk factors for the recurrence and the most optimal usage of G-CSF that can prevent FN. Student t test, χ2 test, and multivariate Cox regression analysis were used. A total of 157 patients who met the inclusion criteria were included. Of 157, 49 (31.2%) experienced recurrence of FN. Age ≥55 years (P = .043), previous lines of chemotherapy ≤1 (P = .002), thrombocytopenia (P = .025), total dose (P = .003), and maximum daily dose (P = .009) of G-CSF were significantly associated with recurrence of FN. Multiple regression analysis showed that age ≥55 years (HR, 2.42; 95% CI, 1.14-5.14; P = .022), previous chemotherapy ≤1 (HR, 4.01; 95% CI, 1.40-11.55; P = .010), and maximum daily dose of G-CSF ≤600 μg (HR, 5.18; 95% CI, 1.12-24.02; P = .036) were independent risk factors for recurrent FN. Multivariate Cox regression analysis showed that a maximum daily dose of G-CSF ≤600 μg was the only independent risk factor for short recurrence-free survival of FN (HR, 4.75; 95% CI, 1.15-19.56; P = .031). Dose-dense administration of G-CSF >600 μg/day could prevent recurrence of FN in women who undergo chemotherapy for the treatment of gynecologic cancer and FN. Old age and FN at early lines of chemotherapy seem to be associated with FN recurrence.

Re-randomization increased recruitment and provided similar treatment estimates as parallel designs in trials of febrile neutropenia

Objective

Re-randomization trials allow patients to be re-enrolled for multiple treatment episodes. However, it remains uncertain to what extent re-randomization improves recruitment compared to parallel group designs or whether treatment estimates might be affected.

Study Design and Setting

We evaluated trials included in a recent Cochrane review of granulocyte colony-stimulating factors for patients with febrile neutropenia. We assessed the recruitment benefits of re-randomization trials; compared treatment effect estimates between re-randomization and parallel group designs; and assessed whether re-randomization led to higher rates of non-compliance and loss to follow-up in subsequent episodes.

Results

We included 14 trials (5 re-randomization and 9 parallel group). The re-randomization trials recruited a median of 25% (range 16–66%) more episodes on average than they would have under a parallel-group design. Treatment effect estimates were similar between re-randomization and parallel group trials across all outcomes, though confidence intervals were wide. The re-randomization trials in this review reported no loss to follow-up and low rates of non-compliance (median 1.7%, range 0–8.9%).

Conclusions

In the setting of febrile neutropenia, re-randomization increased recruitment while providing similar estimates of treatment effect to parallel group trials, with minimal loss to follow-up or non-compliance. It appears to be safe and efficient alternative to parallel group designs in this setting.

Colony-stimulating factors for chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia

BACKGROUND

Febrile neutropenia is a frequent adverse event experienced by people with cancer who are undergoing chemotherapy, and is a potentially life-threatening situation. The current treatment is supportive care plus antibiotics. Colony-stimulating factors (CSFs), such as granulocyte-CSF (G-CSF) and granulocyte-macrophage CSF (GM-CSF), are cytokines that stimulate and accelerate the production of one or more cell lines in the bone marrow. Clinical trials have addressed the question of whether the addition of a CSF to antibiotics could improve outcomes in individuals diagnosed with febrile neutropenia. However, the results of these trials are conflicting.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the safety and efficacy of adding G-CSF or GM-CSF to standard treatment (antibiotics) when treating chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia in individuals diagnosed with cancer.

SEARCH METHODS

We conducted the search in March 2014 and covered the major electronic databases: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS, and SCI. We contacted experts in hematology and oncology and also scanned the citations from the relevant articles.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared CSF plus antibiotics versus antibiotics alone for the treatment of chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia in adults and children.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used the standard methodological procedures expected by The Cochrane Collaboration. We performed meta-analysis of the selected studies using Review Manager 5 software.

MAIN RESULTS

Fourteen RCTs (15 comparisons) including a total of 1553 participants addressing the role of CSF plus antibiotics in febrile neutropenia were included. Overall mortality was not improved by the use of CSF plus antibiotics versus antibiotics alone (hazard ratio (HR) 0.74 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.47 to 1.16) P = 0.19; 13 RCTs; 1335 participants; low quality evidence). A similar finding was seen for infection-related mortality (HR 0.75 (95% CI 0.47 to 1.20) P = 0.23; 10 RCTs; 897 participants; low quality evidence). Individuals who received CSF plus antibiotics were less likely to be hospitalized for more than 10 days (risk ratio (RR) 0.65 (95% CI 0.44 to 0.95) P = 0.03; 8 RCTs; 1221 participants; low quality evidence) and had more number of participants with a more faster neutrophil recovery (RR 0.52 (95% CI 0.34 to 0.81) P = 0.004; 5 RCTs; 794 participants; moderate quality evidence) than those treated with antibiotics alone. Similarly, participants receiving CSF plus antibiotics had shorter duration of neutropenia (standardized mean difference (SMD) -1.70 (95% CI -2.65 to -0.76) P = 0.0004; 9 RCTs; 1135 participants; moderate quality evidence), faster recovery from fever (SMD -0.49 (95% CI -0.90 to -0.09) P value = 0.02; 9 RCTs; 966 participants; moderate quality evidence) and shorter duration of antibiotics use (SMD -1.50 (95% CI -2.83 to -0.18) P = 0.03; 3 RCTs; 457 participants; low quality evidence) compared with participants receiving antibiotics alone. We found no significant difference in the incidence of deep venous thromboembolism (RR 1.68 (95% CI 0.72 to 3.93) P = 0.23; 4 RCTs; 389 participants; low quality evidence) in individuals treated with CSF plus antibiotics compared with those treated with antibiotics alone. We found higher incidence of bone or joint pain or flu-like symptoms (RR 1.59 (95% CI 1.04 to 2.42) P = 0.03; 6 RCTs; 622 participants; low quality evidence) in individuals treated with CSF plus antibiotics compared with those treated with antibiotics alone. Overall, the methodological quality of studies was moderate to low across different outcomes. The main reasons to downgrade the quality of evidence were inconsistency across the included studies and imprecision of results.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The use of a CSF plus antibiotics in individuals with chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia had no effect on overall mortality, but reduced the amount of time participants spent in hospital and improved their ability to achieve neutrophil recovery. It was not clear whether CSF plus antibiotics had an effect on infection-related mortality. Participants receiving CSFs had shorter duration of neutropenia, faster recovery from fever and shorter duration of antibiotics use.

ESCMID* guideline for the diagnosis and management of Candida diseases 2012: adults with haematological malignancies and after haematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HCT)

Fungal diseases still play a major role in morbidity and mortality in patients with haematological malignancies, including those undergoing haematopoietic stem cell transplantation. Although Aspergillus and other filamentous fungal diseases remain a major concern, Candida infections are still a major cause of mortality. This part of the ESCMID guidelines focuses on this patient population and reviews pertaining to prophylaxis, empirical/pre-emptive and targeted therapy of Candida diseases. Anti-Candida prophylaxis is only recommended for patients receiving allogeneic stem cell transplantation. The authors recognize that the recommendations would have most likely been different if the purpose would have been prevention of all fungal infections (e.g. aspergillosis). In targeted treatment of candidaemia, recommendations for treatment are available for all echinocandins, that is anidulafungin (AI), caspofungin (AI) and micafungin (AI), although a warning for resistance is expressed. Liposomal amphotericin B received a BI recommendation due to higher number of reported adverse events in the trials. Amphotericin B deoxycholate should not be used (DII); and fluconazole was rated CI because of a change in epidemiology in some areas in Europe. Removal of central venous catheters is recommended during candidaemia but if catheter retention is a clinical necessity, treatment with an echinocandin is an option (CII(t) ). In chronic disseminated candidiasis therapy, recommendations are liposomal amphotericin B for 8 weeks (AIII), fluconazole for >3 months or other azoles (BIII). Granulocyte transfusions are only an option in desperate cases of patients with Candida disease and neutropenia (CIII).

Randomized double blind trial of ciprofloxacin prophylaxis during induction treatment in childhood acute lymphoblastic leukemia in the WK-ALL protocol in Indonesia

OBJECTIVES

Toxic death is a big problem in the treatment of childhood acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL), especially in low-income countries. Studies of ciprofloxacin as single agent prophylaxis vary widely in success rate. We conducted a double-blind, randomized study to test the effects of ciprofloxacin monotherapy as prophylaxis for sepsis and death in induction treatment of the Indonesian childhood ALL protocol.

METHODS

Patients were randomized to the ciprofloxacin arm (n = 58) and to the placebo arm (n = 52). Oral ciprofloxacin monotherapy or oral placebo was administered twice a day. All events during induction were recorded: toxic death, abandonment, resistant disease, and complete remission rate.

RESULTS

Of 110 patients enrolled in this study, 79 (71.8%) achieved CR. In comparison to the placebo arm, the ciprofloxacin arm had lower nadir of absolute neutrophil count during induction with median of 62 (range: 5-884) versus 270 (range: 14-25,480) × 10(9) cells/L (P < 0.01), greater risks for experiencing fever (50.0% versus 32.7%, P = 0.07), clinical sepsis (50.0% versus 38.5%, P = 0.22), and death (18.9% versus 5.8%, P = 0.05).

CONCLUSION

In our setting, a reduced intensity protocol in a low-income situation, the data warn against using ciprofloxacin prophylaxis during induction treatment. A lower nadir of neutrophil count and higher mortality were found in the ciprofloxacin group.

Colony-stimulating factors in the prevention and management of infectious diseases

Colony-stimulating factors (CSFs) are attractive adjunctive anti-infective therapies. Used to enhance innate host defenses against microbial pathogens, the myeloid CSFs increase absolute numbers of circulating innate immune effector cells by accelerating bone marrow production and maturation, or augment the function of those cells through diverse effects on chemotaxis, phagocytosis, and microbicidal functions. This article summarizes the evidence supporting the accepted clinical uses of the myeloid CSFs in patients with congenital or chemotherapy-induced neutropenia, and presents an overview of proposed and emerging uses of the CSFs for the prevention and treatment of infectious diseases in other immunosuppressed and immunocompetent patient populations.

Epidemiology of febrile neutropenia

Febrile neutropenia (FN) continues to represent a major cause of morbidity, mortality, and cost in patients receiving cancer chemotherapy. The reported rates of FN vary considerably among studies depending on the treatment regimen, delivered dose intensity, and patient population. The risk of initial FN appears to be highest during the first cycle of chemotherapy and is greatest in certain high-risk groups including elderly patients and those with various comorbidities. Febrile neutropenia continues to have considerable clinical, economic, and quality-of-life impact on affected patients. The risk of mortality associated with FN continues to be relatively high in patients with hematologic malignancies, patients presenting with comorbid illnesses, and patients with bacteremia, pneumonia, or other infection-related complications. The reduction in chemotherapy dose intensity that frequently follows an episode of FN may have considerable life-threatening impact on disease control in responsive and potentially curable malignancies. The economic burden of FN is substantial, with the greatest proportion of the cost associated with the relatively limited number of patients hospitalized for prolonged periods as a result of comorbidities or complications. The colony-stimulating factors (CSFs) may reduce the risk and cost associated with cancer treatment by reducing the probability of hospitalization with FN. Primary prophylaxis with the CSFs may be warranted in patients receiving intensive regimens or in those at greater risk because of age or comorbidities. Further study of various risk factors for FN should help identify patients at greatest risk and likely candidates for targeted use of the hematopoietic growth factors.

Supportive therapy in multiple myeloma

In this chapter we want to give an overview on various supportive measures, which help to prevent or to fight complications of multiple myeloma, improve patient wellbeing and increase safety of administration of specific anti-myeloma therapy.

Acute Myelogenous Leukemia and Febrile Neutropenia

Aggressive chemotherapy has a deleterious effect on all components of the defense system of the human body. The resulting neutropenia as well as injury to the pulmonary and gastrointestinal mucosa allow pathogenic micro-organisms easy access to the body. The symptoms of an incipient infection are usually subtle and limited to unexplained fever due to the absence of granulocytes. This is the reason why prompt administration of antimicrobial agents while waiting for the results of the blood cultures, the so-called empirical approach, became an undisputed standard of care. Gram-negative pathogens remain the principal concern because their virulence accounts for serious morbidity and a high early mortality rate. Three basic intravenous antibiotic regimens have evolved: initial therapy with a single antipseudomonal β-lactam, the so-called monotherapy; a combination of two drugs: a β-lactam with an aminoglycoside, a second β-lactam or a quinolone; and, thirdly, a glycopeptide in addition to β-lactam monotherapy or combination. As there is no single consistently superior empirical regimen, one should consider the local antibiotic susceptibility of bacterial isolates in the selection of the initial antibiotic regimen. Not all febrile neutropenic patients carry the same risk as those with fever only generally respond rapidly, whereas those with a clinically or microbiologically documented infection show a much slower reaction and less favorable response rate.

Once an empirical antibiotic therapy has been started, the patient must be monitored continuously for nonresponse, emergence of secondary infections, adverse effects, and the development of drug-resistant organisms. The averageduration of fever in serious infections in eventually successfully treated neutropenic patients is 4–5 days. Adaptations of an antibiotic regimen in a patient who is clearly not responding is relatively straightforward when a micro-organism has been isolated; the results of the cultures, supplemented by susceptibility testing, will assist in selecting the proper antibiotics. The management of febrile patients with pulmonary infiltrates is complex. Bronchoscopy and a high resolution computer-assisted tomographic scan represent the cornerstones of all diagnostic procedures, supplemented by serological tests for relevant viral pathogens and for aspergillosis. Fungi have been found to be responsible for two thirds of all superinfections that may surface during broad-spectrum antibiotic treatment of neutropenic patients. Antibiotic treatment is usually continued for a minimum of 7 days or until culture results indicate that the causative organism has been eradicated and the patient is free of major signs and symptoms. If a persistently neutropenic patient has no complaints and displays no evidence of infection, early watchful cessation of antibiotic therapy or a change to the oral regimen should be considered.

Granulopoiesis-stimulating factors to prevent adverse effects in the treatment of malignant lymphoma

BACKGROUND

Granulopoiesis-stimulating factors, such as granulocyte-colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) and granulocyte-macrophage-colony-stimulating factor (GM-CSF), are being used to prevent febrile neutropenia and infection in patients undergoing treatment for malignant lymphoma. The question of whether G-CSF and GM-CSF improve dose intensity, tumour response, and overall survival in this patient population has not been answered yet. Since the results from single studies are inconclusive, a systematic review was undertaken.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effectiveness of G-CSF and GM-CSF in patients with malignant lymphoma with respect to preventing neutropenia, febrile neutropenia and infection; improving quality of life, adherence to treatment protocol, tumour response, freedom from treatment failure (FFTF) and overall survival (OS); and adverse effects.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CancerLit, and other relevant literature databases; Internet databases of ongoing trials; and conference proceedings of the American Society of Clinical Oncology and the American Society of Hematology (1980 - 2007). We included full-text and abstract publications as well as unpublished data.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials comparing prophylaxis with G-CSF or GM-CSF versus placebo/no prophylaxis in adult patients with malignant lymphoma undergoing chemotherapy were included for review. Both study arms had to receive identical chemotherapy and supportive care.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Trial eligibility and quality assessment, data extraction and analysis were done by two reviewers independently. Authors were contacted to obtain missing data.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 13 eligible randomised controlled trials with 2607 randomised patients. Compared with no prophylaxis, both G-CSF and GM-CSF did not improve overall survival (hazard ratio 0.97; 95% CI 0.87 to 1.09) or FFTF (hazard ratio 1.11; 95% CI 0.91 to 1.35). Prophylaxis significantly reduced the relative risk (RR) for severe neutropenia (RR 0.67; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.60 to 0.73), febrile neutropenia (RR 0.74; 95% CI 0.62 to 0.89) and infection (RR 0.74; 95% CI 0.64 to 0.85). There was no evidence that either G-CSF or GM-CSF reduced the number of patients requiring intravenous antibiotics (RR 0.82; 95%CI 0.57 to 1.18); lowered infection related mortality (RR 0.93; 95% CI 0.51 to 1.71); or improved complete tumour response (RR 1.03; 95% CI 0.95 to 1.10).One study evaluated quality of life parameters and found no differences between the treatment groups.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

G-CSF and GM-CSF, when used as a prophylaxis in patients with malignant lymphoma undergoing conventional chemotherapy, reduce the risk of neutropenia, febrile neutropenia and infection. However, based on the randomised trials currently available, there is no evidence that either G-CSF or GM-CSF provide a significant advantage in terms of complete tumour response, FFTF or OS.

Colony-stimulating factors: clinical evidence for treatment and prophylaxis of chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia

The hematopoietic growth factors (HGFs) are a family of glycoproteins which plays a major role in the proliferation, differentiation, and survival of primitive hematopoietic stem and progenitor cells, and in the functions of some mature cells. More than 20 different molecules of HGF have been identified. Among them, granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) and granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor (GM-CSF) have been demostrated to be effective in reducing the incidence of febrile neutropenia when administered inmediately after chemotherapy and as supportive therapy in patients undergoing bone marrow transplantation. Chemotherapy used for treatment of cancer often causes neutropenia, which may be profound, requiring hospitalization, and leading to potentially fatal infection. The uses of the recombinant human hematopoietic colony-stimulating factors G-CSF and GM-CSF for treatment and prophylaxis of chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia will be reviewed here.

Mortality, morbidity, and cost associated with febrile neutropenia in adult cancer patients

BACKGROUND

Hospitalization for febrile neutropenia (FN) in cancer patients is associated with considerable morbidity, mortality, and cost. The study was undertaken to better define mortality, length of stay (LOS), cost, and risk factors associated with mortality and prolonged hospitalization in cancer patients with FN.

METHODS

The longitudinal discharge database derived from 115 US medical centers was used to study all adult cancer patients hospitalized with FN between 1995 and 2000, comprising a total of 41,779 patients. Primary outcomes included mortality, LOS, and cost per episode.

RESULTS

Overall, in-hospital mortality was 9.5%. Patients without any major comorbidities had a 2.6% risk of mortality, whereas 1 major comorbidity was associated with a 10.3% and more than 1 major comorbidity with a > or = 21.4% risk of mortality, respectively. Mean (median) length of stay was 11.5 (6) days, and the mean (median) cost was $19,110 ($8,376) per episode of FN. Patients hospitalized for > or = 10 days (35% of all patients) accounted for 78% of overall cost. Independent major risk factors for inpatient mortality included invasive fungal infections, Gram-negative sepsis, pneumonia and other lung disease, cerebrovascular, renal, and liver disease. Main predictors for LOS > or = 10 days included leukemia, invasive fungal infections, other types of infection, and several comorbid conditions.

CONCLUSION

Factors associated with increased mortality, LOS, and cost in hospitalized adult cancer patients with FN include patient characteristics, type of malignancy, comorbidities, and infectious complications. These factors may be useful in identifying patients at increased risk of serious medical complications and mortality for more aggressive supportive care measures.

Prophylactic colony-stimulating factors in children receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

The colony-stimulating factors (CSFs) are widely utilized to prevent neutropenic complications in both adults and children, but randomized controlled trials in the pediatric setting have reported varied results. A systematic review of the literature and meta-analysis were conducted to definitively assess the impact of prophylactic CSFs on the risk of febrile neutropenia (FN) in pediatric oncology patients.

METHODS

MEDLINE was searched and references hand-searched through July 2004 for randomized controlled trials of prophylactic G-CSF or GM-CSF in pediatric oncology patients. Objectives, outcomes, and quality of the 16 included studies were extracted by two reviewers. Weighted summary estimates of relative risks (RR) were calculated for FN and documented infection (DI). Mean differences in hospitalization, antibiotic use, and duration of neutropenia were calculated.

RESULTS

FN occurred in 68% of 400 controls and 59% of 404 CSF patients. The estimated RR was 0.88 [0.81-0.97; (P=0.01)] favoring the CSFs for leukemia and high grade lymphoma studies and 0.71 [0.51-0.97; (P=0.03)] for solid tumor studies. DI occurred in 25% of controls and 20% of CSF patients for an estimated RR of 0.80 [0.61-1.06; (P=0.12)]. The mean decrease in duration of neutropenia was 3.5 days [2.2-4.7; (P<0.0001)]. Mean decreases favoring CSF use were also observed for hospital stay of 1.7 days [0.9-2.5 (P<0.01)] and antibiotic use of 2.0 days [0.4-3.6; P=0.02].

CONCLUSIONS

Prophylactic CSFs significantly decrease the incidence of FN and the durations of severe neutropenia, hospitalization, and antibiotic use in pediatric cancer patients, but they do not significantly decrease documented infections.

Randomized comparison of antibiotics with and without granulocyte colony-stimulating factor in children with chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia: a report from the Children's Oncology Group

PURPOSE

To determine if granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) with empirical antibiotics accelerates febrile neutropenia resolution compared with antibiotics without it.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Eligible children were treated without prophylactic G-CSF and presented with fever (temperature >38.3 degrees C) and neutropenia afterward. Patients with acute myelogenous leukemia and myelodysplastic syndrome were excluded. Assignments were randomized between G-CSF (5 microg/kg/day) or none beginning within 24 hr of antibiotics. Subcutaneous administration was recommended, but intravenous G-CSF was allowed. Patients remained on study until absolute neutrophil count (ANC) >500/microl and > or =48 hr without fever.

RESULTS

One of 67 patients enrolled was ineligible, 59 had acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL). Thirty-four were assigned to antibiotics, 32 to G-CSF plus antibiotics. Adding G-CSF significantly reduced neutropenia and febrile neutropenia recovery times. Median days to febrile neutropenia resolution was nine earlier with G-CSF (4 vs. 13 days) (P < 0.0001). However, there was no difference in the resolution of fever between arms. Hospitalization median was shorter by 1 day with G-CSF (4 vs. 5 days) (P = 0.04). There was no difference in the duration of IV and oral antibiotic treatment, addition of antifungal therapy, and shock incidence. A trend for decreased incidence of late fever with G-CSF was noted (6.3 vs. 23.5%) (P = 0.08).

CONCLUSIONS

Adding G-CSF to empiric antibiotic coverage accelerates chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia resolution by 9 days in pediatric patients, mainly with ALL, which results in a small but significant difference in the median length of hospitalization.

Colony-Stimulating Factors for Chemotherapy-Induced Febrile Neutropenia: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Purpose

Current treatment for febrile neutropenia (FN) includes hospitalization for evaluation, empiric broad-spectrum antibiotics, and other supportive care. Clinical trials have reported conflicting results when studying whether the colony-stimulating factors (CSFs) improve outcomes in patients with FN. This Cochrane Collaboration review was undertaken to further evaluate the safety and efficacy of the CSFs in patients with FN.

Methods

An exhaustive literature search was undertaken including major electronic databases (CANCERLIT, EMBASE, LILACS, MEDLINE, SCI, and the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register). All randomized controlled trials that compare CSFs plus antibiotics versus antibiotics alone for the treatment of established FN in adults and children were sought. A meta-analysis of the selected studies was performed.

Results

More than 8,000 references were screened, with 13 studies meeting eligibility criteria for inclusion. The overall mortality was not influenced significantly by the use of CSF (odds ratio [OR] = 0.68; 95% CI, 0.43 to 1.08; P = .1). A marginally significant result was obtained for the use of CSF in reducing infection-related mortality (OR = 0.51; 95% CI, 0.26 to 1.00; P = .05). Patients treated with CSFs had a shorter length of hospitalization (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.63; 95% CI, 0.49 to 0.82; P = .0006) and a shorter time to neutrophil recovery (HR = 0.32; 95% CI, 0.23 to 0.46; P < .00001).

Conclusion

The use of the CSFs in patients with established FN caused by cancer chemotherapy reduces the amount of time spent in hospital and the neutrophil recovery period. The possible influence of the CSFs on infection-related mortality requires further investigation.

Use of re-randomized data in meta-analysis

Background

Outcomes collected in randomized clinical trials are observations of random variables that should be independent and identically distributed. However, in some trials, the patients are randomized more than once thus violating both of these assumptions. The probability of an event is not always the same when a patient is re-randomized; there is probably a non-zero covariance coming from observations on the same patient. This is of particular importance to the meta-analysts.

Methods

We developed a method to estimate the relative error in the risk differences with and without re-randomization of the patients. The relative error can be estimated by an expression depending on the percentage of the patients who were re-randomized, multipliers (how many times more likely it is to repeat an event) for the probability of reoccurrences, and the ratio of the total events reported and the initial number of patients entering the trial.

Results

We illustrate our methods using two randomized trials testing growth factors in febrile neutropenia. We showed that under some circumstances the relative error of taking into account re-randomized patients was sufficiently small to allow using the results in the meta-analysis. Our findings indicate that if the study in question is of similar size to other studies included in the meta-analysis, the error introduced by re-randomization will only minimally affect meta-analytic summary point estimate.

We also show that in our model the risk ratio remains constant during the re-randomization, and therefore, if a meta-analyst is concerned about the effect of re-randomization on the meta-analysis, one way to sidestep the issue and still obtain reliable results is to use risk ratio as the measure of interest.

Conclusion

Our method should be helpful in the understanding of the results of clinical trials and particularly helpful to the meta-analysts to assess if re-randomized patient data can be used in their analyses.

Drug-induced myelosuppression : diagnosis and management

Myelosuppression is a common and anticipated adverse effect of cytotoxic chemotherapy. It is a potential but rare idiosyncratic effect with any other drug, but there is a recognised association with a number of higher-risk agents which justify additional vigilance. Genetic risk factors are being identified which may predispose individuals to this reaction with particular drugs. As marker tests become available, dose adjustment or alternative treatment choices may help to avoid more severe reactions. Myelosuppression is potentially life threatening because of the infection and bleeding complications of neutropenia and thrombocytopenia. Strategies for monitoring, early detection, diagnostic confirmation and appropriate supportive care are well developed for cytotoxic therapy. Developments in antimicrobial chemotherapy, blood product transfusion support and growth factor therapy have improved outcomes. These advances are largely applicable to idiosyncratic drug-induced myelosuppression, reinforcing the importance of early recognition and referral to appropriate expertise. Many reactions will resolve on drug withdrawal with appropriate supportive care during the period of cytopenia. Prolonged marrow failure may require more specific treatment with intensive immunosuppression or consideration of bone marrow transplantation.

Immunomodulation of invasive fungal infections

Genetic and acquired (disease- or therapy- related) host immune factors increase the risk for IFIs. In addition to antifungal drug therapy, modulation of host defenses by the use of HGFs and IFN-gamma has been supported by extensive in vitro and in vivo preclinical data. Clinical studies on the prevention or the adjunctive therapy of IFIs in combination with antifungal agents are limited, however, and do not allow specific recommendations for their cost-effective use in most of the immunodeficient settings. There is an urgent need to push forward with well-structured, randomized clinical trials to determine optimal dose, duration, and timing for different combinations of immunotherapy and antifungal agents in high-risk patients.

Colony-stimulating factors for the management of neutropenia in cancer patients

Neutropenia and its subsequent infectious complications represent the most common dose-limiting toxicity of cancer chemotherapy. Febrile neutropenia (FN) occurs with common chemotherapy regimens in 25 to 40% of treatment-naive patients, and its severity depends on the dose intensity of the chemotherapy regimen, the patient's prior history of either radiation therapy or use of cytotoxic treatment, and comorbidities. The occurrence of FN often causes subsequent chemotherapy delays or dose reductions. It may also lengthen hospital stay, increase monitoring, diagnostic and treatment costs, and reduce patient quality of life. A decade after their introduction, colony-stimulating factors (CSFs) such as granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) and granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor (GM-CSF) are now an integral part of the prevention of potentially life-threatening FN; however, only G-CSF has US Food and Drug Administration approval for use in chemotherapy-induced neutropenia. These adjunctive agents accelerate formation of neutrophils from committed progenitors, thereby reducing the duration and severity of neutropenia. Important uses of CSFs in oncology are prevention of FN after chemotherapy, treatment of febrile neutropenic episodes and support following bone marrow transplantation, and collection of CSF-mobilised peripheral blood progenitor cells. G-CSF is used more frequently than GM-CSF for all of these indications because of fewer associated adverse effects. Clinical trials to date have not demonstrated a significant effect on overall survival or disease-free survival, which is most likely to be due to small sample size and lack of power to prove effect. However, they have demonstrated clinical utility in allowing the delivery of planned chemotherapy dose on schedule, an important clinical goal especially in curative tumour settings. The high cost of these agents limits their widespread use. Current American Society of Clinical Oncology guidelines recommend primary prophylaxis, or first cycle use, with CSFs being confined to patients with > or = 40% risk of FN, which may include elderly patients and other high-risk patients. In addition to the risk of FN, primary prophylaxis should also be considered if the patient has risk factors that place them in the Special Circumstances category. These risk factors may include decreased immune function in patients who are already at an increased risk of infection and pre-existing neutropenia due to disease, extensive prior chemotherapy, or previous irradiation to the pelvis or other areas containing large amounts of bone marrow. Future studies are needed to better define the patients most likely to benefit from CSF therapy, both for prophylaxis and as an adjunct to antibiotics for treatment of FN. Other potential uses include combination therapy with stem cell factors and other cytokines to boost progenitor cell development, maintaining dose intensity of salvage therapy in metastatic cancer patients, and application in patients with pneumonia, Crohn's fistulas, diabetic foot infections and a variety of other infectious conditions.

Colony stimulating factors for chemotherapy induced febrile neutropenia

BACKGROUND

Febrile neutropenia is a frequent event for cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy and it is potentially a life threatening situation. The current treatment is supportive care plus antibiotics. Colony stimulating factors (CSF) are cytokines that stimulate and accelerate the production of one or more cellular lines in bone marrow. Some clinical trials addressed the question of whether the addition of CSF to antibiotics (ATB) could improve the outcomes of patients with febrile neutropenia. The results of these trials are conflicting and no definitive conclusion could be reached.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the safety and effectiveness of adding colony stimulating factors to ATB when treating febrile neutropenia caused by cancer chemotherapy.

SEARCH STRATEGY

The search covered the major electronic databases: CANCERLIT, EMBASE, LILACS, MEDLINE, SCI and The Cochrane Controlled Trials Register. Experts were consulted and references from the relevant articles scanned.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We looked for all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compare CSF plus antibiotics versus antibiotics alone for the treatment of established febrile neutropenia in adults and children.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two of the reviewers independently selected, critically appraised and extracted data from the studies. A meta-analysis of the select studies was performed, using Review Manager.

MAIN RESULTS

More than 8000 references were screened. Thirteen studies were included. The overall mortality was not influenced by the use of CSF [Odds Ratio (OR) = 0.68; 95% Confidence Interval (CI) = 0.43 to 1.08; p=0.1]. A marginally significant result was obtained for the use of CSF in reducing infection related mortality [OR= 0.51; 95% CI = 0.26 to 1.00; p=0.05], but this result was highly influenced by one study. When this study is excluded from our analysis, this possible benefit disappears [OR= 0.85; 95% CI = 0.33 to 2.20; p= 0.7]. The group of patients treated with CSF had a shorter length of hospitalization [Hazard Ratio (HR) = 0.63; 95% CI = 0.49 to 0.82; p=0.0006] and a shorter time to neutrophil recovery [HR= 0.32; 95% CI = 0.23 to 0.46; p < 0.00001].

REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS

The use of CSF in patients with febrile neutropenia due to cancer chemotherapy does not affect overall mortality, but reduces the amount of time spent in hospital and the neutrophil recovery period. It was not clear whether CSF has an effect on infection-related mortality.

Infections in the neutropenic patient--new views of an old problem

Infection in the neutropenic patient has remained a major clinical challenge for over three decades. While diagnostic and therapeutic interventions have improved greatly during this period, increases in the number of patients with neutropenia, changes in the etiologic agents involved, and growing antibiotic resistance have continued to be problematic. The evolving etiology of infections in this patient population is reviewed by Dr. Donowitz. Presently accepted antibiotic regimens and practices are discussed, along with ongoing controversies. In Section II, Drs. Maki and Crnich discuss line-related infection, which is a major infectious source in the neutropenic. Defining true line-related bloodstream infection remains a challenge despite the fact that various methods to do so exist. Means of prevention of line related infection, diagnosis, and therapy are reviewed. Fungal infection continues to perplex the infectious disease clinician and hematologist/oncologist. Diagnosis is difficult, and many fungal infections will lead to increased mortality even with rapid diagnosis and therapy. In Section III, Dr. Pappas reviews the major fungal etiologies of infection in the neutropenic patient and the new anti-fungals that are available to treat them. Finally, Dr. Rolston reviews the possibility of outpatient management of neutropenic fever. Recognizing that neutropenics represent a heterogeneous group of patients, identification of who can be treated as an outpatient and with what antibiotics are discussed.

Antibiotics and growth factors in the management of fever and neutropenia in cancer patients

The association of neutropenia and infection continues to be a major cause of morbidity and mortality in cancer patients receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy. Prompt hospitalization and initiation of empirical intravenous broad-spectrum antibiotics has been the standard of care during the past three decades. Recently, risk-assessment models have been developed that allow the identification of febrile neutropenic patients that are at low risk for medical complications and mortality. New treatment strategies are being evaluated in this low-risk patient population to safely reduce toxicity, decrease costs, and improve quality of life. These include early shift from intravenous therapy to oral antibiotics, immediate initiation of oral empiric treatment, early hospital discharge, or outpatient care. A risk-based approach should also be applied to the use of colony-stimulating factors in this setting. Growth factors should not be routinely administered to neutropenic patients with uncomplicated febrile episodes. However, recent data support their use in populations with high-risk neutropenic fever.

Fluconazole to prevent yeast infections in bone marrow transplantation patients: a randomized trial of high versus reduced dose, and determination of the value of maintenance therapy

PURPOSE

To determine the optimal dose and duration of fluconazole antifungal prophylaxis therapy in bone marrow transplantation patients.

SUBJECTS AND METHODS

Two hundred and fifty-three pediatric and adult bone marrow transplantation patients were randomly assigned to receive fluconazole 400 mg daily (high dose) or 200 mg daily (low dose) while they were neutropenic. After neutrophil recovery, patients were randomly assigned to receive maintenance therapy with either fluconazole (100 mg daily) or clotrimazole troches (10 mg 4 times daily) until 100 days after transplantation. Patients were monitored until 2 weeks after completion of early prophylaxis and to 100 days after transplantation.

RESULTS

During the early prophylaxis phase, rates of yeast colonization and infections were similar in both treatment groups. By day 50, the incidence of Candida infections in the high-dose group was 4% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1% to 7%; n = 5), compared with 1% in the low-dose fluconazole group (95% CI: 0% to 3%; n = 1; P = 0.08). During the same period, the incidence of Aspergillus infections was 4% (95% CI: 1% to 7%; n = 5) in the high-dose group and 2% (95% CI: 0% to 4%; n = 2; P = 0.33) in the low-dose group. During the maintenance prophylaxis phase, rates of yeast colonization and superficial infections were similar in the fluconazole and clotrimazole groups. Four patients developed systemic fungal infection in the maintenance phase (1 who received clotrimazole and 3 who received fluconazole).

CONCLUSION

High-dose (400 mg daily) and low-dose (200 mg daily) fluconazole have similar efficacy in reducing the incidence of yeast colonization, superficial infection, and systemic infection in neutropenic pediatric and adult patients undergoing bone marrow transplantation. Rates of yeast colonization after neutrophil recovery were similar in patients treated with fluconazole or clotrimazole.

Granulocyte colony-stimulating factor in the treatment of high-risk febrile neutropenia: a multicenter randomized trial

BACKGROUND

Granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (G-CSFs) have been shown to help prevent febrile neutropenia in certain subgroups of cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy, but their role in treating febrile neutropenia is controversial. The purpose of our study was to evaluate-in a prospective multicenter randomized clinical trial-the efficacy of adding G-CSF to broad-spectrum antibiotic treatment of patients with solid tumors and high-risk febrile neutropenia.

METHODS

A total of 210 patients with solid tumors treated with conventional-dose chemotherapy who presented with fever and grade IV neutropenia were considered to be eligible for the trial. They met at least one of the following high-risk criteria: profound neutropenia (absolute neutrophil count <100/mm(3)), short latency from previous chemotherapy cycle (<10 days), sepsis or clinically documented infection at presentation, severe comorbidity, performance status of 3-4 (Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group scale), or prior inpatient status. Eligible patients were randomly assigned to receive the antibiotics ceftazidime and amikacin, with or without G-CSF (5 microg/kg per day). The primary study end point was the duration of hospitalization. All P values were two-sided.

RESULTS

Patients randomly assigned to receive G-CSF had a significantly shorter duration of grade IV neutropenia (median, 2 days versus 3 days; P = 0.0004), antibiotic therapy (median, 5 days versus 6 days; P = 0.013), and hospital stay (median, 5 days versus 7 days; P = 0.015) than patients in the control arm. The incidence of serious medical complications not present at the initial clinical evaluation was 10% in the G-CSF group and 17% in the control group (P = 0.12), including five deaths in each study arm. The median cost of hospital stay and the median overall cost per patient admission were reduced by 17% (P = 0.01) and by 11% (P = 0.07), respectively, in the G-CSF arm compared with the control arm.

CONCLUSIONS

Adding G-CSF to antibiotic therapy shortens the duration of neutropenia, reduces the duration of antibiotic therapy and hospitalization, and decreases hospital costs in patients with high-risk febrile neutropenia.

Colony stimulating factors in patients with fever and neutropenia

Colony stimulating factors (CSFs), are essential for the regulation of the hematopoietic system and were developed by the pharmaceutical biotechnology industry in the early 1990s for the prevention of serious neutropenic complication after myelosuppressive chemotherapy. Both G-CSF and GM-CSF consistently lead to an increase in circulating white blood cells and a reduction in the incidence of fever and neutropenia after myelosuppressive chemotherapy in patients with solid tumors, hematologic malignancies, and those undergoing stem-cell transplantation. Their role in improving response rates to chemotherapy and overall survival is less clear.

Impact of colony-stimulating factor therapy on clinical outcome and frequency rate of nosocomial infections in intensive care unit neutropenic patients

OBJECTIVES

To determine whether the use of recombinant human granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF, filgrastim) reduces the mortality rate and the frequency rate of nosocomial infections in neutropenic patients requiring intensive care unit (ICU) admission.

DESIGN

Retrospective consecutive case series analysis.

SETTING

Medical ICU of a teaching hospital.

PATIENTS

We compared two groups of patients, according to whether or not they received G-CSF. In the ICU, 28 leukopenic patients received filgrastim (5 microg of body weight per day intravenously). In all these patients, G-CSF was continued until recovery from leukopenia, defined as a leukocyte count >1,000/mm3. A total of 33 ICU leukopenic patients did not receive G-CSF. End points included leukocyte count, bone marrow recovery, frequency of ICU nosocomial infections (pneumonia, urinary tract, and catheter-related infections), and mortality rate.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

There were no differences in number of patients who recovered from leukopenia or in whom blood leukocyte count increased. Nosocomial infections occurred in the same percentage in both groups. The percentage of patients who died was identical in both groups. The percentage of patients with and without filgrastim therapy who recovered from leukopenia but died, was 86% and 78%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

In the ICU, clinical outcome of neutropenic patients was not changed by G-CSF therapy. It is possible that G-CSF therapy may not be helpful in improving the ICU clinical outcome of neutropenic patients. Additional controlled studies designed to address this question are warranted.

Granulocyte colony-stimulating factor use in cancer patients

OBJECTIVE

To conduct a retrospective drug utilization evaluation comparing the use of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) at a university medical center with the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) CSFs Practice Guidelines.

METHODS

Patients who received G-CSF from June 1, 1996, to December 31, 1996, were identified through the pharmacy computer system and the medical records were reviewed for a randomly selected sample of 26% of the 289 patients identified. Outpatient, inpatient, and electronic medical records were reviewed for the indication, dosage, day of initiation, day of discontinuation, and absolute neutrophil count (ANC) monitoring plan for each course of G-CSF; these records were subsequently compared with the ASCO guidelines.

RESULTS

The use of G-CSF after chemotherapy was evaluated in 51 patients who received a total of 182 courses of G-CSF. The goal of chemotherapy was curative in 61% of courses. Sixty-five percent of G-CSF courses were prescribed for primary prophylaxis. Of these, 74% followed chemotherapy in patients with an expected incidence of febrile neutropenia > or =40% or followed chemotherapy in patients with compromised marrow reserve secondary to extensive prior therapy or in patients older than 60 years. Most of the G-CSF courses (75%) were rounded to the nearest vial size. The areas of greatest departure from the ASCO guidelines included aspects of initiation and discontinuation of G-CSF courses and inadequate documentation of ANC recovery.

CONCLUSIONS

These results demonstrate a number of specific opportunities for oncology pharmacists to improve the use of G-CSF in patients receiving chemotherapy. Recommendations were made to the pharmacy and therapeutics committee and medical oncologists to improve compliance with the ASCO guidelines.

Sepsis and polyspecific intravenous immunoglobulins

The treatment of sepsis with i.v. immunoglobulins (IVIG) is currently regarded as not indicated. Several clinical studies, placebo controlled since 1985, to determine efficacy have failed to prevent fatal outcome, even when IVIG was given at high doses. The prevailing action mechanism put forward by most researchers is the capacity of specific antibodies contained in IVIG to bind to the infectious organism followed by opsonophagocytosis. Recently, IVIG preparations have been shown, both in vitro and in vivo, to profoundly affect the homeostasis of the cytokine network, probably in a way which directs this network from disturbed to regulated functioning. Excessive production and insufficient removal of cytokines due to multiorgan failure of sepsis patients are now known to play a decisive role in progression of sepsis to septic shock. There are researchers wondering whether the newly discovered influence of IVIG on cytokines might not be exploited for the design of improved study protocols, including better selection of the dosage, dosage schedule, association to other treatments and selection of patients. On the side of the IVIG preparations, improvements discussed include spiking of polyclonal preparations with monoclonal antibodies, selection of appropriate production lots and study of the efficacy not only of IgG but also of IgM isotype containing preparations.

Emerging concepts in the management of the malignant haematological disorders

A comprehensive review of novel cytoreductive agents is presented. Such novel agents may be found among chemical compounds directed against specific molecular targets (cytostatics) or within the biological substances selectively aimed at the malignant clone (immunotherapy). It is stated that the purposes of immunotherapy in general are to generate a T-lymphocytic response against the tumour cells, e.g., graft versus leukaemia (GvL) effect, natural killer T-cell cytolysis, antibody-dependent cytolysis etc.; or to reprogramme the immune system of the tumour-bearing host by DNA and/or RNA manipulation with subsequent interference with the signalling pathway in the tumour cells. Some immunotherapeutic modalities are shortly described: donor T-lymphocyte infusion and GvL effect, polyclonal antibodies, monoclonal antibodies, vaccines, gene replacement therapy, suicide gene therapy, antisense oligonucleotides, alterations of DNA-RNA transcript factors and malignant antigenic drive etc. Most likely, a sequence of different treatment modalities will be used in the future comprising an initial debulking by means of standard chemotherapy and/or irradiation followed by target unspecific immunotherapy (polyclonal immunoglobulins, GvL effect etc.) and finally target specific elimination of residual tumour, probably with repeated use of the minimum effective pharmacologic dose (MEPD) of the agents used. In contrast, the current use of high-dose myeloablative chemotherapy with the use of maximum tolerable dose (MTD) and associated severe organ toxicity, and high rates of secondary malignancies will probably be substituted in the future. An effective supportive treatment will be highly necessary, especially related to prevention and treatment of infections.

Colony-Stimulating Factors in the Therapeutic Approach to Sepsis

Sepsis and its complications continue to be a leading cause of death in the United States despite availability of potent broad-spectrum antimicrobial agents. Current in vitro, ex vivo, animal, and human data are reviewed. Present data shows that colony-stimulating factors (CSFs), granulocyte CSFs, and granulocyte-macrophage CSFs are very effective in raising the leukocyte count and shortening the number of neutropenic days. CSFs in some studies improved outcome of neutropenic septic patients especially when given very early. However, there are studies that do not show any benefit. CSFs appear to be safe and should be limited to septic, neutropenic patients whose duration of neutropenia is anticipated to be prolonged, or to patients who are seriously ill.

Outcomes of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor or granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor use in neutropenic patients infected with human immunodeficiency virus

OBJECTIVE

To characterize the effects of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) or granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor (GM-CSF) on clinical outcomes in neutropenic HIV-infected patients, by means of a retrospective cohort study at an urban teaching hospital.

METHOD

Data were reviewed from all patients discharged between January 1, 1996, and August 31, 1997, with human immunodeficiency virus and neutropenia (absolute neutrophil count (ANC) <1000 cells/mL), with outcome measures of length of stay, infectious complications, and survival to discharge.

RESULTS

Of the 228 discharged patients who met selection criteria, 71 had received G-CSF or GM-CSF; 157 controls had not. Cases had lower CD4+ cell counts (30 vs. 54 cells/mL; P = 0. 017) and lower nadir ANCs (372 vs. 579 cells/mL; P < 0.001). Granulocyte-CSF or GM-CSF usage was not associated with the frequency of site-related infections, fever, or sepsis (all P > 0. 20). No difference was found in duration of hospitalization (23 vs. 21 days; P > 0.20). In a logistic regression model for survival to discharge, higher nadir ANC and CSF use were independently associated with improved survival (P = 0.034 and P = 0.026, respectively).

CONCLUSION

Use of G-CSF or GM-CSF was associated with improved survival to discharge among hospitalized HIV-infected patients with neutropenia.

[Febrile neutropenia: practical aspects]

BACKGROUND

Infections are a major cause of mortality in neutropenic patients. They require long hospital stays and highly expensive therapeutic measures. In this review we discuss the practical and pharmaco-economic aspects of the management of febrile neutropenia.

PREVENTION AND THERAPY

Prevention of fever of unknown origin (FUO) demands hygienic and antimicrobiotic measures. First-line antibiotic therapy consists of an aminoglycoside combined with an ureidopenicillin or a 3rd-generation cephalosporin. Double beta-lactam antibiotic combinations are equally effective and less toxic, but more expensive. Monotherapy with carbapenems, ceftazidime, or cefepime appear to offer comparable efficacy. Lung infiltrates require immediate treatment with amphotericin B. If the initial therapeutic regime fails, a carbapenem plus a glycopeptide antibiotic and a parenteral antimycotic drug should be applied after 3 to 4 days. The prophylactic or interventional administration of hematopoietic growth factors is only indicated in special high-risk situations.

CONCLUSIONS

Using the described therapeutic procedure, the response rate exceeds 90%. Consistent, step-wise escalating administration of antibiotics is essential. More evaluation is needed to determine whether selected patients with febrile neutropenia can be treated on an outpatient basis.

Granulocyte colony-stimulating factor in severe chemotherapy-induced afebrile neutropenia

BACKGROUND

Randomized trials of colony-stimulating factors in febrile patients with neutropenia after chemotherapy have not consistently shown clinical benefit. Nevertheless, the use of colony-stimulating factors to treat patients with chemotherapy-induced neutropenia is widespread.

METHODS

We performed a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) in afebrile outpatients with severe chemotherapy-induced neutropenia. We measured the number of days of neutropenia, rate of hospitalization, number of days in the hospital, number of days the patient received parenteral antibiotics, and number of culture-positive infections.

RESULTS

We randomly assigned 138 patients to receive G-CSF (n=71) or placebo (n=67). The median time to an absolute neutrophil count of at least 500 per cubic millimeter was significantly shorter for patients who received G-CSF (two days, vs. four days for the patients given placebo). However, there was no effect on the rate of hospitalization, number of days in the hospital, duration of treatment with parenteral antibiotics, or number of culture-positive infections.

CONCLUSIONS

Routine therapeutic application of G-CSF in afebrile patients with severe neutropenia can reduce the duration of neutropenia, but this does not appear to provide practical clinical benefit.

Fever in the neutropenic host

Fever in the neutropenic patient following myelosuppressive chemotherapy is a medical emergency. Appropriate antimicrobial therapy can dramatically reduce infection-related morbidity and mortality. This article reviews the rationale and methodology of treatment as well as its applicability to other neutropenic states. The utility of adjunct therapy with granulocyte- stimulating compounds is also discussed.

Recent progress and current problems in treatment of invasive fungal infections in neutropenic patients

Invasive fungal infections, including disseminated candidiasis and invasive pulmonary aspergillosis, are important causes of morbidity and mortality in neutropenic patients. The recent development of fluconazole, itraconazole, lipid formulations of amphotericin B, and recombinant cytokines have expanded our therapeutic armamentarium. Clinical trials have elucidated new strategies for utilizing these compounds in the prevention and treatment of opportunistic mycoses. The population of more severely immunocompromised patients, however, continues to expand and the spectrum of drug-resistant fungi, including but not limited to Candida spp, Fusarium spp, Zygomycetes, and dematiaceous moulds, continues to evolve, thus presenting new challenges to recent therapeutic advances. Development of new antifungal chemotherapeutic agents and novel approaches for augmentation of host response will be required to meet these new mycologic challenges.

Host immunologic augmentation for the control of infection

The emergence of resistance to pharmacologic antimicrobial agents and the desire to increase chemotherapy dose-intensity have necessitated the search for alternative means to control infectious disease. Enhancement of host immunity against infection has been permitted through the use of hematopoietic growth factors, which can shorten the duration of neutropenia and reduce the risk for bacterial and fungal infections. Hematopoietic growth factor-mobilized hematopoietic stem cells have also proven to be highly efficacious in permitting high-dose chemotherapy. Interferons, immunoregulatory cytokines, immune globulins, and immune lymphocytes also hold promise to enhance host immunity and reduce susceptibility for serious infectious morbidity.