Feasibility of outpatient management of fever in cancer patients with low-risk neutropenia: results of a prospective randomized trial

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.

The Dutch Working Party on Antibiotic Policy (SWAB) Recommendations for the Diagnosis and Management of Febrile Neutropenia in Patients with Cancer

INTRODUCTION

This guideline was written by a multidisciplinary committee with mandated members of the Dutch Society for Infectious Diseases, Dutch Society for Hematology, Dutch Society for Medical Oncology, Dutch Association of Hospital Pharmacists, Dutch Society for Medical Microbiology, and Dutch Society for Pediatrics. The guideline is written for adults and pediatric patients.

METHOD

The recommendations are based on the answers to nine questions formulated by the guideline committee. To provide evidence-based recommendations we used all relevant clinical guidelines published since 2010 as a source, supplemented with systematic searches and evaluation of the recent literature (2010-2020) and, where necessary, supplemented by expert-based advice.

RESULTS

For adults the guideline distinguishes between high- and standard-risk neutropenia based on expected duration of neutropenia (> 7 days versus ≤ 7 days). Where possible a distinction has been made between pediatric and adult patients.

CONCLUSION

This guideline was written to aid diagnosis and management of patients with febrile neutropenia due to chemotherapy in the Netherlands. The guideline provides recommendation for children and adults. Adults patient are subdivided as having a standard- or high-risk neutropenic episode based on estimated duration of neutropenia. The most important recommendations are as follows. In adults with high-risk neutropenia (duration of neutropenia > 7 days) and in children with neutropenia, ceftazidime, cefepime, and piperacillin-tazobactam are all first-choice options for empirical antibiotic therapy in case of fever. In adults with standard-risk neutropenia (duration of neutropenia ≤ 7 days) the MASCC score can be used to assess the individual risk of infectious complications. For patients with a low risk of infectious complications (high MASCC score) oral antibiotic therapy in an outpatient setting is recommended. For patients with a high risk of infectious complications (low MASCC score) antibiotic therapy per protocol sepsis of unknown origin is recommended.

Outpatient Interventions for Managing Acute Complications of Chronic Diseases: A Scoping Review and Implications for Patients With CKD

RATIONALE & OBJECTIVE

Patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) have high rates of emergency department (ED) use and hospitalization. Outpatient care may provide an alternative to ED and inpatient care in this population. We aimed to explore the scope of outpatient interventions used to manage acute complications of chronic diseases and highlight opportunities to adapt and test interventions in the CKD population.

STUDY DESIGN

Scoping review of quantitative and qualitative studies.

SETTING & POPULATION

Outpatient interventions for adults experiencing acute complications related to 1 of 5 eligible chronic diseases (ie, CKD, chronic respiratory disease, cardiovascular disease, cancer, and diabetes).

SELECTION CRITERIA FOR STUDIES

MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, grey literature, and conference abstracts were searched to December 2019.

DATA EXTRACTION

Intervention and study characteristics were extracted using standardized tools.

ANALYTICAL APPROACH

Quantitative data were summarized descriptively; qualitative data were summarized thematically. Our approach observed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) extension for scoping reviews.

RESULTS

77 studies (25 randomized controlled trials, 29 observational, 12 uncontrolled before-after, 5 quasi-experimental, 4 qualitative, and 2 mixed method) describing 57 unique interventions were included. Of identified intervention types (hospital at home [n = 16], observation unit [n = 9], ED-based specialist service [n = 4], ambulatory program [n = 18], and telemonitoring [n = 10]), most were studied in chronic respiratory and cardiovascular disease populations. None targeted the CKD population. Interventions were delivered in the home, ED, hospital, and ambulatory setting by a variety of health care providers. Cost savings were demonstrated for most interventions, although improvements in other outcome domains were not consistently observed.

LIMITATIONS

Heterogeneity of included studies; lack of data for outpatient interventions for acute complications related to CKD.

CONCLUSIONS

Several interventions for outpatient management of acute complications of chronic disease were identified. Although none was specific to the CKD population, features could be adapted and tested to address the complex acute-care needs of patients with CKD.

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.

Critical review of emergency department management of chemotherapy complications in cancer patients

INTRODUCTION

Recent worldwide advances in cancer therapies have resulted in an increased number of people receiving chemotherapy in ambulatory care settings. In Spain, emergency departments are the single point of entry to acute inpatient services and they play a pivotal role in the management of chemotherapy complications. Little research exists in patterns of emergency department utilisation by oncology patients with chemotherapy-related complications. However, it is important for the oncology patients and the healthcare system to gain understanding in the disease pathway and the organisational factors influencing the quality of care.

METHODS

This critical review's main aims were to describe the clinical characteristics of patients who presented to an emergency department after chemotherapy treatment as reported in international literature; to map reported patterns of care in emergency department access; and quality of care exploring the management of febrile neutropenic patients described in the literature, against best practice guidelines.

RESULTS

The search strategy yield 701 articles from MEDLINE, TROVE and SCOPUS and 26 were included. The review combines systematic reviews, observational, cross-sectional case-control studies and randomised control trials.

CONCLUSION

All articles showed areas and opportunities for improvement in the management of this population, especially with regard to time from triage to antibiotic administration in febrile neutropenic patients.

Application of the MASCC and CISNE Risk-Stratification Scores to Identify Low-Risk Febrile Neutropenic Patients in the Emergency Department

STUDY OBJECTIVE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

[Prognosis prediction of febrile neutropenia by MASCC score: A retrospective study]

INTRODUCTION

The score of the MASCC, by means of clinical criteria, estimates the risk of serious complications in patients with neutropenic fever induced by chemotherapy.

METHODS

We retrospectively studied a cohort of patients hospitalized for a neutropenic fever and analyzed complications according to the criteria defined by the MASCC.

RESULTS

Eighty-one neutropenic fevers in 71 patients were identified. Microbiological documentation was obtained in 33% of cases only. Fifty-eight patients (72%) presented with a MASCC score≥21 and were considered as low risk of complications. In the total population, 10 patients died during their hospitalizations for neutropenic fever, 7 in the high-risk group versus 3 in the low risk group, including 2 patients suffering from significant comorbidities not taken into account by MASCC score. Within the low risk group, presence of a metastatic disease and existence of 2 or more comorbidities were associated with a longer duration of hospitalization.

CONCLUSION

This analysis suggests that the criteria of the MASCC are not always enough to thoroughly identify which patients were at risk of complications or could be treated through outpatient management. By better taking into account the comorbidities and tumoral stage, a better selection of the patients who are likely to receive an ambulatory treatment could be made. To date, hospitalization remains frequently necessary in neutropenic fevers, at least in its initial steps, and the place of the general practitioner remains to be better defined.

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.

Prognostic factors for risk stratification of adult cancer patients with chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia patients are heterogeneous in their risk of adverse outcomes. Management strategies are tailored according to level of risk. Many emerging predictors for risk stratification remain controversial being based on single studies only. A systematic review was conducted to determine the strength of association of all identified predictors. Studies were obtained from electronic databases, grey literatures and reference lists. Methodological quality of studies was assessed for internal validity and representativeness. Seven studies (four prospective and three retrospective cohorts) investigating 22 factors were reported. Fixed effects meta-analysis showed: hypotension and thrombocytopenia were significant predictors for high-risk. Additional predictors that might enhance performance of current models include: tachypnoea, presence of central venous catheter, duration and severity of neutropenia. Further research to investigate new factors/markers is needed to develop a robust prognostic model, which is the key to enhance patient safety.

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

PURPOSE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

Forty-seven articles from 43 studies met selection criteria.

RECOMMENDATIONS

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

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

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

Predictive value of interleukin-5 and monocyte chemotactic protein-1 for bacteremia in children with febrile neutropenia

A variety of clinical and laboratory parameters have been used to predict bacteremia. We hypothesize that the generation of a cytokine profile could be used to identify patients at higher risk of bacteremia at the time of presentation with febrile neutropenia. We prospectively evaluated children with cancer who presented with an episode of febrile neutropenia. A multiplexed flow cytometric assay was performed which measured 15 cytokines and chemokines obtained before the initiation of antibiotics. Fifty-eight episodes of chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia were included in this study during which 4 patients (7%) had bacteremia. An interleukin-5 level of >8 pg/dL had a sensitivity of 67% and a specificity of 96% to predict bacteremia. An monocyte chemotactic protein-1 level >1650 pg/dL had a sensitivity of 80% and a specificity of 82% to predict bacteremia. Erythrocyte sedimentation rate, C-reactive protein, protein C, and other cytokines/chemokines were not predictive of bacteremia. Elevations of interleukin-5 and monocyte chemotactic protein-1 are predictive of bacteremia in children with cancer who have febrile neutropenia. Prospective studies should be undertaken to determine whether these parameters retain predictive value in a larger series of patients and can select children for outpatient management or early discharge.

Prognostic factors for risk stratification of adult cancer patients with chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Increasing numbers of studies identify new prognostic factors for categorising chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia adult cancer patients into high- or low-risk groups for adverse outcomes. These groupings are used to tailor therapy according to level of risk. However many emerging factors with prognostic significance remain controversial, being based on single studies only.

OBJECTIVES

A systematic review was conducted to determine the strength of association of all identified factors associated with the outcomes of chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia patients.

INCLUSION CRITERIA

The participants included were adults of 15 years old and above, with a cancer diagnosis and who underwent cancer treatment.The review focused on clinical factors and their association with the outcomes of cancer patients with chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia at presentation of fever.All quantitative studies published in English which investigated clinical factors for risk stratification of adult cancer patients with chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia were considered.The primary outcome of interest was to identify the clinical factors for risk stratification of adult cancer patients with chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia.

SEARCH STRATEGY

Electronic databases searched from their respective inception date up to December 2011 include MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Web of Science, Science-Direct, Scopus and Mednar.

METHODOLOGICAL QUALITY

The quality of the included studies was subjected to assessment by two independent reviewers. The standardised critical appraisal tool from the Joanna Briggs Institute Meta-Analysis of Statistics Assessment and Review Instrument (JBI-MAStARI) was used to assess the following criteria: representativeness of study population; clearly defined prognostic factors and outcomes; whether potential confounders were addressed and appropriate statistical analysis was undertaken for the study design.

DATA COLLECTION

Data extraction was performed using a modified version of the standardised extraction tool from the JBI-MAStARI. Prognostic factors and the accompanying odds ratio reported for the significance of these factors that were identified by multivariate regression, were extracted from each included study.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Studies results were pooled in statistical meta-analysis using Review Manager 5.1. Where statistical pooling was not possible, the findings were presented in narrative form.

RESULTS

Seven studies (four prospective cohort and three retrospective cohort) investigating 22 factors in total were included. Fixed effects meta-analysis showed: hypotension [OR=1.66, 95%CI, 1.14-2.41, p=0.008] and thrombocytopenia [OR=3.92, 95%CI, 2.19-7.01, p<0.00001)] were associated with high-risk of adverse outcomes for febrile neutropenia. Other factors that were statistically significant from single studies included: age of patients, clinical presentation at fever onset, presence or absence of co-morbidities, infections, duration and severity of neutropenia state. Five prognostic factors failed to demonstrate an association between the variables and the outcomes measured and they include: presence of pneumonia, total febrile days, median days to fever, recovery from neutropenia and presence of moderate clinical symptoms in association with Gram-negative bacteraemia.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite the overall limitations identified in the included studies, this review has provided a synthesis of the best available evidence for the prognostic factors used in risk stratification of febrile neutropenia patients. However, the dynamic aspects of prognostic model development, validation and utilisation have not been addressed adequately thus far. Given the findings of this review, it is timely to address these issues and improve the utilisation of prognostic models in the management of febrile neutropenia patients.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

The identified factors are similar to the factors in current prognostic models. However, additional factors that were reported to be statistically significant in this review (thrombocytopenia, presence of central venous catheter, and duration and severity of neutropenia) have not previously been included in prognostic models. This review has found these factors may improve the performance of current models by adding or replacing some of the factors.

IMPLICATIONS FOR RESEARCH

The role of risk stratification of chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia patients continues to evolve as the practice of risk-based therapy has been demonstrated to be beneficial to patients, clinicians and health care organisations. Further research to identify new factors /markers is needed to develop a new model which is reliable and accurate for these patients, regardless of cancer types. A robust and well-validated prognostic model is the key to enhance patient safety in the risk-based management of cancer patients with chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia.

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.

Evidence-based guidelines for empirical therapy of neutropenic fever in Korea

Neutrophils play an important role in immunological function. Neutropenic patients are vulnerable to infection, and except fever is present, inflammatory reactions are scarce in many cases. Additionally, because infections can worsen rapidly, early evaluation and treatments are especially important in febrile neutropenic patients. In cases in which febrile neutropenia is anticipated due to anticancer chemotherapy, antibiotic prophylaxis can be used, based on the risk of infection. Antifungal prophylaxis may also be considered if long-term neutropenia or mucosal damage is expected. When fever is observed in patients suspected to have neutropenia, an adequate physical examination and blood and sputum cultures should be performed. Initial antibiotics should be chosen by considering the risk of complications following the infection; if the risk is low, oral antibiotics can be used. For initial intravenous antibiotics, monotherapy with a broad-spectrum antibiotic or combination therapy with two antibiotics is recommended. At 3-5 days after beginning the initial antibiotic therapy, the condition of the patient is assessed again to determine whether the fever has subsided or symptoms have worsened. If the patient's condition has improved, intravenous antibiotics can be replaced with oral antibiotics; if the condition has deteriorated, a change of antibiotics or addition of antifungal agents should be considered. If the causative microorganism is identified, initial antimicrobial or antifungal agents should be changed accordingly. When the cause is not detected, the initial agents should continue to be used until the neutrophil count recovers.

Cost effectiveness of outpatient treatment for febrile neutropaenia in adult cancer patients

BACKGROUND

There is uncertainty whether low-risk episodes of febrile neutropaenia (FN) in adult cancer patients are best managed in the in- or outpatient setting.

METHODS

A Monte Carlo cost-utility model was created to compare four treatment strategies for low-risk FN: (1) treatment in hospital with intravenous antibiotics (HospIV); (2) early discharge after 48 h in-patient observation, followed by oral outpatient treatment (EarlyDC); (3) outpatient management with IV antibiotics (HomeIV); and (4) outpatient management with oral antibiotics (HomePO). The model used a health-care payer perspective and a time horizon of one FN episode. Outcome measures were quality-adjusted FN episodes (QAFNE), costs (Canadian dollars) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER). Parameter uncertainty was assessed with probabilistic sensitivity analyses.

RESULTS

HomePO was cost saving ($3470 vs $4183), but less effective (0.65 QAFNE vs 0.72 QAFNE) than HomeIV. The corresponding ICER was $10,186 per QAFNE. Both EarlyDC ($6115; 0.66 QAFNE) and HospIV ($13,557; 0.62 QAFNE) were dominated strategies. At a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $4,000 per QAFNE, HomePO and HomeIV were cost effective in 54 and 38% of simulations, respectively.

INTERPRETATION

For adult cancer patients with an episode of low-risk FN, treatment in hospital is more expensive and less effective than outpatient strategies.

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

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

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

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

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

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

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

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

Prophylactic and therapeutic strategies in chemotherapy-induced neutropenia

INTRODUCTION

Neutropenia poses a serious threat to patients on chemotherapy. It exposes them to the risk of infection--including potentially fatal infections--and also leads to delays in treatment and reductions in dose intensity, which can compromise the possibility of a favorable outcome.

AREAS COVERED

The use of granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (G-CSF) and antibiotics to prevent febrile neutropenia (FN) and to ameliorate cancer chemotherapy-induced myelosuppression is discussed, based on a systematic search of Pubmed for clinical trials, reviews and meta-analysis published in the last 20 years. We consider that the treatment of FN, with the emphasis on careful attention to the patient, prompts antibiotic therapy and good hospital care.

EXPERT OPINION

We would argue that antibiotic prophylaxis should be offered routinely to patients receiving cytotoxic chemotherapy for acute leukemia and for patients with solid tumors and lymphoma receiving high-dose chemotherapy. In patients undergoing cyclical standard-dose myelosuppressive chemotherapy, we believe that prophylaxis is indicated during the first cycle of chemotherapy in which there is an expectation of grade 4 neutropenia (< 500 neutrophils). However, although the use of antibiotics and haematopoietic growth factors may improve quality of life by reducing the risk and consequences of FN, further study of the magnitude of their effects is needed.

National Cancer Institute Cancer Center designation and 30-day mortality for hospitalized, immunocompromised cancer patients

PURPOSE

To examine 30-day mortality and National Cancer Institute (NCI) designation for cancer patients who are immunocompromised and hospitalized.

METHOD

Secondary analysis of 1998 and 1999 hospital claims, cancer registry, and vital statistics (n = 10,370) linked to survey and administrative data from 160 Pennsylvania hospitals. Logistic regression models estimated the effects of NCI designation on the likelihood of 30-day mortality.

RESULTS

NCI-designated centers were associated with a 33% reduction in the likelihood of death, after adjusting for patient, hospital, and nursing characteristics.

CONCLUSIONS

Immunocompromised cancer patients have lower mortality in NCI-designated hospitals. Identification and adoption of care processes from these institutions may improve mortality.

Risk prediction in pediatric cancer patients with fever and neutropenia

BACKGROUND

To identify predictors for 2 risk measures-"proven invasive bacterial infection or culture-negative sepsis (IBD)" and "clinical complications (CC)"-in pediatric cancer patients with fever and neutropenia (FN).

METHODS

Records of 390 patients with FN hospitalized over 2 years were reviewed. For the 332 who met inclusion criteria, one FN episode was randomly selected. Independent predictors at presentation were analyzed using multiple regression models. Optimal cut-off risk prediction scores were determined. These models were validated by bootstrap analysis.

RESULTS

Patients' median age was 6.0 years; 66% had an underlying diagnosis of leukemia. Independent predictors of IBD (n = 56) were absolute neutrophil count <100, temperature at presentation > or =39.0 degrees C, "sick" clinical appearance, and underlying diagnosis of acute myeloid leukemia. A total weighted score <24 reliably identified patients at low risk for IBD. Independent predictors of CC (n = 47) were relapse of malignancy, non-white race, "sick" clinical appearance, and underlying diagnosis of acute myeloid leukemia. A total weighted score <19 predicted patients at low risk for CC. Of those misclassified as low risk, 11 of 12 with IBD and 3 of 9 with CC had the outcome within 24 hours of presentation. Of the remaining patients classified as low-risk for IBD and CC, 99.5% and 97.1%, respectively, remained outcome-free after 24 hours of observation.

CONCLUSIONS

This study identifies predictors of infection/complications in pediatric patients with FN, establishes clinical cut-off scores and highlights the importance of the initial clinical impression and 24 hours of observation. These prediction models warrant prospective validation.

Management of chemotherapy-associated febrile neutropenia

The development of febrile neutropenia during a course of chemotherapy is not only a life-threatening complication, it can also lead to a decision to reduce chemotherapy intensity in subsequent treatment cycles, thus putting patient outcomes at risk. Although there are strategies available for the primary prevention of febrile neutropenia, these are not widely used in the UK management of breast cancer. It is, therefore, paramount to have a well thought out and rigorously implemented care protocol for febrile neutropenia, involving patients, family/carers and health-care professionals in both primary and secondary care, to ensure early detection and effective management.

Oral moxifloxacin for outpatient treatment of low-risk, febrile neutropenic patients

OBJECTIVES

Low-risk febrile neutropenic patients can be treated without hospitalization with oral antibiotic regimens. Combination regimens are recommended. Our objective was to evaluate the feasibility of quinolone monotherapy (moxifloxacin) in this setting.

METHODS

In this open-label pilot study, eligible low-risk febrile neutropenic patients identified using pre-defined criteria (MASCC Risk Index) received oral moxifloxacin (400 mg) in our emergency center and were discharged after a 4-8 h observation period to ensure clinical stability. They subsequently received moxifloxacin 400 mg daily as outpatients. Success of monotherapy, outpatient management, the development of adverse events, and major medical complications were recorded.

RESULTS

The trial was closed without reaching the target sample size of 40 patients due to slow accrual. Twenty-one evaluable patients were enrolled, with sarcoma and breast cancer being the predominant underlying neoplasms. Most patients (76%) were severely neutropenic (</=100 cells/mm(3)) on enrollment. There were 13 episodes (62%) of unexplained fever and eight documented infections including five episodes (24%) of bacteremia. The overall success rate of monotherapy was 95%. One patient with unexplained fever and persistent neutropenia required hospitalization and responded to alternative therapy. No significant toxicity or severe medical complications occurred.

CONCLUSIONS

Oral outpatient quinolone monotherapy for low-risk febrile neutropenic patients appears feasible and needs to be formally evaluated in large randomized clinical trials.

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.

Oral moxifloxacin or intravenous ceftriaxone for the treatment of low-risk neutropenic fever in cancer patients suitable for early hospital discharge

GOALS OF WORK

Patients with low-risk neutropenic fever as defined by the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer (MASCC) score might benefit from ambulatory treatment. Optimal management remains to be clearly defined, and new oral antibiotics need to be evaluated in this setting.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Cancer patients with febrile neutropenia and a favorable MASCC score were randomized between oral moxifloxacin and intravenous ceftriaxone. All were fit for early hospital discharge. The global success rate was related to the efficacy of monotherapy, as well as to the success of ambulatory monitoring.

MAIN RESULTS

The trial was closed prematurely because of low accrual. Ninety-six patients were included (47 in the ceftriaxone arm and 49 in the moxifloxacin arm). A total of 65% were women, 30.2% had lymphoma, 34.4% had metastatic, and 35.4% had non-metastatic solid tumors. The success rates of home antibiotics were 73.9% and 79.2% for ceftriaxone and moxifloxacin, respectively. Seven patients were not discharged, and 14 required re-hospitalization. There were 17% of microbiologically documented infections that were, in most cases, susceptible to oral monotherapy.

CONCLUSIONS

These results suggest that MASCC is a valid and useful tool to select patients for ambulatory treatments and that oral moxifloxacin monotherapy is safe and effective for the outpatient treatment of cancer patients with low-risk neutropenic fever.

Cytokine concentrations are not predictive of bacteremia in febrile neutropenic patients

Assay of cytokines and C reactive protein (CRP) in different periods of febrile neutropenia may be helpful for early defining the risk in severe infections. We determined serum interleukin-6 (IL-6), interleukin-8 (IL-8), soluble interleukin-2 receptor (sIL-2R), tumor necrosis factor alpha (TNF-alpha), interleukin-1 beta (IL-1beta), and CRP in 22 previously untreated patients with various malignancies. Samples were obtained in four different clinical periods of febrile neutropenia; prior to chemotherapy, afebrile neutropenic period after chemotherapy, febrile neutropenic period, and recovery period. When compared to sex-and age-matched group of healthy subjects, IL-6, IL-8, sIL-2R, and CRP levels were found to be elevated in all periods. The highest levels were encountered in the febrile neutropenic period. For predictivity purposes, the afebrile neutropenic period was the most important period. Serum sIL-2R, IL-6, IL-8 and CRP levels were elevated in this period. IL-8 levels showed the most stable elevation through different stages of febrile neutropenia. Serum IL-8 levels were found to have the most reliable and stable elevation in different clinical stages of febrile neutropenia. Nevertheless, IL-8 is not able to discriminate among risk groups and cannot be used as a predictive factor.

Outcomes and cost of outpatient or inpatient management of 712 patients with febrile neutropenia

PURPOSE

We retrospectively compared the outcomes and costs of outpatient and inpatient management of low-risk outpatients who presented to an emergency department with febrile neutropenia (FN).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A single episode of FN was randomly chosen from each of 712 consecutive, low-risk solid tumor outpatients who had been treated prospectively on a clinical pathway (1997-2003). Their medical records were reviewed retrospectively for overall success (resolution of all signs and symptoms of infection without modification of antibiotics, major medical complications, or intensive care unit admission) and nine secondary outcomes. Outcomes were assessed by physician investigators who were blinded to management strategy. Outcomes and costs (payer's perspective) in 529 low-risk outpatients were compared with 123 low-risk patients who were psychosocially ineligible for outpatient management (no access to caregiver, telephone, or transportation; residence > 30 minutes from treating center; poor compliance with previous outpatient therapy) using univariate statistical tests.

RESULTS

Overall success was 80% among low-risk outpatients and 79% among low-risk inpatients. Response to initial antibiotics was 81% among outpatients and 80% among inpatients (P = .94); 21% of those initially treated as outpatients subsequently required hospitalization. All patients ultimately responded to antibiotics; there were no deaths. Serious complications were rare (1%) and equally frequent between the groups. The mean cost of therapy among inpatients was double that of outpatients ($15,231 v $7,772; P < .001).

CONCLUSION

Outpatient management of low-risk patients with FN is as safe and effective as inpatient management of low-risk patients and is significantly less costly.

Comparison of two oral regimens for the outpatient treatment of low-risk cancer patients with chemotherapy-induced neutropenia and fever: ciprofloxacin plus cefuroxime axetil versus ciprofloxacin plus amoxicillin/clavulanate

The objective of this investigation was to assess retrospectively the safety and the efficacy of oral ciprofloxacin plus cefuroxime axetil compared to the combination of oral ciprofloxacin plus amoxicillin/clavulanate, as initial outpatient treatment, in low-risk cancer patients with fever and neutropenia. We analysed retrospectively 120 episodes of febrile neutropenia, treated on an outpatient basis at 2 different oncology units; 63 episodes were treated with the oral regimen of ciprofloxacin plus amoxicillin/clavulanate and 57 were treated with the combination of oral ciprofloxacin plus cefuroxime. 20 treatment failures were recorded-2 of them among patients receiving ciprofloxacin plus amoxicillin/clavulanate and 18 in the ciprofloxacin plus cefuroxime group. Univariate analysis showed that the administration of ciprofloxacin plus cefuroxime was associated with a worse outcome compared to the regimen ciprofloxacin plus amoxicillin/clavulanate (OR 11, CI 2.42-49.9, p =0.002). In the multivariate model, after adjusting for the absolute number of neutrophils and the duration of neutropenia, the effect of the antibiotic regimen on the outcome disappeared, and no significant differences between the 2 regimens were noted, although the regimen of ciprofloxacin plus cefuroxime was associated with a trend to a worse outcome (OR 4.74, CI 0.72-31.1, p =0.10). In conclusion, the 2 regimens appeared equally safe and effective but prospective studies are needed to confirm these results.

Oral gatifloxacin in the outpatient treatment of children with cancer fever and neutropenia

BACKGROUND

Fever in neutropenic (FN) patients requires immediate broad-spectrum antibiotics, however, such patients do not represent a homogeneous population and the majority of them are at low risk of developing complication. Gatifloxacin (GA) is an alternative, though it has not been thoroughly studied in Pediatrics yet. The aim of this study was to evaluate oral GA in oncology pediatric patients with FN and low risk of infectious complications.

METHODS

We conducted a prospective study in patients submitted to chemotherapy and FN, from the ages of 3 to 21 years old, with solid tumors, acute lymphoid leukemia, and lymphomas without comorbidities and treated as outpatient with oral GA. Safety and adverse effects were monitored.

RESULTS

We evaluated 108 patients with 201 episodes of FN. The average age was 10.8 years, 64.8% of the patients were male. Osteosarcoma accounted for 22% of the episodes, rhabdomyosarcoma for 13%, acute lymphoid leukemia, lymphomas and Ewing sarcoma, for 11% each. Among the 174 episodes exclusively treated as outpatients, the average duration of neutropenia was 4.8 days, the average duration of fever was 2.4 days; the average duration of the treatment was 8.1 days. The treatment was successful in 75.9%, analyzing only the first episodes. No patient died during the study. Adverse events included diarrhea, vomiting, increased liver enzymes, arthralgia, and ECG changes.

CONCLUSION

Oral GA is effective and safe in the management of oncology pediatric patients with FN at low risk of infectious complications in the outpatient setting.

A prospective, multicentric scoring system to predict mortality in febrile neutropenic children with cancer

BACKGROUND

Many studies have succeeded in identifying a subset of children with febrile neutropenia (FN) who are at lower risk of infectious complications and eventual death. Conversely, to the authors' knowledge, no scoring system has been published to date with which to assess the risk of mortality for the whole group of children with neutropenia and fever.

METHODS

Between March 2000 and July 2004, 1520 episodes of FN in 981 children were included in a multicentric prospective study to evaluate a scoring system that was designed to identify high mortality risk at the onset of an FN episode in children with cancer.

RESULTS

In the derivation set (714 episodes), 18 patients died (2.5%). A multivariate analysis yielded the following significant mortality-related risk factors: advanced stage of underlying malignant disease (odds ratio [OR], 3122.1; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 0.0001-5.2), associated comorbidity (OR, 25.3; 95% CI, 7.7-83.2), and bacteremia (OR, 7.2; 95% CI, 2.4-22.0). A mortality score could be built with 3 points scored for the presence of advanced-stage underlying malignant disease, 2 points scored for the presence of associated comorbidity, and 1 point scored for bacteremia. If patients collected 4 points of the risk score at onset, then their risk of mortality was 5.8%; if patients had a score of 5 points, then their risk of mortality was 15.4%; and, if they reached the maximum score of 6 points, then their risk of mortality was raised to 40%. The sensitivity of the scoring system was 100%, and it had a specificity of 84.2%. In the validation set (806 episodes), 19 children died (2.3%). For children with scores >3, the scoring system had a sensitivity of 84.2%, a specificity of 83.2%, and a negative predictive value of 99.54% for predicting mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of a mortality score for high-risk patients was validated statistically by the current results. This is a major prognostic approach to categorize patients with high-risk FN at onset. A better initial predictive approach may allow better therapeutic decisions for these children, with an eventual impact on reducing mortality.

Outpatient therapy for febrile neutropenia

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The management of febrile neutropenia has evolved significantly with the development of risk stratification and recognition of the efficacy of oral antibiotics in low-risk patients. There remains uncertainty concerning the need for hospitalization and role of early hospital discharge. We review recent evidence in this field and identify outstanding issues for future research.

RECENT FINDINGS

Studies have confirmed the utility of the MASCC risk index. Preliminary findings suggest that early hospital discharge is feasible in low-risk patients with solid tumours and lymphomas, at least in specialist centres. Median hospital stays may be reduced to 48 h with no increase in serious medical complications. Readmission rates remain low.

SUMMARY

All patients with febrile neutropenia should undergo risk stratification on admission, and low-risk patients should be considered eligible for combination oral antibiotics from the outset. Those patients who show signs of fever resolution and subjective improvement are eligible for early discharge. More research is required with regard to patients with haematological malignancies and/or receiving prophylactic antibiotics, and in the development of factors predictive of successful early discharge. Further data are required regarding whether strategies involving early discharge can be safely implemented at centres outside those which have pioneered these approaches.

Safe and effective outpatient treatment of adults with chemotherapy-induced neutropenic fever

PURPOSE

The safe and effective outpatient treatment of adults with chemotherapy- induced neutropenic fever is reviewed.

SUMMARY

Chemotherapy-induced neutropenic fever is a potentially life-threatening circumstance in high-risk patients. The standard of care for neutropenic fever is inpatient treatment with i.v. broad-spectrum antibiotics. Within the past 5-10 years, there has been growing interest in oral therapy and outpatient treatment for carefully selected low-risk patients. Outpatient treatment has the potential to avoid patient exposure to multidrug-resistant organisms found in the hospital, provide a more comfortable environment for the patient and his or her family, and achieve significant cost savings. Two risk-assessment tools have been developed to identify patients with a low risk of developing complications from neutropenic fever. A limited number of clinical trials have been conducted to evaluate outpatient treatment of low-risk patients. The evidence from well-designed randomized controlled trials comparing the safety and efficacy of outpatient therapy with standard therapy is not extensive. However, some centers have reported successful outpatient therapy in low-risk patients with febrile neutropenia. The greatest amount of evidence for outpatient treatment of neutropenic fever is available for the combination regimen of ciprofloxacin plus amoxicillin-clavulanate. Clinical practice guidelines are available to guide patient evaluation, antibiotic selection, monitoring, and follow-up.

CONCLUSION

The accepted standard for treatment of neutropenic fever remains inpatient therapy with i.v. broad-spectrum antibiotics. However, some centers have had success treating selected low-risk patients with neutropenic fever as outpatients.

Risk-adapted strategy for the management of febrile neutropenia in cancer patients

BACKGROUND

Among patients who develop fever and neutropenia after having received cancer chemotherapy, we have to distinguish at least three categories of risk levels for complications and death: patients at low risk and eligible for oral treatment and possibly outpatient management, patients at low risk who require intravenous therapy, and patients at higher risk.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The Multinational Association for Supportive Care in Cancer scoring system identifies patients at low risk (<5%) of severe complications with very low mortality (<1%) during an episode of febrile neutropenia; this group represents roughly 70% of an unselected population of patients with febrile neutropenia. A significant percentage (approximately 50%) of these patients are eligible for treatment with orally administered antibiotics and can be discharged early and safely from the hospital after a short (24-48 h) observation period.

Early hospital discharge with oral antimicrobial therapy in patients with hematologic malignancies and low-risk febrile neutropenia

Although consensus exists relating criteria for the identification of low-risk patients with febrile neutropenia, no clear indication on how to manage these patients has been so far provided particularly in outpatients affected by hematologic malignancies. The feasibility and safety of early discharge was prospectively evaluated in 100 outpatients with hematologic malignancies and febrile neutropenia. A strategy considering the risk-index of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer (MASCC) was applied. High-risk patients were entirely managed at hospital. Low-risk patients were early discharged if they were afebrile since 48 h and not on supportive therapy requiring hospitalization. Out of 90 low-risk episodes, in 69 instances (76.7%), patients were discharged after a median of 4 days and continued home therapy with oral cefixime (78%) or other antibiotics. Only five outpatients (7.2%) had fever recurrence. Twenty-one low-risk patients were not early discharged due to worsening conditions (three deaths), need of multiple daily dose therapy, or discharge refuse. No clinical characteristic was able to predict the eligibility for early discharge. The MASCC risk-index is a useful aid in the identification of high-risk febrile neutropenia needing whole in-hospital treatment. As for low-risk patients, hospitalization at least in the first days of fever is required. Cefixime could be included among the oral antibacterial drugs to be used in the outpatient treatment of adult patients with febrile neutropenia.

Outpatient oral antibiotics for febrile neutropenic cancer patients using a score predictive for complications

PURPOSE

Since febrile neutropenic patients were recognized to constitute a heterogeneous population, several models have been developed for predicting the risk of serious medical complications. The Multinational Association for Supportive Care in Cancer score and its derived clinical prediction rules have been validated, but thus far there were no data about its use for simplifying therapy in predicted low-risk patients.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

In a single institution, we followed all episodes of febrile neutropenia between January 1999 and November 2003. Those patients predicted at low risk for complications, who were not receiving antibacterials at fever onset and were eligible for treatment with oral antibiotics, were treated with ciprofloxacin and amoxicillin-clavulanate and were discharged if they were clinically stable or improving after an initial observation period. The primary end point of the study was the rate of resolution of the febrile neutropenic episode without complications, among these early discharged patients.

RESULTS

Of 383 first febrile neutropenic episodes predicted at low risk of complication, 178 patients (33 men and 145 women, mainly with solid tumors) were treated orally; they constituted the basis of our analysis. Seventy-nine patients (44%) were discharged early (with a median time to discharge of 26 hours); no complications occurred among them but three patients had to be readmitted, resulting in a success rate of 96% (95% CI, 92% to 100%).

CONCLUSION

Our study shows that oral therapy followed by early discharge was feasible in a small but significant proportion of patients selected by a strategy combining predicted low risk and medical and nonmedical criteria.

The outpatient management of low-risk febrile patients with neutropenia: risk assessment over the telephone

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this retrospective study is to evaluate the feasibility of the risk assessment over the telephone in the outpatient management of low-risk febrile patients with neutropenia.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Febrile patients with neutropenia were eligible for outpatient management with oral ciprofloxacin if they demonstrated the following characteristics: resolution of neutropenia expected in <10 days, good performance status, controlled cancer, no symptoms or signs suggesting systemic infection other than fever, and no comorbidity requiring hospitalization. Eligible patients received oral ciprofloxacin (400 mg, three times daily) and were monitored as far as possible by telephone. Risk assessment concerning general condition was carried out over the telephone.

RESULTS

Of the 60 consecutive patients who received neoadjuvant chemotherapy as a phase II trial of docetaxel (60 mg/m(2)) and doxorubicin (50 mg/m(2)) for primary breast cancer, 30 low-risk febrile patients received oral ciprofloxacin. Twenty-seven of these patients (90%) recovered uneventfully without hospitalization and the use of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor. Treatment was considered to have failed in the remaining three (10%) on the account of the need to modify or change their regimens.

CONCLUSIONS

For carefully selected low-risk febrile patients with neutropenia, risk assessment over the telephone may be convenient, and close daily medical scrutiny may be not routinely required in the outpatient.

The evolution towards ambulatory and day-case management of febrile neutropenia

Febrile neutropenia (FN) is only second to chemotherapy administration as a cause of hospital admission during treatment for cancer. As FN may signify serious or life-threatening infection, management protocols have focussed on trying to prevent adverse outcomes in these patients. However, it is now possible to identify a subset of patients with FN at low risk of life-threatening complications in whom duration of hospitalisation and intensity of therapy can be reduced safely. This review discusses how the management of FN has evolved to enable patients identified as low risk to be treated on specific low risk management strategies, with an emphasis on some of the practical considerations for the implementation of such strategies.

Once daily, oral, outpatient quinolone monotherapy for low-risk cancer patients with fever and neutropenia

BACKGROUND

The objective of this study was to assess the feasibility of empiric, oral, outpatient quinolone monotherapy in 40 adult patients with fever and neutropenia who were at low risk for serious medical complications.

METHODS

Patients with breast cancer or sarcoma who presented with fever and neutropenia and were identified as low risk received empiric, oral, quinolone monotherapy (gatifloxacin at a dose of 400 mg once daily). Patients who had a significant source/focus of infection on presentation were excluded. After an initial observation period of 4 to 8 hours in the emergency center, the remainder of their management was ambulatory. Patients were evaluated for response to therapy, development of complications and/or the need for hospital admission, and drug-related adverse events.

RESULTS

Three of 43 patients studied were ineligible medically because of the presence of Common Toxicity Criteria (version 3.0) Grade>2 mucositis. Of the 40 eligible patients, 38 patients (95%) responded to gatifloxacin monotherapy, although 1 patient requested hospital admission (92% response for ambulatory management). The mean duration of therapy was 7 days, and the median number of days from enrollment to defervescence was 4 days. There were no serious medical complications, no drug-related adverse events, and no deaths on study or during 30 days of follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

The results from this study indicated that outpatient quinolone monotherapy in low-risk febrile neutropenic patients is safe, effective, and well received. These conclusions need to be validated in a randomized trial.