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

Cost comparison analysis of continuous versus intermittent antimicrobial therapy infusions in inpatient and outpatient care: real-world data from Finland

OBJECTIVE

This study compared the costs and nursing time associated with the delivery of continuous infusion of antibiotics via elastomeric infusion pumps (EIP) versus conventional intermittent infusion (CII) across different care pathways.

DESIGN

Retrospective real-world data informed a cost comparison analysis that compared costs and nursing hours between infusion of antibiotics via EIP versus CII across eight care pathways in inpatient or outpatient care during infection episodes. Real-world data were obtained from patients treated within a year with parenteral antimicrobial therapy in Päijät-Häme Region, Finland.

SETTING

Inpatient care with hospital admission and outpatient care at hospital at home in Päijät-Häme Region in Finland.

PARTICIPANTS

3778 patients with a total of 4214 infection episodes treated with intravenous antimicrobial therapy.

INTERVENTIONS

Eight treatment strategies with various combinations of EIP and CII administered in inpatient or outpatient care.

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES

Direct costs and nursing time.

RESULTS

Skin and soft tissue infections accounted for the highest number of episodes treated with EIP overall (30.8%; 74 out of 240 episodes) and in outpatient care specifically (53.3%; 128 out of 240 episodes). Compared with inpatient care costs with CII (€4590 per episode), treating skin and soft tissue infections in outpatient care with EIP or CII incurred only 24% (€1104) and 35% (€1620) of the costs, respectively. Across all treatment strategies and infections studied, the use of EIP consistently required less nursing time. The highest nursing time in the outpatient care was observed in sepsis episodes treated with CII (37 hours with CII vs 7 hours with EIP per episode).

CONCLUSION

Delivery of antimicrobial therapy using continuous infusions with EIP instead of CII can significantly decrease the nursing time and cost in both inpatient and outpatient care. For skin and soft tissue infections and sepsis, the utilisation of EIP is a cost-saving option in outpatient care compared with the use of CII.

Approach to febrile neutropenia in patients undergoing treatments for hematologic malignancies

Febrile neutropenia (FN) is common among hematologic malignancy patients, including recipients of hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) and cellular therapies such as chimeric antigen receptor (CAR)-T-cell therapy. Prompt empiric antibiotic use has been the mainstay for decades but a "one-size-fits-all" approach is no longer broadly accepted, as treatment-related infectious risk are more understood. Growing antimicrobial resistance is an increasing clinical challenge. Evolving strategies on de-escalation of broad-spectrum antibiotics in FN without identified infection are areas of particular interest.

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.

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

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

Evaluation of the clinical Index of Stable febrile neutropenia risk stratification system for management of febrile neutropenia in gynecologic oncology patients

OBJECTIVE

Scoring systems have been developed to identify low risk patients with febrile neutropenia (FN) who may be candidates for outpatient management. We sought to validate the predictive accuracy of the Clinical Index of Stable Febrile Neutropenia (CISNE) score alone and in conjunction with alternative scoring systems for risk of complications among gynecologic oncology patients.

METHODS

We conducted a single institution retrospective cohort study of patients admitted to an academic gynecologic oncology service for FN. We examined the performance characteristics (sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive value) of three scoring systems (Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer (MASCC), CISNE cut-off 1 (Low risk = 0), CISNE cut-off 2 (Low risk = <3)), and the combination of MASCC and CISNE to predict complications: inpatient death, ICU admission, hypotension, respiratory/renal failure, mental status change, cardiac failure, bleeding, and arrhythmia.

RESULTS

Fifty patients were identified for study inclusion. No low-risk CISNE patients died during hospitalization. Fewer CISNE low-risk patients experienced complications compared to high-risk patients, regardless of cut-off. Sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values of the scoring systems were: CISNE 1-37.1%, 86.7%, 86.7%, 37.1%; CISNE 2-85.7%, 46.7%, 78.9%, 58.3%; MASCC-82.9%, 66.7%, 85.3%, 62.5%; MASCC + CISNE 1-37.1%, 93.3%, 92.9%, 38.9%; MASCC + CISNE 2-80%, 73.3%, 87.5%, 61.1%.

CONCLUSIONS

The CISNE scoring system is an appropriate tool for the identification of patients with gynecologic cancers and FN who may benefit from close outpatient management. CISNE cut-off 2 performed comparably to the MASCC, but CISNE cut-off 1 had a higher specificity and positive predictive value.

National cost savings from an ambulatory program for low-risk febrile neutropenia patients in Australia

Objective The management of low-risk febrile neutropenia (FN) patients through ambulatory programs has demonstrated comparative safety and effectiveness to in-patient strategies. However, there is limited evidence of benefits of changing practice, particularly on a national scale. The aim of this study was to estimate costs and benefits of the program over a 10-year time horizon. Methods A comparative cost analysis from a health system perspective was performed, comparing costs and length of stay (LOS) of patients enrolled in an ambulatory program to a historical cohort who did not receive the program. Generalised linear models were used for analysis and bootstrapped to account for uncertainty. National data of identified FN admissions were used to inform future projections, with varying proportions of low-risk patients and eligibility for the ambulatory program. Results The overall LOS for patients in ambulatory cohort was 1.9 days shorter (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.0-2.8 days), a 50% reduction in in-patient bed-days. Although patients in the ambulatory cohort incurred additional costs due to care received outside hospital (mean (± s.d.) A$828.03 ± 124.30), the mean total cost incurred remained substantially lower than that of the historical cohort (A$2979 lower; 95% CI A$772-5391). On a national scale, this could translate into A$62.7 million in costs averted and 41347 bed-days saved over 10 years if the low-risk prediction rate and eligibility for ambulatory programs remained at currently observed rates. Conclusions The wider implementation of a safe and effective ambulatory program to manage low-risk FN patients can result in significant return-on-investment for the healthcare system by eliminating avoidable costs due to unnecessary lengthy hospital admissions. What is known about the topic? There is strong evidence demonstrating out-patient treatment of low-risk FN patients to be an effective and cost-effective strategy compared with continued in-patient hospitalisation. What does this paper add? This study demonstrates the sustainability of the ambulatory program in ensuring cost benefits and in-patient beds through real-life implementation data. It also provides evidence of the substantial cost and bed-days potentially averted when the cost savings and difference in LOS are estimated on a national scale over a 10-year time horizon. What are the implications for practitioners? The management of low-risk FN patients through ambulatory or out-patient programs is a safe and effective approach. There is strong evidence demonstrating the likely cost savings and considerable bed-days saved, which can be reallocated to meet other medical demands.

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

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

Cost-utility analysis of outpatient parenteral antimicrobial therapy (OPAT) in the Brazilian national health system

BACKGROUND

Outpatient parenteral antimicrobial therapy (OPAT) has been used for decades in different countries to reduce hospitalization rates, with favorable clinical and economic outcomes. This study assesses the cost-utility of OPAT compared to inpatient parenteral antimicrobial therapy (IPAT) from the perspective of a public university hospital and the Brazilian National Health System (Unified Health System -SUS).

METHODS

Prospective study with adult patients undergoing OPAT at an infusion center, compared to IPAT. Clinical outcomes and quality-adjusted life year (QALY) were assessed, as well as a micro-costing. Cost-utility analysis from the hospital and SUS perspectives were conducted by means of a decision tree, within a 30-day horizon time.

RESULTS

Forty cases of OPAT (1112 days) were included and monitored, with a favorable outcome in 97.50%. OPAT compared to IPAT generated overall savings of 31.86% from the hospital perspective and 26.53% from the SUS perspective. The intervention reduced costs, with an incremental cost-utility ratio of -44,395.68/QALY for the hospital and -48,466.70/QALY for the SUS, with better cost-utility for treatment times greater than 14 days. Sensitivity analysis confirmed the stability of the model.

CONCLUSION

Our economic assessment demonstrated that, in the Brazilian context, OPAT is a cost-saving strategy both for hospitals and for the SUS.

A cohort study on protocol-based nurse-led out-patient management of post-chemotherapy low-risk febrile neutropenia

PURPOSE

International guidelines adopt risk stratification approach to manage patients with low-risk febrile neutropenia patients. We developed this out-patient program using shared-care model with professional input and patient empowerment, so as to reduce patients' psychological burden from hospitalization and to improve the cost-effectiveness of management.

METHOD

This is a prospective cohort study to compare the efficacy and safeness of the out-patient program when compared with traditional in-patient care. Patients with solid tumors, developed febrile neutropenia with Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer score of at least 21, and good performance status were included. After initial assessment and the first dose of oral antibiotics, patients were observed in the ambulatory center. Stable patients were discharged home after 4 h of observation and nurse counseling. Patients' condition and clinical progress were regularly reviewed by specialist nurses within the following week by telephone and nurse clinic follow-up. The primary objective of the study is success rate, which defined as the resolution of fever and infection, without hospitalization or any change in antibiotics.

RESULTS

From September 2014 to December 2016, a total of 38 patients were enrolled. Majority were female with breast cancer (97%). Two patients required hospitalization due to persistent fever. The success rate of the out-patient program was not significantly different from the historical in-patient cohort (94.9 versus 97.4%, p = 0.053). No mortality was observed. Patients' compliance to the program was 100%, to telephone follow-up, nurse clinic visits, and daily temperature record.

CONCLUSION

Out-patient management of patients with low-risk febrile neutropenia is effective and safe through implementation of a structured protocol with joint inputs and engagement from clinicians, oncology nurses, and patients.

Comparison of the MASCC and CISNE scores for identifying low-risk neutropenic fever patients: analysis of data from three emergency departments of cancer centers in three continents

PURPOSE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

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

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

Economic evaluation of outpatient parenteral antimicrobial therapy: a systematic review

INTRODUCTION

Outpatient parenteral antimicrobial therapy (OPAT) consists of providing antimicrobial therapy by parenteral infusion without hospitalization. A systematic review was performed to compare OPAT and hospitalization as health care modalities from an economic perspective. Areas covered: We identified 1455 articles using 13 electronic databases and manual searches. Two independent reviewers identified 35 studies conducted between 1978 and 2016. We observed high heterogeneity in the following: countries, infection site, OPAT strategies and outcomes analyzed. Of these, 88% had a retrospective observational design and one was a randomized trial. With respect to economic analyses, 71% of the studies considered the cost-consequences, 11% cost minimization, 6% cost-benefit, 6% cost-utility analyses and 6% cost effectiveness. Considering all 35 studies, the general OPAT cost saving was 57.19% (from -13.03% to 95.47%). Taking into consideration only high-quality studies (6 comparative studies), the cost saving declined by 16.54% (from -13.03% to 46.86%). Expert commentary: Although most studies demonstrate that OPAT is cost-effective, the magnitude of this effect is compromised by poor methodological quality and heterogeneity. Economic assessments of the issue are needed using more rigorous methodologies that include a broad range of perspectives to identify the real magnitude of economic savings in different settings and OPAT modalities.

Cost-effectiveness of outpatient parenteral antibiotic therapy: a simulation modelling approach

Objectives

In the UK, patients who require intravenous antimicrobial (IVA) treatment may receive this in the community through outpatient parenteral antimicrobial therapy (OPAT) services. Services include: IVA administration at a hospital outpatient clinic (HO); IVA administration at home by a general nurse (GN) or a specialist nurse (SN); or patient self-administered (SA) IVA administration following training. There is uncertainty regarding which OPAT services represent value for money; this study aimed to estimate their cost-effectiveness.

Methods

A cost-effectiveness decision-analytic model was developed using a simulation technique utilizing data from hospital records and a systematic review of the literature. The model estimates cost per QALY gained from the National Health Service (NHS) perspective for short- and long-term treatment of infections and service combinations across these.

Results

In short-term treatments, HO was estimated as the most effective (0.7239 QALYs), but at the highest cost (£973). SN was the least costly (£710), producing 0.7228 QALYs. The combination between SN and HO was estimated to produce 0.7235 QALYs at a cost of £841. For long-term treatments, SN was the most effective (0.677 QALYs), costing £2379, while SA was the least costly at £1883, producing 0.666 QALYs. A combination of SA and SN was estimated to produce 0.672 QALYs at a cost of £2128.

Conclusions

SN and SA are cost-effective for short- and long-term treatment of infections, while combining services may represent the second-best alternative for OPAT in the UK.

Predicting Infectious ComplicatioNs in Children with Cancer: an external validation study

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to validate the 'Predicting Infectious ComplicatioNs in Children with Cancer' (PICNICC) clinical decision rule (CDR) that predicts microbiologically documented infection (MDI) in children with cancer and fever and neutropenia (FN). We also investigated costs associated with current FN management strategies in Australia.

METHODS

Demographic, episode, outcome and cost data were retrospectively collected on 650 episodes of FN. We assessed the discrimination, calibration, sensitivity and specificity of the PICNICC CDR in our cohort compared with the derivation data set.

RESULTS

Using the original variable coefficients, the CDR performed poorly. After recalibration the PICNICC CDR had an area under the receiver operating characteristic (AUC-ROC) curve of 0.638 (95% CI 0.590-0.685) and calibration slope of 0.24. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value and negative predictive value of the PICNICC CDR at presentation was 78.4%, 39.8%, 28.6% and 85.7%, respectively. For bacteraemia, the sensitivity improved to 85.2% and AUC-ROC to 0.71. Application at day 2, taking into consideration the proportion of MDI known (43%), further improved the sensitivity to 87.7%. Length of stay is the main contributor to cost of FN treatment, with an average cost per day of AUD 2183 in the low-risk group.

CONCLUSIONS

For prediction of any MDI, the PICNICC rule did not perform as well at presentation in our cohort as compared with the derivation study. However, for bacteraemia, the predictive ability was similar to that of the derivation study, highlighting the importance of recalibration using local data. Performance also improved after an overnight period of observation. Implementation of a low-risk pathway, using the PICNICC CDR after a short period of inpatient observation, is likely to be safe and has the potential to reduce health-care expenditure.

Clinical and cost-effectiveness, safety and acceptability of community intravenous antibiotic service models: CIVAS systematic review

OBJECTIVE

Evaluate evidence of the efficacy, safety, acceptability and cost-effectiveness of outpatient parenteral antimicrobial therapy (OPAT) models.

DESIGN

A systematic review.

DATA SOURCES

MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, National Health Service (NHS) Economic Evaluation Database (EED), Research Papers in Economics (RePEc), Tufts Cost-Effectiveness Analysis (CEA) Registry, Health Business Elite, Health Information Management Consortium (HMIC), Web of Science Proceedings, International Pharmaceutical Abstracts, British Society for Antimicrobial Chemotherapy website. Searches were undertaken from 1993 to 2015.

STUDY SELECTION

All studies, except case reports, considering adult patients or practitioners involved in the delivery of OPAT were included. Studies combining outcomes for adults and children or non-intravenous (IV) and IV antibiotic groups were excluded, as were those focused on process of delivery or clinical effectiveness of 1 antibiotic over another. Titles/abstracts were screened by 1 reviewer (20% verified). 2 authors independently screened studies for inclusion.

RESULTS

128 studies involving >60 000 OPAT episodes were included. 22 studies (17%) did not indicate the OPAT model used; only 29 involved a comparator (23%). There was little difference in duration of OPAT treatment compared with inpatient therapy, and overall OPAT appeared to produce superior cure/improvement rates. However, when models were considered individually, outpatient delivery appeared to be less effective, and self-administration and specialist nurse delivery more effective. Drug side effects, deaths and hospital readmissions were similar to those for inpatient treatment, but there were more line-related complications. Patient satisfaction was high, with advantages seen in being able to resume daily activities and having greater freedom and control. However, most professionals perceived challenges in providing OPAT.

CONCLUSIONS

There were no systematic differences related to the impact of OPAT on treatment duration or adverse events. However, evidence of its clinical benefit compared with traditional inpatient treatment is lacking, primarily due to the dearth of good quality comparative studies. There was high patient satisfaction with OPAT use but the few studies considering practitioner acceptability highlighted organisational and logistic barriers to its delivery.

The Community IntraVenous Antibiotic Study (CIVAS): a mixed-methods evaluation of patient preferences for and cost-effectiveness of different service models for delivering outpatient parenteral antimicrobial therapy

Background

Outpatient parenteral antimicrobial therapy (OPAT) is widely used in most developed countries, providing considerable opportunities for improved cost savings. However, it is implemented only partially in the UK, using a variety of service models.

Objectives

The aims of this research were to (1) establish the extent of OPAT service models in England and identify their development; (2) evaluate patients’ preferences for different OPAT service delivery models; (3) assess the cost-effectiveness of different OPAT service delivery models; and (4) convene a consensus panel to consider our evidence and make recommendations.

Methods

This mixed-methods study included seven centres providing OPAT using four main service models: (1) hospital outpatient (HO) attendance; (2) specialist nurse (SN) visiting at home; (3) general nurse (GN) visiting at home; and (4) self-administration (SA) or carer administration. Health-care providers were surveyed and interviewed to explore the implementation of OPAT services in England. OPAT patients were interviewed to determine key service attributes to develop a discrete choice experiment (DCE). This was used to perform a quantitative analysis of their preferences and attitudes. Anonymised OPAT case data were used to model cost-effectiveness with both Markov and simulation modelling methods. An expert panel reviewed the evidence and made recommendations for future service provision and further research.

Results

The systematic review revealed limited robust literature but suggested that HO is least effective and SN is most effective. Qualitative study participants felt that different models of care were suited to different types of patient and they also identified key service attributes. The DCE indicated that type of service was the most important factor, with SN being strongly preferred to HO and SA. Preferences were influenced by attitudes to health care. The results from both Markov and simulation models suggest that a SN model is the optimal service for short treatment courses (up to 7 days). Net monetary benefit (NMB) values for HO, GN and SN services were £2493, £2547 and £2655, respectively. For longer treatment, SA appears to be optimal, although SNs provide slightly higher benefits at increased cost. NMB values for HO, GN, SN and SA services were £8240, £9550, £10,388 and £10,644, respectively. The simulation model provided useful information for planning OPAT services. The expert panel requested more guidance for service providers and commissioners. Overall, they agreed that mixed service models were preferable.

Limitations

Recruitment to the qualitative study was suboptimal in the very elderly and ethnic minorities, so the preferences of patients from these groups might not be represented. The study recruited from Yorkshire, so the findings may not be applicable nationally.

Conclusions

The quantitative preference analysis and economic modelling favoured a SN model, although there are differences between sociodemographic groups. SA provides cost savings for long-term treatment but is not appropriate for all.

Future work

Further research is necessary to replicate our results in other regions and populations and to evaluate mixed service models. The simulation modelling and DCE methods used here may be applicable in other health-care settings.

Funding

The National Institute for Health Research Health Service and Delivery Research programme.

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

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

[Modalities of management of cancer patients with febrile neutropenia in the oncology emergency unit of Gustave-Roussy and their related costs]

BACKGROUND

Febrile neutropenia (FN) is a severe chemotherapy side effect. Hospitalization is recommended for FN episode of high-risk (HR) of complications. Management of FN at lower risk of complications remains unclear.

METHODS

This is a prospective observation study in patients with solid tumors admitted to the emergency department FN. Collected data included demographics, clinical, biological, therapeutic costs, MASCC score and complications.

RESULTS

Hundred and thirty-seven consecutive FN were recorded in 128 patients. Twenty-six FN (19%) were managed at home (all of them had a MASCC score ≥ 21); 111 (81%) were treated at hospital of which 37 NF were at HR of complications based on clinical and biological parameters (all of them had a MASCC score < 21) and for 74 of them the admission could be discussed (MASCC < 20 or ≥ 20). This group of patients was considerate with intermediate risk (IR). All IR patients were treated with the same antibiotics than outpatients, i.e. ceftriaxone in 36 cases (49%) or amoxicillin/clavulanic acid and ciprofloxacin in 38 cases (51%). For these 74 cases, any severe complication was recorded. Antibiotics were adapted for only 12% of these patients according to bacteriology results.

CONCLUSION

This study showed the limits of the MASCC score. We did not observe any severe complications in patients admitted to the hospital according to clinical and biological parameters and with the high risk score MASCC. This study had some methodological bias but it allowed us to estimate the cost of the different ways of management and the difficulties to decide the hospitalization in FN.

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

OBJECTIVE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

The Multinational Association for Supportive Care in Cancer (MASCC) risk index score: 10 years of use for identifying low-risk febrile neutropenic cancer patients

The Multinational Association for Supportive Care in Cancer risk index score developed, through a multinational collaboration, was published in 2000 with the aim to identify patients with chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia at low risk of serious medical complication development. It has been endorsed as a reliable tool since 2002 by Infectious Diseases Society of America. Ten years after, we thought worth to review its use, its characteristics in the external validations that occurred after the initial publication and also to review how the recognition of a group of patients at low risk has changed the management of febrile neutropenia. We also raise the issue of identification of high-risk patients that remains a challenge today.

Comparison of actual hospital costs versus DRG revenues for in-patient treatment of febrile neutropenia during adjuvant anthracycline plus/minus taxane-based chemotherapy for primary breast cancer

BACKGROUND

In flat-rate reimbursement systems, the hospital's own costs should not exceed its revenues. In a cohort of primary breast cancer (pBC) patients, costs and reimbursement for febrile neutropenia (FN) were compared to verify cost coverage.

METHODS

A prospective, observational study in pBC patients receiving adjuvant anthracycline ± taxane-based chemotherapy calculated the costs per in-patient FN episode. The correlating revenues were retrospectively analyzed from diagnosis-related group (DRG) invoices. The actual costs of the therapies were compared to the individual DRG revenues, and the results are presented from the provider's perspective.

RESULTS

In 50 patients, n = 11 patients were treated for FN as in-patients. The hospital's overall treatment costs were € 18,288, on average (Ø) € 1663 per case (range € 1139-2344); the overall DRG revenues were € 23,593, Ø € 2145 per case (range € 1266-2660). In n = 8 cases, the DRGs were cost covering, and in n = 3 cases, a loss was observed, but overall resulting in a gain of Ø € 482 per case and thus being cost covering for the provider. Inadequate DRG coding (n = 4/11; 36.4%) resulted in a preventable loss of Ø € 1069/case.

CONCLUSIONS

The costs of FN treatment vary substantially and DRG reimbursements do not necessarily reflect the provider's costs. Surprisingly, the in-patient treatment of FN here is overall more than cost covering if adequately coded. The main reasons are asymmetrical costs for this FN low-risk pBC group. These results emphasize the importance of correct medical coding to avoid potential losses.