Self-administered antibiotic therapy for chemotherapy-induced, low-risk febrile neutropenia in patients with nonhematologic neoplasms

Validation of the Clinical Index of Stable Febrile Neutropenia (CISNE) model in febrile neutropenia patients visiting the emergency department. Can it guide emergency physicians to a reasonable decision on outpatient vs. inpatient treatment?

Advances in oncology have enabled physicians to treat low-risk febrile neutropenia (FN) in outpatient settings. This study was aimed to explore the usefulness of the CISNE model and identify better triage in the emergency setting. This is a retrospective cohort study on 400 adult FN patients presenting to the Emergency Department of National Cancer Center, Korea from January 2010 to December 2016. All had been treated with cytotoxic chemotherapy for solid tumors in the previous 30 days. The primary outcome was the frequency of any serious complications during the duration of illness. Apparently stable patients numbered 299 (74.8%) of 400, and the remainder comprised clinically unstable patients. The stable patients fell into three cohorts according to the risk scores: CISNE I (low risk), 56 patients (18.7%); CISNE II (intermediate), 124 (41.5%) and CISNE III (high), 119 (39.8%). The primary outcome occurred in 10.7%, 19.4% and 33.6%, respectively, according to the cohort. Compared with the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer Risk Index Score (MASCC RIS), CISNE I stratum had significantly lower sensitivity (0.22 vs. 0.95 of MASCC low risk) but higher specificity (0.91 vs. 0.17) to predict zero occurrence of the primary outcome. The CISNE model was useful for identifying low-risk FN patients for outpatient treatment. The combination of the CISNE and MASCC RIS may help emergency physicians cope with FN more confidently.

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.

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.

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.

Outcomes of treatment pathways in outpatient treatment of low risk febrile neutropenic cancer patients

BACKGROUND

We treated low-risk febrile neutropenic cancer patients utilizing two standard outpatient antibiotic pathways: oral ampicillin/clavulanate (500 mg) and ciprofloxacin (500 mg) or intravenous ceftazidime (2 g) and clindamycin (600 mg) every 8 h. The objectives were to determine the success of outpatient treatment of low-risk febrile neutropenia, to identify factors predicting outpatient failure, and to determine mortality related to the febrile episode.

METHODS

Eligibility criteria included solid tumor diagnosis, stable vital signs, temperature > or =38.0 degrees C, absolute neutrophil count (ANC) of <1000/ml, patient compliance, no significant organ dysfunction, ability to tolerate oral medication and fluids for oral pathway, residence within 30 miles of the institution, 24-h caregiver, and telephone and transportation access.

RESULTS

There were 257 febrile episodes in 191 patients meeting the criteria. Patients were treated during March 1998 through February 2000. Median age was 48 (range, 17-77) years, and 60% (n = 153) had an entry ANC of <100/ml; 205 (80%) febrile episodes successfully responded to outpatient treatment, and 52 (20%) were hospitalized. Logistic regression analysis showed the following were related to hospitalization: mucositis >grade 2 (p < 0.002); Zubrod performance status > or =2 (p = 0.029); ANC <100/ml (p = 0.039), and age > or =70 years (p = 0.048).

CONCLUSIONS

Outpatient treatment of low-risk febrile neutropenic cancer patients utilizing standard treatment pathways is associated with minimal morbidity and mortality and should be considered an acceptable standard of care with appropriate infrastructure available to provide strict and careful follow-up while on treatment. Certain factors are associated with higher risk of hospitalization and should be further examined in eligible patients with low-risk febrile neutropenia.

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 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 STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Cancer Network Register of trials (November 2002), the Cochrane Library (issue 2, 2002), MEDLINE (1966 to 2002), EMBASE (January 1980 to 2002) and LILACS (1982 to 2002). We searched several databases for ongoing trials. We checked the conference proceedings of the Interscience Conference of Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy (ICAAC) 1995 to 2002 and all references of included studies and major reviews were scanned.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials 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 reviewers independently assessed trial eligibility, methodological quality and extracted data. Data concerning mortality, treatment failures and adverse events were extracted from included studies assuming an "intention-to-treat" basis for the outcome measures whenever possible. Relative risks (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) for dichotomous data were estimated.

MAIN RESULTS

Fifteen trials (median mortality 0, range 0 to 8.8%) were included in the analyses. The mortality rate was similar comparing oral to intravenous antibiotic treatment (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.51 to 1.62, 7 trials, 1223 patients). Treatment failure rates were also similar (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.05, all trials). No significant heterogeneity was shown for all comparisons but adverse events. This effect was stable in a wide range of patients. Quinolones alone or combined with another antibiotics were used with comparable results. Adverse reactions, mostly gastrointestinal were more common with oral antibiotics.

REVIEWERS' 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, not having pneumonia, infection of a central line or a severe soft-tissue infection. The wide confidence interval 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.

Approche organisationnelle et économique en France du traitement ambulatoire des neutropénies fébriles

A NEW OBJECTIVE: Keeping neutropenic patients with fever in their homes helps to preserve their quality of life and reduces the costs. However, it is important to specify the conditions and the means necessary for the organisation so that home treatment can be applied safely because of the high risk of morbidity due to infection. THE FUNDAMENTAL CONDITIONS FOR ITS MANAGEMENT: The patients who could potentially benefit from an outpatient treatment strategy when presenting with neutropenia and fever must not have a tumour progressing and must not exhibit signs of co-morbidity and be affected by neutropenia and fever at home. Moreover, full information and the patient's and relatives' consent, a hospital nearby, the permanent presence of someone with the patient, the possibility of a telephone contact, the patient's full compliance, prior consent and excellent communication and excellent patient-physician relationship are all essential conditions. THE PARTICIPANTS AT HOME: The patient is essentially followed-up by the treating physician. Private nurses can intervene at the patient's home. Hospitalisation at home is presently the only alternative medical structure to classical hospitalisation. The development of nursing networks ensure the continuity between the hospital and the town and the good coordination of the health workers caring for the patient. The steps to be taken during an episode of fever are debated: complete discharge from hospital for some, initial outpatient controls in the hospital for several hours for others and the initial hospitalisation for 24 to 72 hours for some others. Whatever the case, haemocultures must be performed before the initiation of any antibiotherapy.

SURVEILLANCE

The optimal clinical surveillance is ensured daily by a private nurse and the treating physician. An assessment every 2 to 3 days in a hospital unit is recommended. CARE NETWORKS: Their development should increase and hence create the continuity between the hospital and the town. The outpatient management of neutropenia with fever is a major source of economy; it allows the patients to be kept at home whilst ensuring the quality and security of their treatment.

Once-Daily Oral Levofloxacin Monotherapy versus Piperacillin/Tazobactam Three Times a Day: A Randomized Controlled Multicenter Trial in Patients with Febrile Neutropenia

A prospective, randomized, controlled multicenter trial was performed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of once-daily oral monotherapy with 500 mg levofloxacin in comparison with 4.5 g piperacillin/tazobactam 3 times a day in patients with low-risk febrile neutropenia. Low risk was defined by oral temperature > or = 38.5 degrees C on one occasion or > or = 38.0 degrees C twice within 24 hours and granulocytopenia < or = 500/microL for less than 10 days. The primary end point was defined as defervescence after 72 hours followed by at least 7 afebrile days. Secondary end points were overall response, time to defervescence, survival on day 30, and toxicity. Thirty-four episodes were included. Fever of unknown origin accounted for 26 (76.5%) of the episodes, microbiologically defined infection for 5 (14.7%) of the episodes, and clinically defined infection for 3 (8.8%) of the episodes. On an intent-to-treat basis, all episodes were evaluable for the primary end point. Levofloxacin and piperacillin/tazobactam were successful after 72 hours of treatment in 76.5% and 88.3% of the episodes. Overall response was achieved in 94.1% and 100% of the episodes, respectively. One inpatient in the oral treatment group died of septic shock without identification of a causative pathogen. A larger phase III trial is warranted to further evaluate the lack of inferiority of the oral monotherapy regimen versus standard intravenous therapy.

Outpatient therapy for febrile neutropenia: clinical and economic implications

Although febrile episodes in neutropenic patients remain a potentially life-threatening complication of anticancer chemotherapy, considerable progress has been achieved in understanding this issue. Febrile neutropenic patients represent a heterogeneous population that displays a very variable risk for serious medical complications. It has also been ascertained that in low-risk patients, the standard of care can be safely and effectively shifted from traditional hospital-based, parenteral, empiric, broad-spectrum antibacterial therapy to outpatient treatment, even for the entire duration of the febrile episode. Furthermore, in the last years some risk assessment models have been developed to identify, at the onset of febrile episodes, low-risk neutropenic patients who are most likely to have a favourable outcome (and who can effectively and safely be treated on an outpatient basis). With respect to traditional hospital-based therapy, the outpatient treatment of low-risk patients is associated with several advantages, including a conspicuous cost saving. Some strategies for inpatient therapy, such as switching from intravenous to oral antibacterials and early discharge, can allow some cost containment; however, the most substantial decrease in costs can be obtained by using outpatient treatment over the entire febrile episode, especially by using oral antibacterials. In spite of the considerable number of clinical studies published over the past 20 years, only limited pharmacoeconomic data on this issue are available. Future comparative studies between outpatient and inpatient treatment of febrile neutropenia, in addition to clinical outcomes (e.g. survival, time to clinical response), should therefore include the following: (i) a detailed analysis of total costs, specifying the setting of outpatient treatment and the method of administration of antimicrobial agents (home nursing, self administration or treatment at infusion centres or at a low-care unit of the hospital); (ii) cost of inpatient treatment if outpatient therapy fails; and (iii) out-of-pocket expenses incurred by the patients.

Outpatient and home parenteral antibiotic therapy (OHPAT) in low-risk febrile neutropenia: consensus statement of a Belgian panel

Febrile neutropenia requires adequate antibiotic treatment. A subgroup of patients are only at low risk for complications and could be treated at home/as outpatients (OHPAT) after a short initial admission for work up. This position paper by a Belgian panel of experts presents criteria defining low-risk in febrile neutropenia, gives an overview of the existing experience and examines the present obstacles to a more widespread use of OHPAT in this country.

Fever and neutropenia in cancer patients: the diagnostic role of cytokines in risk assessment strategies

Cancer patients treated with chemotherapy are susceptible to bacterial infections. Therefore, all neutropenic cancer patients with fever receive standard therapy consisting of broad-spectrum antibiotics and hospitalization. However, febrile neutropenia in cancer patients is often due to other causes than bacterial infections. Therefore, standard therapy should be re-evaluated and new treatment strategies for patients with variable risk for bacterial infection should be considered. This paper reviews the changing spectrum of microorganisms and resistance of microorganisms to antibiotics in infection during neutropenia and discusses new strategies for the selection of patients with low-risk for bacterial infection using clinical and biochemical parameters such as acute phase proteins and cytokines. These low-risk patients may be treated with alternative therapies such as oral antibiotics, early discharge from the hospital or outpatient treatment.

Continuous infusion of ceftazidime for patients with breast cancer and multiple myeloma receiving high-dose chemotherapy and peripheral blood stem cell transplantation

This prospective study was performed to examine the safety and efficacy of a continuous infusion of ceftazidime in patients who developed febrile neutropenia after high-dose chemotherapy (HDCT) and autologous peripheral blood stem cell transplantation (PBSCT) and to determine if the underlying disease represents a risk factor for infectious complications. From September 1995 to May 2000, 55 patients with breast cancer (BC, group I, 54 females, one male) and 32 patients with multiple myeloma (MM, group II, 10 female, 22 male) were included in this study. The febrile patients received a 2 g intravenous bolus of ceftazidime, followed by a 4 g continuous infusion over 24 h using a portable infusion pump. If the fever persisted for 72 h a glycopeptide antibiotic was added. The median age was 42 years (range 22-59) in group I and 52 years (range 35-63) in group II. Thirty-five BC patients (64%) and 20 MM patients (63%) responded to the monotherapy with ceftazidime. After addition of a glycopeptide antibiotic, an additional 11 BC patients vs 10 MM patients became afebrile. The causes of fever in group I were fever of unknown origin (FUO) in 49 patients, microbiologically documented infection (MDI) in five patients, and clinically documented infection (CDI) in one patient. The causes of fever in group II were FUO in 22 patients, MDI in eight patients and CDI in two patients. Forty-one febrile episodes in BC patients (75%) and 22 episodes in the MM patients (69%) were successfully managed by out-patient treatment, resulting in a saving of an average of 20 days of inpatient care. Significantly more episodes of MDI and CDI occurred in patients with MM (P = 0.05). The results indicate that BC and MM patients with febrile neutropenia after HDCT and PBSCT can be treated as outpatients with close monitoring to ensure safety. This approach represents a better use of health care resources.

Evolving concepts of management of febrile neutropenia in children with cancer

BACKGROUND

Recent investigations of febrile neutropenia in pediatric cancer patients have identified subsets of low-risk patients who can be managed with less antibiotic therapy than previously recommended standards.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

PubMed and Medline were searched for prospective trials and reviews of febrile neutropenia in children. Magnitude and duration of fever and neutropenia, comorbidities, and therapeutic strategies were examined.

RESULTS

Twenty-seven prospective trials and five reviews were identified. The child with cancer and low-risk febrile neutropenia is clinically well and afebrile within 24-96 hr of antibiotic therapy and has evidence of marrow recovery with a rising phagocyte count. Disqualifying comorbidities include leukemia at diagnosis or in relapse, uncontrolled cancer, age under 1 year, medical condition(s) that would otherwise require hospitalization and social or economic conditions that may potentially compromise access to care or compliance. Therapeutic strategies include parenteral or oral antibiotics in the hospital with early discharge or parenteral antibiotics in the outpatient setting followed by oral or parenteral therapy and daily reassessment. Although as many as 25% of low-risk patients require modification of therapy and/or hospitalization, life-threatening or fatal infection is exceptional.

CONCLUSION

One-third to one-half the children with febrile neutropenia are at low-risk of serious infection. In the context of clinic trials, they can be safely managed with inpatient or outpatient strategies that maintain close follow-up and reduce the burden of antibiotic therapy. Adoption of these alternative strategies as the standard of care should proceed with caution guided by written protocols.

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

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

Empirical oral antibiotic therapy for low risk febrile cancer patients with neutropenia

For over 30 years, fever and neutropenia in cancer patients has been treated with the utmost urgency, necessitating inpatient evaluation and immediate initiation of empirical broad-spectrum parenteral (i.v.) antibiotics. This practice is based on the recognition that delays in starting antibiotic therapy in febrile neutropenic patients have been associated with life-threatening infections and sometimes fatal consequences. Over the past decade, it has become evident that neutropenic cancer patients are not a homogeneous group and that practice guidelines may vary on their risk status. In fact, attempts have been made to stratify patients into high-risk and low-risk groups and differentiate treatment options respectively. Recent studies suggest that those neutropenic cancer patients who are at low risk may even be successfully treated with oral therapy, thus opening the possibility for ambulatory or home-based management. Oral antibiotic therapy, especially if safely delivered at home, offers a number of advantages including lower cost, improved quality of life (although the impact of shifting the burden of care from the hospital to the home setting on the patient, parent or care provider needs careful assessment) and a decreased risk for nosocomial infection.

Risk assessment and risk-based therapeutic strategies in febrile neutropenia

Different approaches have developed over time regarding the empirical antimicrobial therapy of fever in neutropenic patients. The use of intravenous antibiotics remains the standard approach. Clinical criteria and 'low-risk' prediction rules have been developed that help select patients in whom oral therapy is well tolerated and who may be eligible for outpatient management. Comorbidity and clinical status at presentation remain important criteria in the risk-assessment process. Outpatient management requires additional assessment of non-medical criteria. Patients without documented infection and who have responded to initial therapy may benefit from simplified therapy such as a switch to oral drugs and/or outpatient management. Discontinuation of therapy may be considered in selected cases. Risk assessment in neutropenic patients with persistent unexplained fever is challenging. Available data suggest that broadening of the antibacterial coverage is of limited value. Instead, definition of the risk of fungal infection by using clinical criteria, imaging and laboratory studies, as well as the identification of those patients likely to benefit from antifungal therapy, appear to be of critical importance.

Clinical characteristics and therapeutic outcome of patients with febrile neutropenia who present in shock: need for better strategies

OBJECTIVE

To study the frequency of neutropenic febrile patients who present in shock, to evaluate the influence of this presenting feature on response to antibiotic therapy, morbidity, and mortality and to identify discriminating demographic features and clinical characteristics of these individuals.

METHODS

Prospectively collected data on all episodes of fever and neutropenia observed in cancer patients who were hospitalized for parenteral antibiotic therapy.

RESULTS

Five hundred and seventy-six patients were evaluated; 22 (3.8%) presented in shock. This group of individuals was compared with the remainder. Patients presenting in shock were more likely to be older (P< 0.01) and have progressive unresponsive cancer (P< 0.01). They were also more likely to present with septic appearance (P< 0.01), dehydration (P< 0.01), diarrhoea (P< 0.01), altered mental status (P< 0.01) clinical bleeding (P= 0.02) and dyspnoea (P< 0.01). They more often had anaemia (P< 0.01), thrombocytopenia (P= 0.02) and abnormal liver function tests (P< 0.01). Eight of the 22 patients presenting in shock had documented bacteraemia. Non-bacteraemic microbiological infections were observed in three patients. Five patients had clinical evidence of infection and another five were severely dehydrated and volume depleted. One patient had cardiogenic shock. Three patients were managed with monotherapy, 19 received combination antibiotics as initial empirical therapy. Overall outcome of these patients was extremely poor, particularly those with infectious aetiology. Eighteen (82%) patients expired.

CONCLUSION

Neutropenic febrile patients who present in shock have extremely poor outcomes irrespective of type of initial antibiotic therapy. Intense efforts are required to improve their outcome.

Time to clinical response: an outcome of antibiotic therapy of febrile neutropenia with implications for quality and cost of care

PURPOSE

To determine whether antibiotic regimens with similar rates of response differ significantly in the speed of response and to estimate the impact of this difference on the cost of febrile neutropenia.

METHODS

The time point of clinical response was defined by comparing the sensitivity, specificity, and predictive values of alternative objective and subjective definitions. Data from 488 episodes of febrile neutropenia, treated with either of two commonly used antibiotics (coded A or B) during six clinical trials, were pooled to compare the median time to clinical response, days of antibiotic therapy and hospitalization, and estimated costs.

RESULTS

Response rates were similar; however, the median time to clinical response was significantly shorter with A-based regimens (5 days) compared with B-based regimens (7 days; P =.003). After 72 hours of therapy, 33% of patients who received A but only 18% of those who received B had responded (P =.01). These differences resulted in fewer days of antibiotic therapy and hospitalization with A-based regimens (7 and 9 days) compared with B-based regimens (9 and 12 days, respectively; P <.04) and in significantly lower estimated median costs ($8,491 v $11,133 per episode; P =.03). Early discharge at the time of clinical response should reduce the median cost from $10,752 to $8,162 (P <.001).

CONCLUSION

Despite virtually identical rates of response, time to clinical response and estimated cost of care varied significantly among regimens. An early discharge strategy based on our definition of the time point of clinical response may further reduce the cost of treating non-low-risk patients with febrile neutropenia.

Efficacy of continuous infusion of ceftazidime for patients with neutropenic fever after high-dose chemotherapy and peripheral blood stem cell transplantation

Neutropenia is an important complication of high-dose chemotherapy (HDCT). Neutropenic patients presenting with fever are routinely hospitalized for treatment with broad-spectrum antibiotics. Neutropenia up to 10 days is associated with a low-risk profile, and antimicrobial therapy administered on an outpatient basis might be an alternative to admission to hospital. This prospective study evaluates the safety of a continuous infusion of ceftazidime in neutropenic patients after HDCT and peripheral blood stem cell transplantation (PBSCT). From September 1995 to October 1999, 81 patients received a 2 g intravenous bolus of ceftazidime, followed by a 4 g continuous infusion per 24 h of ceftazidime using a portable infusion pump. If the fever persisted for 72 h, a glycopeptide antibiotic was added. The median patients' age was 44 years. Fifty-two of 81 patients (64%) responded to the monotherapy with ceftazidime. After addition of a glycopeptide antibiotic, a further 17 patients (21%) became afebrile. The causes of fever were septicaemia in 11 patients, pneumonia in two and fever of unknown origin in 68 patients. Fifty-eight episodes (72%) were successfully managed by outpatient treatment alone. The reason for admission to hospital was the change to imipenem/cilastin, which had to be administered three times per day (12 patients), severe mucositis with parenteral nutrition (eight patients), or a Karnovsky index </=60 (three patients). In six of these cases, outpatient treatment was resumed after a brief period of in-patient care. In no case was the treatment terminated because of failure of the pump. With daily follow-up and close monitoring for development of complications, it is possible to discharge patients earlier after HDCT and PBSCT, thereby decreasing costs.

"Low-risk" prediction rule for pediatric oncology patients presenting with fever and neutropenia

PURPOSE

To prospectively derive and validate a clinical prediction rule to allow a more tailored approach to the management of pediatric oncology outpatients presenting with fever and neutropenia.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

The clinical prediction rule was derived over a 1-year period and then validated over the following 8 months in a new set of fever and neutropenia episodes. Patients were excluded if they presented with comorbidity or an abnormal chest x-ray (CXR).

RESULTS

Significant bacterial infection (SBI; defined as any blood or urine culture positive for bacteria, interstitial or lobar consolidation on CXR, or unexpected death from infection) was documented in 43 of the 227 episodes. Multivariate analysis found four significant factors: bone marrow disease, general appearance unwell on initial examination, monocyte count less than 0.1 x 10(9)/L, and peak oral or oral equivalent temperature greater than 39 degrees C. Only the monocyte count contributed to determining a low-risk group, excluding SBI with 84% sensitivity (95% confidence interval [CI], 61% to 100%), 42% specificity (95% CI, 38% to 46%), and a negative predictive value of 92% (95% CI, 76% to 100%). If the monocyte count was >/= 0.1 x 10(9)/L at the time of presentation (low risk), the incidences of SBI and bacteremia were 8% and 5%, respectively, versus 25% and 17% in the high-risk group. When validated in a new population of 136 episodes of fever and neutropenia, the incidences of SBI and bacteremia in the low-risk group were 12% and 5%, respectively, and 25% and 19% in the high-risk group.

CONCLUSION

Pediatric oncology outpatients with fever and neutropenia who present with an initial monocyte count of >/= 0.1 x 10(9)/L and do not have comorbidity or an abnormal CXR at the time of presentation are at lower risk for SBI and can be considered for less aggressive initial therapy.

Empiric antimicrobial therapy of febrile neutropenic patients undergoing haematopoietic stem cell transplantation

This study was conducted to assess the efficacy and toxicity of intravenous (i.v.) ceftazidime and ciprofloxacin in neutropenic febrile patients undergoing high dose myeloablative therapy and hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT). All patients undergoing HSCT for leukaemia, lymphoma, multiple myeloma and solid tumours received open-label ceftazidime 2 g i.v. every 8 h and ciprofloxacin 400 mg i.v. every 12 h if they developed fever while they were neutropenic. Success with or without modification of this regimen was defined as survival through the neutropenic period; failure was defined as death secondary to infection. Of 106 patients treated with this regimen, the success rate was 99%. Sixty-one of the patients (57.5%) defervesced within 48-72 h and remained afebrile without regimen modification. In 41.5% of the cases (44/106), the regimen was modified because of persistent fever. One patient died secondary to sepsis. The combination of ceftazidime and ciprofloxacin as initial empiric antibacterial therapy in febrile neutropenic patients undergoing myeloablative therapy and HSCT is highly effective and is associated with minimal toxicity.

A double-blind comparison of empirical oral and intravenous antibiotic therapy for low-risk febrile patients with neutropenia during cancer chemotherapy

BACKGROUND

Among patients with fever and neutropenia during chemotherapy for cancer who have a low risk of complications, oral administration of empirical broad-spectrum antibiotics may be an acceptable alternative to intravenous treatment.

METHODS

We conducted a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study of patients (age, 5 to 74 years) who had fever and neutropenia during chemotherapy for cancer. Neutropenia was expected to be present for no more than 10 days in these patients, and they had to have no other underlying conditions. Patients were assigned to receive either oral ciprofloxacin plus amoxicillin-clavulanate or intravenous ceftazidime. They were hospitalized until fever and neutropenia resolved.

RESULTS

A total of 116 episodes were included in each group (84 patients in the oral-therapy group and 79 patients in the intravenous-therapy group). The mean neutrophil counts at admission were 81 per cubic millimeter and 84 per cubic millimeter, respectively; the mean duration of neutropenia was 3.4 and 3.8 days, respectively. Treatment was successful without the need for modifications in 71 percent of episodes in the oral-therapy group and 67 percent of episodes in the intravenous-therapy group (difference between groups, 3 percent; 95 percent confidence interval, -8 percent to 15 percent; P=0.48). Treatment was considered to have failed because of the need for modifications in the regimen in 13 percent and 32 percent of episodes, respectively (P<0.001) and because of the patient's inability to tolerate the regimen in 16 percent and 1 percent of episodes, respectively (P<0.001). There were no deaths. The incidence of intolerance of the oral antibiotics was 16 percent, as compared with 8 percent for placebo (P=0.07).

CONCLUSIONS

In hospitalized low-risk patients who have fever and neutropenia during cancer chemotherapy, empirical therapy with oral ciprofloxacin and amoxicillin-clavulanate is safe and effective.

Ambulatory management of chemotherapy-induced fever and neutropenia in adult cancer patients

OBJECTIVE

To review the literature on the management of low-risk adults with chemotherapy-induced fever and neutropenia (CIFN). Included in the review are methods to identify these patients, management options, and economic impact associated with nontraditional treatment options.

DATA SOURCES

A MEDLINE and bibliographic search (January 1966-December 1997) for all English-language studies evaluating the identification and treatment of adult, low-risk CIFN patients was completed. Reference lists from identified articles also served as literature sources.

STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION

All human studies identified from the data sources were evaluated. Pertinent information, excluding pediatric studies, was selected and critically evaluated for discussion.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Alterations in prominent bacterial isolates in CIFN, newer antibiotic choices, enhanced focus on patient comfort, and cost-containment directives have promoted recent research identifying adult cancer patients with low-risk CIFN. Using this information to select low-risk CIFN patients, several investigators have completed trials using antibiotic therapy applicable to the ambulatory setting. Additionally, some investigators have included the use of an oral outpatient antibiotic regimen. Limited data indicate that this approach is a reasonable treatment option for selected patients.

CONCLUSIONS

A subset of adult patients with CIFN are at low risk for serious morbidity and mortality when treated with broad-spectrum antibiotics in the ambulatory setting. Managing these patients with this approach requires close patient selection, intense follow-up, data collection, and ongoing evaluation to determine efficacy and patient safety. Currently, ambulatory treatment with oral antibiotics for CIFN is not considered standard of care. Further studies of larger size designed to confirm low-risk patient characteristics and optimal antibiotic selection are required.

Ceftriaxone in the outpatient treatment of cancer patients with fever and neutropenia

A study was performed in low-risk cancer patients with chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia to determine the safety and efficacy of ceftriaxone given in an outpatient setting. A total of 126 episodes of febrile neutropenia in 120 clinically stable outpatients were treated with intravenous ceftriaxone alone (n=100) or in combination with other antibiotics (n=26). The mean neutrophil count was 460/mm3; severe neutropenia (< 100/mm3) was observed in 18 episodes. The initial treatment with ceftriaxone (alone or in combination) was successful in 99 episodes (78%). Ninety-five episodes (76%) were successfully treated in an outpatient setting only; admission to hospital was necessary in 31 episodes (24%), but no infection-related death was observed. Ceftriaxone seems to be safe and effective for outpatient therapy of patients with low-risk febrile neutropenia.

Clinical outcome and economic impact of aminoglycoside peak concentrations in febrile immunocompromised patients with hematologic malignancies

The aim of this study was to investigate the clinical and economic significance of aminoglycoside peak concentrations in febrile neutropenic patients with hematologic malignancies. Sixty-one patients were treated according to protocol II of the Paul-Ehrlich-Gesellschaft: initial application of gentamicin or tobramycin in combination with a cephalosporin or ureidopenicillin and, after 3 days, a potential change of antibiosis to be decided in case of nonresponse. At the same time, samples were collected by an independent controller. We found a significant dependence of clinical outcome on aminoglycoside peak concentrations (P = 0.004). Twelve of 17 patients with peak concentrations &gt;4.8 mg/L, but only 13 of 44 patients with concentrations ≤4.8 mg/L, responded to initial therapy. Average infection-related costs per patient with peak values &gt;4.8 mg/L were US$1429, $1790, and $1701 for nursing, diagnostics, and therapeutics, respectively (total $4920). Expenses for patients with peak concentrations ≤4.8 mg/L were ∼1.8-fold higher (average total $8718). If all 61 patients had achieved peaks &gt;4.8 mg/L, the potential savings would have totalled $167 112. We conclude that neutropenic patients form a target group for successful pharmacokinetic intervention and cost saving.

Ceftazidime and ciprofloxacin as empiric therapy in febrile neutropenic patients undergoing hematopoietic stem cell transplantation

This pilot study was done to assess the efficacy and toxicity of intravenous ceftazidime and ciprofloxacin in patients developing febrile neutropenia while undergoing high-dose myeloablative therapy and hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT). All patients undergoing high-dose chemoradiotherapy and HSCT for leukemias, lymphomas, multiple myeloma, and solid tumors received open-label ceftazidime 2 g intravenously every 8 hours and ciprofloxacin 400 mg intravenously every 12 hours if they developed fever while they were neutropenic. Success with or without modification of this regimen was defined as survival through the neutropenic period; failure was defined as death secondary to infection. Among 45 patients treated with this regimen, the success rate was 98%. Sixty-two percent (28 of 45) of the patients achieved defervescence within 48 to 72 hours and remained afebrile without regimen modification. In 16 patients (36%) the regimen was modified because of persistent fever. The combination of ceftazidime and ciprofloxacin as initial empiric antibacterial therapy in febrile neutropenic patients undergoing myeloablative therapy and HSCT appears to be highly effective and is associated with minimal toxicity.

Outpatient antibiotic therapy for febrile episodes in low-risk neutropenic patients with cancer

Until recently, febrile neutropenic patients were treated with intravenous antibiotics in inpatient settings. Because of work completed in the last several years by various investigators, identification of a low-risk group of febrile, neutropenic patients has allowed successful treatment with both parenteral and oral antibiotics in an ambulatory environment. This accomplishment has been facilitated by advances in broad-spectrum antibiotics with long half-lives and stabilities, the introduction of the quinolones providing oral antipseudomonal activity, home health care, improvements in vascular access devices, and technically enhanced antibiotic delivery systems. This review focuses on the rationale of risk stratification and the progress made in treating low-risk febrile neutropenic patients as outpatients.

Stepdown single agent antibiotic therapy for the management of the high risk neutropenic adult with hematologic malignancies

The standard of therapy for the high risk adult neutropenic host being treated with broad spectrum antibiotics for fever has been to continue intravenous antibiotics until neutropenia resolves. We performed a small, limited pilot study to determine if it is safe to switch these patients to oral monotherapy with ciprofloxacin. Ten patients with hematologic malignancies who had < or = 108 granulocytes/mm3 after cytoreductive therapy and were afebrile for at least five days had intravenous antibiotics discontinued and were placed on oral ciprofloxacin. Eight patients were able to be discharged from the hospital and seven were treated without the need for reinstitution of intravenous therapy. Of the three failures, one developed fever with a new bloodstream infection and two developed fever with relapse of leukemia. Patients remained on ciprofloxacin an average of 14.5 days (range 4 to 35 days). Aggregate cost savings for the 10 patients from this approach were estimated to be $11,400 for antibiotics and $88,800 for hospitalization. If corroborated in larger, randomized studies, the use of "stepdown monotherapy" may be a cost effective approach to the management of the stable neutropenic patient.

Outpatient antibiotic treatment in low-risk febrile neutropenic cancer patients

Traditionally febrile neutropenic patients have been treated with parenteral antibiotics in an inpatient setting; however, recent work by several investigators has demonstrated successful treatment with both parenteral and oral antibiotics in an ambulatory environment. This has been accomplished by identification of low-risk neutropenic patients, advances in broad-spectrum antibiotics with long half-lives and stabilities, the introduction of the oral quinolones, home health-care initiatives, improvements in vascular access devices, and development of technically enhanced antibiotic delivery systems. Outpatient antibiotic therapy for febrile episodes in low-risk neutropenic patients should now be considered an acceptable alternative to hospital-based treatment. This review focuses on the development and rationale of risk stratification and examines the results of various outpatient antibiotic trials recently completed.

Early empiric antibiotic therapy for febrile neutropenia patients at low risk

Although it is apparent that certain patients with febrile neutropenic episodes can benefit from outpatient antibiotic therapy, not all low-risk patients are treated in this fashion. There are barriers, real and perceived, to implementing this approach for patients, health care providers, and caregivers. Table 3 summarizes the advantages and disadvantages of ambulatory management of febrile neutropenic patients. For many patients and physicians, outpatient oral antibiotics may be preferred, whereas for others a more conservative approach might be needed in order to feel comfortable with treating this population on an outpatient basis. In this situation, patients can be treated in a stepwise fashion as shown in Table 4. These alternatives allow physicians and patients options to discuss when planning treatment strategies for febrile neutropenia.

Current Approach to the Management of Neutropenia

Neutrophils have a critical role in host defense. Reduction in the absolute neutrophil count to below 1,000/μL is associated with increased susceptibility to infection. The pattern of infections depends on the severity and the duration of neutropenia and other associated defects in host defense mechanisms and exposure to antibiotics and other drugs, particularly corticosteroids and immunosuppressive agents. Breaks in the integrity of the skin or the gastrointestinal mucosal surfaces serve as the portals of entry for the majority of infecting organisms. Empiric antibiotic therapy and hospitalization are almost always required for the management of fever (temperature >38.2°C) in a neutropenic patient. A single antibiotic (e.g., ceftazidime or imipenem) or a combination of antibiotics with activity against both gram-positive and gram-negative organisms usually provides effective antimicrobial therapy. In low-risk patients, trials of out-patient therapy are ongoing. When febrile neutropenia does not respond to empiric broad-spectrum antibacterial therapy, fungal infections, particularly Candida and Aspergillus, should be considered, and antifungal therapy should be initiated. Recently, availability of the hematopoietic growth factors, particularly G-CSF and GM-CSF, have changed the approach to prevention and treatment of neutropenia. Randomized controlled studies have established that these growth factors accelerate hematopoietic recovery following chemotherapy and bone marrow transplantation. By shortening the duration of neutropenia, many of the heretofore inevitable problems with fever and infection can be avoided. The only major factor limiting the use of these agents is their cost. Despite the use of these growth factors, some patients will still experience slow hematopoietic recovery. For these patients, use of neutrophil transfusions, possibly from G-CSF-stimulated normal donors, may prove to be a useful adjunctive therapy.

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

PURPOSE

We recently demonstrated the efficacy of single-agent oral ofloxacin in the management of hospitalized neutropenic febrile patients. Ofloxacin was particularly effective in patients with short duration of neutropenia and fever of undetermined origin. These results prompted us to study the feasibility of outpatient management of neutropenic febrile patients who are otherwise at low risk of morbidity and mortality.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This multi-institutional, prospective, randomized trial included 182 low-risk neutropenic febrile episodes. After an initial work-up for fever, patients were randomized to receive oral ofloxacin 400 mg immediately and twice daily thereafter in the hospital or as outpatients. Close monitoring and follow-up were carried out in all patients. Those who failed to respond and remained febrile were given parenteral antibiotics. Nonresponding outpatients were admitted to the hospital for parenteral therapy.

RESULTS

One hundred sixty-nine episodes were evaluable. The hospital and outpatient treatment groups had comparable clinical characteristics. Pyrexias of undetermined origin (PUO) comprised 69% of episodes managed in hospital and 73% of episodes treated outside. The success rate with PUO was similar with inpatient and outpatient management. Patients with clinical and microbiologic infections fared less well than those with PUO. Overall, 78% of inpatient and 77% of outpatient fevers resolved with no modification of the initial treatment. Twenty-one percent of patients originally assigned to outside management required hospitalization. Mortality was 2% among inpatients and 4% among outpatients. One early death in a nonhospitalized patient underscores the need for close monitoring and surveillance in these cases.

CONCLUSIONS

Outpatient management of low-risk neutropenic febrile patients with ofloxacin is as effective as inpatient management with the same agent. This approach should be limited to the subset of patients with low-risk factors who are not otherwise on quinolone prophylaxis.