Randomized trial comparing oral ciprofloxacin plus penicillin V with amikacin plus carbenicillin or ceftazidime for empirical treatment of febrile neutropenic cancer patients

Oral fluoroquinolones for definitive treatment of gram-negative bacteremia in cancer patients

PURPOSE

Bloodstream infections (BSI) are significant causes of morbidity and mortality in cancer patients. These patients often receive 10 to 14 days of intravenous (IV) antibiotics. The objective of this study was to compare the outcomes of cancer patients transitioned from IV to oral (PO) therapy compared to continuation of IV treatment.

METHODS

This was a single-center, retrospective cohort study of hospitalized adult cancer patients with gram-negative bacteremia. Patients transitioned to a PO fluoroquinolone (FQ) within 5 days were allocated to the IV-to-PO group, while the remaining patients comprised the IV group. The primary outcome was the composite of treatment failure, defined as infection-related readmission, infection recurrence, or inpatient mortality. A multivariable logistic regression model was constructed to account for confounding variables. Secondary outcomes assessed included infection-related length of stay (LOS), hospital LOS, and adverse events, such as Clostridioides difficile infection and catheter-related complications.

RESULTS

The IV-to-PO group included 78 patients, while the remaining 133 patients were allocated to the IV group. Differences at baseline included more hematologic malignancy, neutropenia, ICU admissions, and higher Pitt bacteremia scores in the IV group. The rate of treatment failure was significantly higher in the IV group (24% vs 9%; p < 0.01), which persisted in the logistic regression (aOR 3.5, 95% CI 1.3-9.1). The IV-to-PO group had decreased infection-related and hospital length of stay, as well as fewer catheter-related complications.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of PO FQ may be considered for the definitive treatment of uncomplicated Enterobacterales BSI in cancer patients.

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

Risk assessment and treatment of low-risk patients with febrile neutropenia

Progress has been made in the development and validation of rules that attempt ito predict a low risk (<10%) of severe infection or clinical complications in patients with cancer, fever, and neutropenia. It is uncertain, however, which model is optimal, with respect to test characteristics, applicability, and interinstitutional reliability, and prospective model validation in a multicenter context among outpatients has not been performed. Clinical criteria, such as comorbidities and performance status, remain critical in the risk-assessment process and probably are used by most physicians caring for patients with cancer who are febrile and neutropenic. Clinical prediction rules might be improved in the future by including measurements of inflammatory markers, such as procalcitonin. Reliable prediction of the risk of medical complications may be relevant for decisions regarding parenteral versus oral antimicrobial therapy, but it is definitely needed for decisions regarding site of care. Site-of-care decisions require thorough assessment not only of medical criteria, but also of psychosocial and organizational and/or logistic criteria. If the appropriate infrastructure to provide follow-up is available, home-based therapy with oral (or parenteral) antibiotics is an acceptable option in the care of patients with cancer who have intercurrent febrile neutropenia and a predicted low risk for medical complications.

Infectious Complications of Cancer Therapy

Advances in the management of cancer, particularly the development of new chemotherapeutic agents, have greatly improved the survival and outcome of patients with hematologic malignancies and solid tumors; overall 5-year survival rates in cancer patients have improved from 39% in the 1960s to 60% in the 1990s.1 However, infection, caused by both the underlying malignancy and cancer chemotherapy, particularly myelosuppressive chemotherapy, remains a persistent challenge.

Manejo del paciente con neutropenia de bajo riesgo y fiebre

For years the classical approach to febrile episodes in patients with chemotherapy-induced neutropenia consisted of hospital admission and intravenous administration of broad-spectrum antibiotics. However, since the end of the 1980s, it has been known that not all episodes of neutropenia carry the same risk of developing complications. These low risk febrile patients with neutropenia, that is, those without a clear focus of infection, without criteria for severe sepsis, and with an expected duration of neutropenia of less than 7-10 days, could benefit from outpatient oral antibiotic therapy or, failing this, from intravenous administration through a perfusion pump in the home. The present study analyzes the current situation of the new treatment modalities that aim to improve patients' quality of life and to optimize healthcare resources and costs.

Ciprofloxacin vs an aminoglycoside in combination with a beta-lactam for the treatment of febrile neutropenia: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

OBJECTIVE

To compare the effectiveness and toxicity of ciprofloxacin vs an aminoglycoside, both in combination with a beta-lactam, for the treatment of febrile neutropenia in the inpatient setting.

METHODS

For this meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared the ciprofloxacin/beta-lactam combination vs an aminoglycoside/beta-lactam combination for the treatment of febrile neutropenia and reported data on effectiveness, mortality, and/or toxicity, we searched PubMed (1950-2004), Current Contents, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and reference lists of retrieved articles, including review articles, as well as abstracts presented at international conferences. Data for 3 primary and 2 secondary outcomes were extracted by 2 investigators.

RESULTS

Eight RCTs were included in the analysis. Comparable or better outcomes were observed with the ciprofloxacin/beta-lactam combination vs an aminoglycoside/beta-lactam combination: clinical cure without modification of the initial regimen (odds ratio [OR], 1.32; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.00-1.74; P=.05), clinical cure in the subset of patients with documented Infections (OR, 1.56; 95% CI, 1.05-2.31; P=.03), all-cause mortality (OR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.54-1.35; P=.49), withdrawal of the study drugs due to toxicity (OR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.57-1.32; P-.51), and nephrotoxicity (OR, 0.30; 95% CI, 0.16-0.59; P<.001). The ciprofloxacin/beta-lactam combination was also associated with better clinical cure compared to the aminoglycoside/beta-actam combination in the subset of RCTs with non-low-risk patients (OR, 1.38; 95% CI, 1.01-1.88; P=-.04), as well as in the subset of studies that included the same beta-lactam in both treatment arms (OR, 1.47; 95% CI, 1.06-2.05; P=.02).

CONCLUSION

The combination of ciprofloxacin with a beta-actam antibiotic should be considered an important therapeutic option in hospitalized febrile neutropenic patients who have not received a quinolone for prevention of infections and in settings in which quinolone resistance is not common.

Ciprofloxacin and amoxicillin as continuation treatment of febrile neutropenia in pediatric cancer patients

BACKGROUND

The empiric administration of anti-microbial therapy significantly reduces the morbidity and mortality associated with febrile neutropenic episodes in oncology patients. Outpatient empiric antibiotic therapy can be safely administered to a subset of febrile neutropenic patients at low risk for clinical complications.

PROCEDURE

Pediatric cancer patients presenting with febrile neutropenia after non-myeloablative chemotherapy and who met institutional criteria for early hospital discharge following a minimum of 48-hr inpatient empiric intravenous ceftazidime were eligible for the study. The feasibility and efficacy of an outpatient continuation therapy of oral ciprofloxacin (CPR) 25-30 mg/kg/day divided BID and amoxicillin (AMX) 30-50 mg/kg/day divided TID was assessed.

RESULTS

Thirty febrile neutropenic episodes in 26 patients were treated with outpatient oral CPR/AMX therapy. Oral CPR/AMX therapy was feasible in 28 (93%) and efficacious in 26 (87%) of treatment episodes. CPR/AMX was discontinued due to abdominal pain and diarrhea (n = 2), recurrent fever (n = 3), or gastrointestinal bleeding (n = 1). No patient developed new bacteremia or cardiopulmonary decompensation. Bone/joint pain or gastrointestinal symptoms occurred in 27% of treatment episodes. Duration of neutropenia, lower absolute neutrophil count (ANC) (< 100/mm(3)) at start of oral antibiotic therapy and active malignant disease were associated with failure of oral antibiotic therapy.

CONCLUSIONS

It is feasible to administer oral CPR/AMX as continuation antibiotic therapy for a selected subgroup of febrile neutropenic episodes defined after initial hospitalization and empiric antibiotic therapy. Prospectively randomized trials will be required to analyze adequately the efficacy of an oral CPR/AMX outpatient antibiotic regimen for treatment of febrile neutropenia in pediatric oncology patients.

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.

Oral versus intravenous empirical antimicrobial therapy for fever in patients with granulocytopenia who are receiving cancer chemotherapy. International Antimicrobial Therapy Cooperative Group of the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer

BACKGROUND

Intravenously administered antimicrobial agents have been the standard choice for the empirical management of fever in patients with cancer and granulocytopenia. If orally administered empirical therapy is as effective as intravenous therapy, it would offer advantages such as improved quality of life and lower cost.

METHODS

In a prospective, open-label, multicenter trial, we randomly assigned febrile patients with cancer who had granulocytopenia that was expected to resolve within 10 days to receive empirical therapy with either oral ciprofloxacin (750 mg twice daily) plus amoxicillin-clavulanate (625 mg three times daily) or standard daily doses of intravenous ceftriaxone plus amikacin. All patients were hospitalized until their fever resolved. The primary objective of the study was to determine whether there was equivalence between the regimens, defined as an absolute difference in the rates of success of 10 percent or less.

RESULTS

Equivalence was demonstrated at the second interim analysis, and the trial was terminated after the enrollment of 353 patients. In the analysis of the 312 patients who were treated according to the protocol and who could be evaluated, treatment was successful in 86 percent of the patients in the oral-therapy group (95 percent confidence interval, 80 to 91 percent) and 84 percent of those in the intravenous-therapy group (95 percent confidence interval, 78 to 90 percent; P=0.02). The results were similar in the intention-to-treat analysis (80 percent and 77 percent, respectively; P=0.03), as were the duration of fever, the time to a change in the regimen, the reasons for such a change, the duration of therapy, and survival. The types of adverse events differed slightly between the groups but were similar in frequency.

CONCLUSIONS

In low-risk patients with cancer who have fever and granulocytopenia, oral therapy with ciprofloxacin plus amoxicillin-clavulanate is as effective as intravenous therapy.

Ciprofloxacin. An updated review of its pharmacology, therapeutic efficacy and tolerability

Ciprofloxacin is a broad spectrum fluoroquinolone antibacterial agent. Since its introduction in the 1980s, most Gram-negative bacteria have remained highly susceptible to this agent in vitro; Gram-positive bacteria are generally susceptible or moderately susceptible. Ciprofloxacin attains therapeutic concentrations in most tissues and body fluids. The results of clinical trials with ciprofloxacin have confirmed its clinical efficacy and low potential for adverse effects. Ciprofloxacin is effective in the treatment of a wide variety of infections, particularly those caused by Gram-negative pathogens. These include complicated urinary tract infections, sexually transmitted diseases (gonorrhoea and chancroid), skin and bone infections, gastrointestinal infections caused by multiresistant organisms, lower respiratory tract infections (including those in patients with cystic fibrosis), febrile neutropenia (combined with an agent which possesses good activity against Gram-positive bacteria), intra-abdominal infections (combined with an antianaerobic agent) and malignant external otitis. Ciprofloxacin should not be considered a first-line empirical therapy for respiratory tract infections if penicillin-susceptible Streptococcus pneumoniae is the primary pathogen; however, it is an appropriate treatment option in patients with mixed infections (where S. pneumoniae may or may not be present) or in patients with predisposing factors for Gram-negative infections. Clinically important drug interactions involving ciprofloxacin are well documented and avoidable with conscientious prescribing. Recommended dosage adjustments in patients with impaired renal function vary between countries; major adjustments are not required until the estimated creatinine clearance is < 30 ml/min/1.73m2 (or when the serum creatinine level is > or = 2 mg/dl). Ciprofloxacin is one of the few broad spectrum antibacterials available in both intravenous and oral formulations. In this respect, it offers the potential for cost savings with sequential intravenous and oral therapy in appropriately selected patients and may allow early discharge from hospital in some instances. In conclusion, ciprofloxacin has retained its excellent activity against most Gram-negative bacteria, and fulfilled its potential as an important antibacterial drug in the treatment of a wide range of infections. Rational prescribing will help to ensure the continued clinical usefulness of this valuable antimicrobial drug.