Feasibility of early discharge strategies for neutropenic fever: outcomes of a Victorian organisational readiness assessment and pilot

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.

Potential reduction of hospital stay length with outpatient management of low-risk febrile neutropenia in a regional cancer center

Background

Febrile neutropenia is a serious complication of chemotherapy. The Multinational Association for Supportive Care in Cancer (MASCC) risk index score identifies patients at low risk of serious complications. Outpatient management programs have been successfully piloted in other Australian metropolitan cancer centers.

Aim

To assess current management of febrile neutropenia at our regional cancer center and determine potential impacts of an outpatient management program.

Method

We performed a retrospective review of medical records for all patients admitted at our regional institution with febrile neutropenia between 1 January 2016, and 31 December 2018. We collected information regarding patient characteristics, determined the MASCC risk index score, and if low risk, we determined the eligibility for outpatient care and potential reduction in length of stay and cost benefit.

Results

A total of 98 hospital admissions were identified. Of these, 66 had a MASCC low‐risk index score. Fifty‐eight patients met the eligibility criteria for outpatient management. Seventy‐one percent were female. The most common tumor type was breast cancer. Forty‐eight percent were treated with curative intent. The median length of stay was 3 days. The median potential reduction in length of stay for each admission was 2 days. The total potential reduction in length of stay was 198 days. No admission resulted in serious complications.

Conclusion

This review demonstrates a significant number of hospital admission days can be avoided. We intend to conduct a prospective pilot study at our center to institute an outpatient management program for such low‐risk patients with potential reduction in hospital length of stay. This will have significant implications on health resource usage, service provision planning, and patient quality of life.

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.

Management of febrile neutropenia in the perspective of antimicrobial de-escalation and discontinuation

Introduction: Infections are among the most frequent complications in patients with hematological and oncological diseases. They might be classified as fever of unknown origin and microbiologically or clinically documented infections. Optimal duration of antimicrobial treatment is still unclear in these patients.Areas covered: We provide an overview on the management of febrile neutropenia in the perspective of antimicrobial de-escalation and discontinuation.Expert opinion: Patients with febrile high-risk neutropenia should be treated empirically with an anti-pseudomonal agent such as piperacillin/tazobactam. Several clinical studies support the assumption that the primary antibiotic regimen might be safely discontinued prior to neutrophil reconstitution if the patient is afebrile for several days and all infection-related symptoms have been resolved. Primary empirical treatment with carbapenems or antibiotic combinations should commonly only be considered in selected patient subgroups, such as patients with severe neutropenic sepsis or colonization with multidrug-resistant bacteria. Preemptive antifungal treatment guided by lung imaging and other parameters (e.g. serial Aspergillus galactomannan antigen screening) might reduce the consumption of antifungals compared to the classical empirical approach.Multidrug-resistant pathogens are emerging, and novel anti-infective agents under development are scarce. Therefore, a rational use of antimicrobials based on the principles of antibiotic stewardship is crucial.

Retrospective audit of neutropenic fever after chemotherapy: how many patients could benefit from oral antibiotic management?

Guidelines suggest that carefully selected patients with neutropenic fever (NF) may be suitable for early discharge on oral antibiotics. Despite these recommendations, many centres manage NF with intravenous antibiotic protocols and inpatient care. We have conducted a retrospective audit of patients with NF, and found that 12 of 40 (30%) patients were eligible for early discharge on oral antibiotics and ambulatory care. Further studies into the barriers to ambulatory management in NF are warranted.

Safety and cost benefit of an ambulatory program for patients with low-risk neutropenic fever at an Australian centre

BACKGROUND

Neutropenic fever (NF) is a common complication of cancer chemotherapy. Patients at low risk of medical complications from NF can be identified using a validated risk assessment and managed in an outpatient setting. This is a new model of care for Australia. This study described the implementation of a sustainable ambulatory program for NF at a tertiary cancer centre over a 12-month period.

METHODS

Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre introduced an ambulatory care program in 2014, which identified low-risk NF patients, promoted early de-escalation to oral antibiotics, and early discharge to a nurse-led ambulatory program. Patients prospectively enrolled in the ambulatory program were compared with a historical-matched cohort of patients from 2011 for analysis. Patient demographics, clinical variables (cancer type, recent chemotherapy, treatment intent, site of presentation) and outcomes were collected and compared. Total cost of inpatient admissions was determined from diagnosis-related group (DRG) codes and applied to both the prospective and historical cohorts to allow comparisons.

RESULTS

Twenty-five patients were managed in the first year of this program with a reduction in hospital median length of stay from 4.0 to 1.1 days and admission cost from Australian dollars ($AUD) 8580 to $AUD2360 compared to the historical cohort. Offsetting salary costs, the ambulatory program had a net cost benefit of $AUD 71895. Readmission for fever was infrequent (8.0%), and no deaths were reported.

CONCLUSION

Of relevance to hospitals providing cancer care, feasibility, safety, and cost benefits of an ambulatory program for low-risk NF patients have been demonstrated.

Can mortality of cancer patients with fever and neutropenia be improved?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Neutropenic fever is the most common infective complication in patients receiving cytotoxic chemotherapy, and may result in severe sepsis, septic shock and mortality. Advancements in approaches to empiric antimicrobial therapy and prophylaxis have resulted in improved outcomes. Mortality may, however, still be as high as 50% in high-risk cancer populations. The objective of this review is to summarize factors associated with reduced mortality in patients with neutropenic fever, highlighting components of clinical care with potential for inclusion in quality improvement programs.

RECENT FINDINGS

Risks for mortality are multifactorial, and include patient, disease and treatment-related factors. Historically, guidelines for management of neutropenic fever have focused upon antimicrobial therapy. There is, however, a recognized need for early identification of sepsis to enable timely administration of antibiotic therapy and for this to be integrated with a whole of systems approach within healthcare facilities. Use of Systemic Inflammatory Response Syndrome criteria is beneficial, but validation is required in neutropenic fever populations.

SUMMARY

In the context of emerging and increasing infections because of antimicrobial-resistant bacteria in patients with neutropenic fever, quality improvement initiatives to reduce mortality must encompass antimicrobial stewardship, early detection of sepsis, and use of valid tools for clinical assessment. C-reactive protein and procalcitonin hold potential for inclusion into clinical pathways for management of neutropenic fever.