SEARCH

SEARCH BY CITATION

Keywords:

  • empiric;
  • neutropenic fever;
  • beta-lactam monotherapy;
  • systemic compromise;
  • resistance

Abstract

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. Background
  4. Definition of febrile neutropenia
  5. Recommendations for blood cultures and other investigations
  6. Conclusion
  7. Acknowledgements
  8. References

Administration of empiric antimicrobial therapy is standard practice in the management of neutropenic fever, but there remains considerable debate about the selection of an optimal regimen. In view of emerging evidence regarding efficacy and toxicity differences between empiric treatment regimens, and strong evidence of heterogeneity in clinical practice, the current guidelines were developed to provide Australian clinicians with comprehensive guidance for selecting an appropriate empiric strategy in the setting of neutropenic fever. Beta-lactam monotherapy is presented as the treatment of choice for all clinically stable patients while early treatment with combination antibiotic therapy is considered for patients at higher risk. Due consideration is given to the appropriate use of glycopeptides in this setting. Several clinical caveats, accounting for institution- and patient-specific risk factors, are provided to help guide the judicious use of the agents described. Detailed recommendations are also provided regarding time to first dose, timing of blood cultures, selection of a first-line antibiotic regimen, subsequent modification of antibiotic choice and cessation of therapy.


Background

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. Background
  4. Definition of febrile neutropenia
  5. Recommendations for blood cultures and other investigations
  6. Conclusion
  7. Acknowledgements
  8. References

Administration of empiric antimicrobial therapy is standard practice in the management of neutropenic fever, but there remains considerable debate about the selection of an optimal regimen. Clinicians currently have several options for the empiric management of patients requiring hospital-based parenteral therapy: monotherapy with a Pseudomonas-active beta-lactam (e.g. piperacillin-tazobactam, cefepime, ceftazadime or a carbapenem), or, combination therapy with an antipseudomonal beta-lactam and a second agent, usually an aminoglycoside. The arguments in favour of combination therapy have included synergistic antibacterial activity,1–3 prevention of emergence of resistant bacteria4 and broader antimicrobial coverage. The arguments for beta-lactam monotherapy include the difficulty of translating in vitro observations of synergy into clinical benefit,2,5 the increased likelihood of adverse effects with dual therapy,5 and a potentially negative, rather than positive, in vivo effect of combination therapy on the emergence of resistance.6

Recent clinical evidence has demonstrated some differences in clinical outcomes depending on the regimens used.7 Specifically, a higher rate of pseudo-membranous colitis with carbapenems and an increased risk of seizures with imipenem, and increased rates of renal and hearing impairment, along with potassium wasting, with aminoglycoside-containing regimens, and an increased risk of infections with vancomycin-resistant enterococci (VRE) associated with particular antimicrobial therapies.7–9 Further, while monotherapy is now considered effective and safer than combination therapy,10–12 there remain instances where higher-risk patients with Gram-negative bacteraemia might benefit from early treatment with combination antibiotic therapy, if they could be identified in a timely manner: complex or polymicrobial bacteraemia, Pseudomonas infection and infection with organisms resistant to the antibiotics in the initial empiric regimen are all associated with poorer outcomes in neutropenic cancer patients.13

Results from the clinical survey distributed prior to the development of these guidelines illustrate the current heterogeneity among clinicians in their approach to empiric treatment.14 In response to a case study describing a fit 66-year-old with early-stage breast cancer and fever (but otherwise well) on Day 6 of Cycle 2 FEC-100 (absolute neutrophil count (ANC) = 0.4 × 109 cells/L), 56% of responding medical oncologists indicated they would choose dual therapy while 44% indicated they would use beta-lactam monotherapy. This disparity in opinion was less obvious when a ‘sicker’ patient was described (a 55-year-old man with Stage II non small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and clear margins post-surgical resection, presenting with fever, hypotension, sudden onset nausea and vomiting on Day 7 of Cycle 2 cisplatin and weekly vinorelbine (ANC = 0.3 × 109 cells/L)) with 87% of responding medical oncologists indicating they would use dual therapy in this case and 13% beta-lactam monotherapy. Similar trends were noted for haematology-oncologists responding to the haematology clinical studies. Some 19% of medical oncologists and 44% of haematology-oncologists indicated they would add vancomycin upfront for the ‘sicker’ patient.

Definition of febrile neutropenia

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. Background
  4. Definition of febrile neutropenia
  5. Recommendations for blood cultures and other investigations
  6. Conclusion
  7. Acknowledgements
  8. References

For the purposes of these guidelines, neutropenic fever is defined as fever of at least 38.3°C (or at least 38.0°C on two occasions) in the setting of an ANC less than 0.5 × 109 cells/L, or with or less than 1.0 × 109 cells/L and predicted fall to lower than 0.5 × 109 cells/L.

However, neutropenic patients can present septic with haemodynamic compromise without fever (if elderly, or on steroids) in which case there should be no delay in treatment while evaluating for further fever. All patients presenting with fever following chemotherapy should be managed as if they have neutropenic fever and receive empiric antibiotics without waiting for laboratory confirmation of neutrophil count (expert opinion). This management may be modified if neutrophil count and function are adequate.

Initial patient evaluation and risk assessment

Initial evaluation of the patient with regard to the presence of systemic compromise, and whether they are considered high or low risk for medical complications determines the initial choice of antibiotic therapy, time to administration of antibiotics, the likely duration of admission and whether ambulatory care may be considered (see Fig. 1). Recently, evidence has demonstrated that prompt administration of antibiotics is associated with a measureable decrease in mortality such that now, time to first dose antibiotic has been adopted in international sepsis guidelines.15,16

image

Figure 1. Initial management of febrile neutropenia.17 MASCC, Multinational Association for Supportive Care in Cancer.

Download figure to PowerPoint

  • 1
    Patients with systemic compromise. All patients presenting with neutropenic fever should be evaluated for features of systemic compromise in order to guide initial management (expert opinion). Patients with features of systemic compromise (see Table 1) require immediate fluid resuscitation and should receive antibiotics within 30 min of presentation (level II evidence, grade C recommendation).15 Where possible, this should follow the immediate collection of at least one blood culture.
  • 2
    Clinically stable patients (lacking features of systemic compromise) should receive antibiotics within 1 h of presentation after appropriate cultures have been taken (level IV evidence, grade C recommendation). The commencement of antibiotics should not be delayed by the competing imperative to apply risk scores (e.g. Multinational Association for Supportive Care in Cancer (MASCC) risk index) or conduct further investigations, including Chest X-Ray (CXR) and cultures of sites other than blood (grade C recommendation).
  • 3
    Risk stratification using the MASCC score. The risk of a patient with neutropenic fever experiencing medical complications should be assessed using an accepted risk assessment tool. A review of the evidence supports the MASCC risk index as the preferred risk assessment tool and the associated eligibility criteria for this approach are outlined in Worth et al.17 (grade B recommendation). Selected patients with solid tumours and lymphoma may be managed in an ambulatory setting if they are deemed low-risk. Initial inpatient antibiotic therapy (either parenteral or oral) for 24–48 h is recommended. Management of such patients in the ambulatory setting requires that appropriate infrastructure and clinical resources are in place.
Table 1.  Features of systemic compromise
  1. †Organ failure only if new or significantly worsening. Disregard stable congestive heart failure or chronic arrhythmias (such as atrial fibrillation). APTT, activated partial thromboplastin time; PT, prothrombin time.

1 Systolic blood pressure ≤90 mmHg, or ≥30 mmHg below patient's usual blood pressure, or requirement for vasopressor support.
2 Room air arterial pO2 of ≤60 mmHg, or saturation ≤90%, or requirement for mechanical ventilation.
3 Confusion or altered mental state.
4 Disseminated intravascular coagulation or abnormal PT/APTT.
5 Cardiac failure or arrthymia, renal failure, liver failure, or any major organ dysfunction.

Recommendations for blood cultures and other investigations

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. Background
  4. Definition of febrile neutropenia
  5. Recommendations for blood cultures and other investigations
  6. Conclusion
  7. Acknowledgements
  8. References

Blood cultures

  • 1
    For optimal sensitivity and specificity, at least two separate blood culture sets should be collected from separate venepuncture sites prior to commencement of antibiotics. At least 20 mL of blood should be drawn from each site and 10 mL inoculated into one aerobic and anaerobic bottle. Two sets of blood cultures in a 24-h period will detect approximately 90–95% of blood stream infections in adults.18,19
  • 2
    The consensus group recognizes that this number of blood cultures may not be possible in all cases within the recommended time constraints for antibiotic administration.
  • 3
    The collection of a blood culture from vascular catheter lumen in addition to peripheral blood cultures may assist in the diagnosis of clinically relevant catheter-related blood stream infections (CRBSI) by allowing the time necessary for blood culture from the peripheral vein to become positive to be compared with the time until blood culture from a central venous catheter becomes positive.20 A differential time to positivity of ≥120 min has been shown to be predictive of CRBSI.19,21 This approach is particularly useful in patients in whom catheter retention is desirable.
  • 4
    To avoid contamination during blood culture collection, ensure: avoidance of collection through intravascular catheter; hand hygiene with alcohol rub/gel prior to procedure; disinfection with alcohol applied for 1–2 min to skin site and blood culture bottle caps; use of sterile gloves and no-touch technique for venepuncture; avoidance of needle exchange prior to inoculation of bottle(s)19
  • 5
    Repeat blood cultures prior to Day 3 are not recommended for the majority of patients with neutropenic fever unless clinically unstable and/or suspected new infectious foci are present. For patients with initially positive blood cultures, repeat peripheral cultures should be performed to document clearance of bacteraemia (expert opinion).

Other tests

Other laboratory tests should include full blood examination (FBE) with differential white cell count, urea, electrolytes and serum creatinine, liver function. Cultures from other sites should be taken according to clinical indication. A chest X-ray is indicated for patients with respiratory symptoms or signs.

Selection of a first-line antibiotic regimen

In view of emerging evidence regarding efficacy and toxicity differences between empiric treatment regimens, and strong evidence of heterogeneity in clinical practice, the following recommendations were developed to provide clinicians with comprehensive guidance for selecting an appropriate empiric strategy in the setting of neutropenic fever (see Table 2 for summary).

Table 2.  Key practice points – empiric therapy
All patients presenting with fever following chemotherapy should be managed as if they have neutropenic fever and receive empiric antibiotics without waiting for laboratory confirmation of neutrophil count (expert opinion). This management may be modified if neutrophil count and function are adequate.
Time to first dose:
 • Patients with features of systemic compromise (such as hypotension, hypoxia, confusion, major organ dysfunction) should receive antibiotics within 30 min of presentation after the immediate collection of blood cultures and administration of fluid support (grade C recommendation)
 • Clinically stable patients should receive antibiotics within 1 h of presentation after appropriate cultures have been taken (grade C recommendation)
 • Administration of antibiotics should not be delayed by the conduct of laboratory or radiological investigations (grade C recommendation)
Blood cultures and other tests:
 • At least two separate blood culture sets should be collected from separate venepuncture sites prior to commencement of antibiotics. At least 20 mL of blood should be drawn from each site and 10 mL inoculated into one aerobic and anaerobic bottle
 • Collection of blood cultures from vascular catheters in addition to peripheral BC may assist in the diagnosis of catheter-related blood stream infection. Use of differential time to positivity of ≥120 mins is predictive of CRBSI (time from venous catheter to peripheral blood culture become positive)
 • The administration of empiric therapy should not be delayed in order to perform blood cultures (grade C recommendation)
 • Repeat blood cultures prior to Day 3 are not recommended for the majority of patients with neutropenic fever unless clinically unstable and/or suspected new infectious foci are present
Selection of a first-line antibiotic regimen:
 • Beta-lactam monotherapy is recommended, unless a life-threatening/immediate hypersensitivity reaction has been documented, for all clinically stable patients (grade A recommendation)
 • An antipseudomonal beta-lactam antibiotic plus gentamicin once daily adjusted according to levels is recommended for patients with systemic compromise (expert opinion)
 • Routine addition of vancomycin to the initial empiric regimen within 72 h does not reduce mortality and is associated with increased risk of nephrotoxicity (grade A)
 • Vancomycin for 48–72 h is recommended for patients in septic shock, and those who are known to be colonized with a resistant Gram-positive bacterium (e.g. MRSA) (expert opinion). There was no consensus whether patients with systemic compromise but not septic shock should receive vancomycin.
 • Specific patient groups and institution-specific circumstances, such as rural and regional sites, may influence antibiotic selection
Modification or Cessation of empiric therapy:
 • Escalation of antibiotic coverage should not occur prior to day 3–5 in the absence of clinical instability, isolation of a resistant organism or emergence of new infective foci (expert opinion)
 • It is preferable to stop antibiotic treatment when the neutrophil count recovers to ≥0.5 × 109 cells/L (expert opinion)
 • If the neutrophil count is <0.5 × 109 cells/L and neutropenia is expected to be prolonged, the decision to discontinue or continue antibiotic therapy should be based upon clinical criteria and individual clinicians' judgement

The patient's history, allergies, symptoms, signs, recent antibiotic use and culture data, as well as local flora and infection patterns, should guide the initial choice of antibiotic therapy.

Meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials in sepsis have shown that monotherapy with an antipseudomonal beta-lactam (e.g. piperacillin-tazobactam, cefepime, ceftazadime, meropenem) is as efficacious as combination therapy (level I evidence). These studies have shown no clinical advantage of combination therapy over monotherapy, even in subgroups of patients with bacteraemia (including patients with Pseudomonas aeruginosa) or severe neutropenia <0.1 × 109/L (level I evidence).10–12 There is also no evidence that combination regimens prevent the emergence of resistant organisms (level I evidence).10,11 The risk of nephrotoxicity with beta-lactam/aminoglycoside combination therapy usually outweighs any potential benefit (level I evidence).10,11 Therefore, monotherapy regimens are preferred in most circumstances, particularly in elderly patients, and in patients with, or at high risk of, renal impairment.

The choice of piperacillin-tazobactam or cefepime as the institutional first-line monotherapy for neutropenic fever must be supported by local antibiograms data supporting its choice. At times, individual organizations may have clusters of multi-resistant Gram-negative infections that may influence local recommendations,

The following recommendations for initial antibiotic selection apply to specific patient groups (see Table 3 for a summary). Each institution should select its preferred agent/s for each clinical circumstance. Patients with impaired renal function (glomerular filtration rate less than 50 mL/min) will require adjustments to the suggested doses based on calculated creatinine clearance (grade A recommendation). Further caveats to these recommendations are presented in a subsequent section.

Table 3.  Initial antibiotic selection (doses for normal renal function).
Patient groupRecommendation (grading and level of evidence)
  1. Recommendations for individual antibiotics may not align directly with the Therapeutic Goods Administration-approved indications. Therefore, following these recommendations may lead to off-label use of some agents. †Clinicians caring for a patient with immediate hypersensitivity to one beta-lactam who have subsequently tolerated an alternative suitable antipseudomonal beta-lactam agent may elect to administer this second agent under careful supervision.‡Refer to the Therapeutic Guidelines version 14 for dosing guidance. For vancomycin, individual institutions may use alternative loading-dose protocols. CrCl, creatinine clearance; IV, intravenous; .MRSA, methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus.

Patients without features of systemic compromise (beta-lactam monotherapy is recommended unless allergy to the recommended agent/s)No penicillin allergy: Piperacillin-tazobactam 4.5 g IV six- to eight-hourly (grade A) OR Cefepime 2 g IV eight-hourly Other reasonable choice for monotherapy is ceftazidime 2 g IV eight-hourly (grade A)
Non-life-threatening penicillin allergy (rash): Cefepime 2 g IV eight-hourly (grade C) Other reasonable choices for monotherapy are ceftazidime 2 g IV eight-hourly or meropenem 1 g IV eight-hourly (grade C)
Life-threatening (immediate) penicillin allergy or beta-lactam allergy: Aztreonam 1–2 g IV eight-hourly OR ciprofloxacin 400 mg IV 12-hourly (expert opinion) +vancomycin 1.5 g IV 12-hourly (if CrCl >90 mL/min) OR 1 g IV 12-hourly (if CrCl 60–90 mL/min))
Patients with systemic compromise (The combination of a beta-lactam antibiotic with an aminoglycoside is the regimen of choice)As for patients without features of systemic compromise (expert opinion): +gentamicin 5–7 mg/kg ideal body weight IV once daily, adjusted to level ±vancomycin 1.5 g IV 12-hourly (if CrCl >90 mL/min) OR 1 g IV 12-hourly (if CrCl 60–90 mL/min)
Patients with cellulitis, obviously infected vascular devices, or MRSA carriers with extensive skin breaks/desquamationAs for patients without features of systemic compromise: +vancomycin 1.5 g IV 12-hourly (if CrCl >90 mL/min) OR 1 g IV 12-hourly (if CrCl 60–90 mL/min)
Patients with features of abdominal or perineal infectionAs for patients without features of systemic compromise: +metronidazole 500 mg IV/oral 12-hourly if receiving cefepime, ceftazidime or ciprofloxacin first-line (grade D) Alternatively, piperacillin-tazobactam or meropenem will provide adequate anaerobic cover, if required (grade B), other than for suspected or proven Clostridium difficile-associated diarrhoea or colitis
Piperacillin-tazobactam

Piperacillin-tazobactam is an appropriate agent for the treatment of neutropenic fever (grade A recommendation). It performed better than cefepime and similar to carbapenems in the systematic reviews comparing regimens for monotherapy (level I evidence).7 It may also be associated with less vancomycin use.22 Pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic studies support the use of six-hourly piperacillin-tazobactam for Pseudomonas infection (level III-1 evidence).23

Data from the Asia-Pacific SENTRY surveillance program in 2009 reported <3% resistance to piperacillin-tazobactam in Enterobacteriaceae and ∼15% for Pseudomonas aeruginosa (unpublished data from SENTRY program).24 Co-resistance to gentamicin is uncommon supporting its use as a dual agent in severe sepsis.

Cefepime

The use of cefepime in neutropenic fever has been influenced by a published meta-analysis suggesting that it may be associated with an increased mortality in comparison with other monotherapy agents, the cause of which is unclear.7 More recently, a patient level analysis of published and unpublished studies by United States Food and Drug Administration concluded that cefepime was not associated with increased mortality and continues to be an appropriate agent for the empiric treatment of neutropenic fever25 (grade A recommendation).

Pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic data in neutropenic fever support the use of eight-hourly dosing.26

Ceftazidime

Ceftazidime has reduced activity against viridans group streptococci and organisms possessing extended spectrum beta-lactamase (ESBL) in comparison with other monotherapy agents.27–30 Ceftazidime monotherapy should be avoided in patients with extensive mucositis, patients receiving high-dose methotrexate or cytarabine, ciprofloxacin prophylaxis and other patients with risk factors for viridans group streptococcal infection (expert opinion).

Ticarcillin/clavulanate

Although ticarcillin/clavulanate with gentamicin is an effective and evidence-based empiric regimen, it confers a higher risk of nephrotoxicity than the recommended monotherapy regimens (level I evidence).31 It may still be considered in patients at low risk of nephrotoxicity. Evidence for the use of ticarcillin/clavulanate as monotherapy is restricted to a single study of 83 patients.32 The consensus group concluded that there is insufficient evidence to support its use as monotherapy when alternate agents (with greater numbers of patients studied) are available.

Meropenem

Meropenem is a ‘reserve’ antimicrobial agent in many institutions, making it inappropriate for first-line, empiric treatment in these centres. Carbapenem-resistant bacteria (with few remaining treatment options available or in the pipeline) are an emerging therapeutic and infection control problem in Australia and worldwide.33–36 Their emergence is likely to be amplified by overuse of this drug class. As such, prudent use of carbapenems is strongly advised. There is also a greater incidence of pseudo-membranous colitis associated with this agent compared with other monotherapy agents.7

Use of carbapenems upfront with a de-escalation strategy has been suggested as a way to prevent the emergence of resistance but is not recommended by the consensus group. There are no clinical data in a neutropenic population to support this strategy, and routine carbapenem use is discouraged for the reasons outlined above.

Ciprofloxacin

Ciprofloxacin is ‘reserved’ for recalcitrant infections in some institutions, making it inappropriate for first-line, empiric treatment in patients without life-threatening/immediate hypersensitivity to beta-lactam antibiotics (expert opinion). As ciprofloxacin has inadequate Gram-positive coverage, it should be combined with vancomycin if chosen as first-line empiric coverage. Use of ciprofloxacin in combination with an antipseudomonal beta-lactam (in place of an aminoglycoside) is discouraged because of its high potential to drive resistant organism emergence, and the lack of good data demonstrating clinical benefit (expert opinion). Ciprofloxacin is likely to be ineffective in patients with breakthrough neutropenic fever in centres using quinolones as primary prophylaxis due the increased rates of quinolone resistance in Gram-negative bacilli37–41

Aminoglycosides

While gentamicin is the most commonly reported aminoglycoside used in combination therapy for neutropenic fever, amikacin and tobramycin have been well studied in clinical trials.10 While the addition of an aminoglycoside has not been shown to be of clinical advantage compared with beta-lactam monotherapy in systematic reviews, there are particular circumstances where the choice of aminoglycoside may be important. These include severe sepsis where there is a risk of resistance in Gram-negative bacilli and in Pseudomonas infection.

Gentamicin provides adequate coverage in most circumstances, but individual institutions may consider alternatives, such as tobramycin, which has shown marginally less nephrotoxicity and better in vitro activity against Pseudomonas and amikacin, which retains activity against many Gram-negative bacteria which are resistant to other aminoglycosides.24,42 Depending on local patterns of resistance, amikacin may be the preferred agent for serious nosocomial infections caused by Gram-negative bacilli.

Important considerations influencing the choice of first-line antibiotic regimen until susceptibility results are available

Clinically stable patients

Antipseudomonal beta-lactam monotherapy is recommended, unless a life-threatening/immediate hypersensitivity reaction has been documented, for all clinically stable patients without features of systemic compromise (grade A recommendation). For patients with non-life-threatening cases of penicillin allergy, for example non-urticarial rash, cefepime is recommended (grade C recommendation). Other reasonable choices for monotherapy in this situation include ceftazidime or meropenem (grade C recommendation) although the latter is a reserve agent and is not generally recommended for first-line neutropenic fever therapy for reasons discussed below. Ciprofloxacin or aztreonam and vancomycin in combination are recommended for clinically stable patients with life-threatening cases of penicillin or other beta-lactam allergy, unless these patients are known to tolerate an alternative suitable antipseudomonal beta-lactam agent (grade C recommendation). See Table 3 for dose details.

Patients with systemic compromise

Patients with shock and/or features of organ failure are not well represented in published studies and the working group felt that there is insufficient evidence to support the use of monotherapy in this patient group. Therefore, the recommended empiric regimen is an antipseudomonal beta-lactam antibiotic plus gentamicin once daily adjusted according to systemic levels (grade D recommendation).

With regard to empiric vancomycin usage, the consensus group agreed that all patients in septic shock, as well as patients known to be colonized with a resistant Gram-positive bacterium (e.g. methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA)) showing any criterion of systemic compromise, should receive vancomycin coverage for 48–72 h (expert opinion). The group did not reach consensus on whether patients with systemic compromise (other than septic shock) not known to be colonized with a resistant Gram-positive organism should also receive vancomycin. In all cases, antibiotic coverage should be regularly reviewed in line with clinical progress and microbiological results. In the absence of positive cultures for resistant organisms, gentamicin should be discontinued after 24–48 h and vancomycin should be discontinued after 48–72 h (expert opinion).

Patients with features of abdominal or perineal infection

Clinicians should follow the antibiotic regimen described for clinically stable patients in Table 3. However, metronidazole 500 mg intravenous (IV) or oral 12 hourly should be added if the patient is receiving cefepime, ceftazidime or ciprofloxacin first-line, as these agents provide inadequate anaerobic coverage (grade D recommendation). Patients receiving piperacillin-tazobactam or meropenem do not require additional adequate anaerobic cover with metronidazole, unless Clostridium difficile-associated diarrhoea or colitis is suspected or proven.

Patients with a pulmonary infiltrate

The management of pulmonary infiltrate is beyond the scope of this clinical guideline; however, bacterial, viral and fungal pathogens should be considered based on the patients' degree of immunosuppression and clinical features. Bacterial pneumonia is the most common cause of pulmonary infiltrate in neutropenic fever. In patients with prolonged neutropenia, invasive fungal infection must be excluded. Investigations may include imaging of the lungs (chest X-ray or high resolution computed tomography scan where possible), sputum and/or broncho-alveolar lavage. Standard empiric therapy will cover most common bacterial respiratory pathogens until microbiology data become available to guide therapy.

Patients with severe penicillin allergy

No published studies exist to guide how patients who cannot receive beta-lactams (because of severe allergy) should best be managed (expert opinion). The recommendations provided represent the consensus opinion of the current working group. A combination of agents should be used that provide antipseudomonal and Gram-positive cover (e.g. ciprofloxacin + vancomycin or aztreonam + vancomycin). Aztreonam does not contain the bicyclic beta-lactam ring structure characteristic of other beta-lactam antibiotics. To date, aztreonam has not demonstrated clinical cross-reactivity in penicillin-allergic patients,43–45 other than cystic fibrosis patients who became sensitized and developed allergic reactions after re-exposure to aztreonam at a later time (although these patients have shown a propensity to develop allergic reactions after numerous exposures to the same or a possibly cross-reacting antibiotic46,47).48 Of note, clinical cross-reactivity between ceftazadime and aztreonam has been demonstrated in vitro and plausibly explained by similarity of their side-chains. Accordingly, extreme caution is advised for patients who are allergic to ceftazidime and subsequently placed on aztreonam therapy.48

Patients at risk of infection with multi-resistant organisms (MRSA, VRE, ESBL)

Patients who have had a past history of infection or colonization, or who are being treated in an institution with high endemic rates of a multi-resistant organism may require modification of the first-line regimen particularly when there is systemic compromise. For MRSA, consider adding vancomycin; for VRE consider adding teicoplanin or linezolid; for ESBLs, consider use of a carbapenem.

Patients in rural/regional setting

Many patients present with suspected neutropenic fever to a rural or regional hospital that do not administer chemotherapy. In many circumstances, access to certain antibiotics and blood products, 24-h medical cover and appropriately skilled health professionals may not be available. Once an initial assessment has been made, local staff should contact the on-call medical oncologist or haematologist (or registrar) from the patient's usual treating centre (facility responsible for administering the patient's chemotherapy) and agree to a management plan. In many circumstances (such as unstable clinical state, the non-availability of certain antibiotics or blood products, lack of 24-h medical cover), the patient will require transfer to the parent unit once initial stabilization has been achieved.

These smaller centres are encouraged to stock empirical antibiotics, such as piperacillin-tazobactam, cefepime or ceftazidime, obtain IV access and commence IV fluid resuscitation, and administer the first dose of antibiotics as per Table 3. Patients suspected of having neutropenic fever should receive rapid assessment. Administration of antibiotics should not be delayed by pending blood results, for example FBE, which can take more than 24 h to turn round in some circumstances. Please refer to Table 2.

Inclusion of a glycopeptide in initial empiric therapy

Routine addition of vancomycin to the initial empiric antibiotic regimen within 72 h does not reduce mortality and is associated with an increased risk of adverse events, mainly nephrotoxicity (level I evidence, grade A recommendation).49,50 There is good evidence to show that empiric (non-targeted) first-line use of vancomycin is unnecessary and potentially harmful.49

  • i.
    Empiric vancomycin is considered unnecessary in most clinically stable patients receiving monotherapy with an antipseudomonal beta-lactam who have no definite sites of Gram-positive infection (grade A recommendation).
  • ii.
    Patients with microbiologically documented Gram-positive infection should receive vancomycin until identification and susceptibility results are available, at which time therapy should be modified appropriately (expert opinion).
  • iii.
    Evidence regarding teicoplanin as an alternative to vancomycin is conflicting. High protein binding is thought to reduce the efficacy of teicoplanin, which has also been shown to be associated with longer duration of fever than vancomycin.51 However, a more recent study did not support the difference in efficacy between the two drugs and promotes the use of teicoplanin as a safer option because of its lower incidence of nephrotoxicity.52 Hospital formulary listings may govern the choice of agent used. In patients with non-life-threatening hypersensitivity to vancomycin, clinicians may consider the cautious use of teicoplanin, although cross-reactivity is possible.
  • iv.
    Systemic compromise. Evidence regarding glycopeptide use in patients presenting with neutropenic fever and systemic compromise is lacking. There is currently no consensus opinion. Vancomycin may be given appropriate consideration.
  • v.
    Patients at risk of resistant Gram-positive infection. Clinicians are advised to review institution-specific bloodstream infection data to ascertain-specific groups (such as high-dose cytarabine or ciprofloxacin prophylaxis patients) who are at higher risk of resistant Gram-positive infections, such as penicillin-resistant viridans streptococci. In such groups, vancomycin use may be considered pending culture results particularly if the antipseudomonal beta-lactam used is one with relatively poor viridans streptococcal coverage, for example ceftazadime.
    For these patients presenting with shock, addition of vancomycin to empiric therapy is recommended (expert opinion).
  • vi.
    Patients with cellulitis, obviously infected vascular devices or MRSA carriers with extensive skin breaks/desquamation. Vancomycin, according to a validated protocol, should be added to the beta-lactam antibiotic regimen described for clinically stable patients in Table 3, for 48–72 h then reviewed according to culture results (expert opinion)

The recommendations in these consensus guidelines are based on published, peer-reviewed evidence and expert opinion. The recommendations for individual antibiotics may not align directly with the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA)-approved indications. Therefore, following these recommendations may lead to off-label use of particular agents.

Modification of empiric therapy during the course of neutropenic fever

As the median time to defervescence in patients successfully treated with frontline antibiotics is 3–5 days, escalation of antibiotic coverage should not occur prior to this period in the absence of clinical instability, isolation of a resistant organism or emergence of new infective foci (expert opinion).

Any subsequent modifications to the initial choice of antibiotic should be guided by repeat clinical assessment (e.g. emergence of focal sites of infection) and microbiological culture results (expert opinion)

When a causative microorganism is identified, consensus opinion supports the commencement of therapy targeted to this pathogen or continuation of the initial antibiotic regimen, provided the patient has become afebrile within 3–5 days of commencing that treatment (expert opinion).53 The duration of therapy for an identified pathogen should be at least that recommended for a similar infection in an immunocompetent host (expert opinion).

Addition of a glycopeptide for persistent fever

Although it is common practice to add vancomycin to empiric coverage in patients with persistent fever at 3–5 days, this practice is discouraged because of a lack of clinical benefit54 (grade B recommendation), as well as nephrotoxicity and resistance concerns. Whether the addition of vancomycin is likely to be beneficial at a later time, such as more than 5 days of persistent fever, has not been adequately studied. Use of vancomycin in this circumstance may be considered, particularly for patients with severe neutropenia, that is, <0.1 × 109 cells/L (expert opinion).

Regardless of fever, vancomycin should be commenced for 48–72 h, pending cultures, in patients who develop haemodynamic instability during antimicrobial therapy for neutropenic fever (expert opinion).

Empiric coverage of viral or fungal infection

In the absence of clinical evidence of viral or fungal infection, empiric frontline coverage for these pathogens is not required (expert opinion). For empiric management of fungal infections, the working group refers the reader to the Australian and New Zealand Consensus Guidelines for the Use of Antifungal Agents in the Haematology/Oncology Setting 2008.55

Cessation of empiric antibiotic therapy and/or early oral switch

  • 1
    When patients become afebrile within 3–5 days of parenteral antibiotic therapy, and no causative organism is isolated, it is preferable to stop antibiotic treatment when the neutrophil count recovers to at least 0.5 × 109 cells/L (expert opinion).
  • 2
    If the neutrophil count is less than 0.5 × 109 cells/L and neutropenia is expected to be prolonged, the decision to discontinue or continue antibiotic therapy should be based upon clinical criteria and individual clinicians' judgement. Antibiotic therapy may be ceased if the mucous membranes and integument are intact, and there is no impending invasive procedure or ablative chemotherapy planned (expert opinion).56
  • 3
    For patients who become afebrile while on oral antibiotics, the total minimum duration of antibiotic therapy should be 7 days (expert opinion). This treatment duration has been used safely in clinical studies of oral antibiotic therapy57 and is supported by previous consensus opinion.17,53,56
  • 4
    Recommended oral regimens include:
    • • 
      Dual therapy with amoxicillin-clavulanate and ciprofloxacin for patients without known drug allergy to these agents (grade A recommendation)58
    • • 
      Dual therapy with clindamycin and ciprofloxacin for patients with a penicillin allergy (expert opinion)
    • • 
      Monotherapy with amoxicillin-clavulanic acid for patients with a fluoroquinolone allergy (expert opinion)

Conclusion

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. Background
  4. Definition of febrile neutropenia
  5. Recommendations for blood cultures and other investigations
  6. Conclusion
  7. Acknowledgements
  8. References

Beta-lactam monotherapy, such as piperacillin-tazobactam or cefepime, is the empiric therapy of choice for all clinically stable patients with neutropenic fever. An antipseudomonal beta-lactam antibiotic plus gentamicin is recommended for patients with systemic compromise. All patients in septic shock should receive antibiotics within 30 min of presentation, and all other patients within 1 h. Vancomycin is not recommended as initial empiric therapy unless there is systemic compromise or an approved indication for its use. Patients who have been assessed as low-risk for medical complications may be switched to oral antibiotics early and considered for early discharge. Clinicians should consider a range of patient and institution-specific risk factors prior to antibiotic selection.

Acknowledgements

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. Background
  4. Definition of febrile neutropenia
  5. Recommendations for blood cultures and other investigations
  6. Conclusion
  7. Acknowledgements
  8. References

See those for entire neutropenic fever guidelines, as detailed in introduction by Lingaratnam et al.14

References

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. Background
  4. Definition of febrile neutropenia
  5. Recommendations for blood cultures and other investigations
  6. Conclusion
  7. Acknowledgements
  8. References
  • 1
    Giamarellou H. Aminoglycosides plus beta-lactams against gram-negative organisms. Evaluation of in vitro synergy and chemical interactions. Am J Med 1986; 80: 12637.
  • 2
    Bernabeu-Wittel M, Pichardo C, Garcia-Curiel A, Pachon-Ibanez ME, Ibanez-Martinez J, Jimenez-Mejias ME et al. Pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic assessment of the in-vivo efficacy of imipenem alone or in combination with amikacin for the treatment of experimental multiresistant Acinetobacter baumannii pneumonia. Clin Microbiol Infect 2005; 11: 31925.
  • 3
    Mayer I, Nagy E. Investigation of the synergic effects of aminoglycoside-fluoroquinolone and third-generation cephalosporin combinations against clinical isolates of Pseudomonas spp. J Antimicrob Chemother 1999; 43: 6517.
  • 4
    Mouton JW. Combination therapy as a tool to prevent emergence of bacterial resistance. Infection 1999; 27 (Suppl 2): S248.
  • 5
    Paul M, Benuri-Silbiger I, Soares-Weiser K, Leibovici L. Beta lactam monotherapy versus beta lactam-aminoglycoside combination therapy for sepsis in immunocompetent patients: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised trials. BMJ 2004; 328: 668.
  • 6
    Bliziotis IA, Samonis G, Vardakas KZ, Chrysanthopoulou S, Falagas ME. Effect of aminoglycoside and beta-lactam combination therapy versus beta-lactam monotherapy on the emergence of antimicrobial resistance: a meta-analysis of randomized, controlled trials. Clin Infect Dis 2005; 41: 14958.
  • 7
    Paul M, Yahav D, Fraser A, Leibovici L. Empirical antibiotic monotherapy for febrile neutropenia: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J Antimicrob Chemother 2006; 57: 17689.
  • 8
    Bradley SJ, Wilson AL, Allen MC, Sher HA, Goldstone AH, Scott GM. The control of hyperendemic glycopeptide-resistant Enterococcus spp. on a haematology unit by changing antibiotic usage. J Antimicrob Chemother 1999; 43: 2616.
  • 9
    Donskey CJ, Hanrahan JA, Hutton RA, Rice LB. Effect of parenteral antibiotic administration on persistence of vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus faecium in the mouse gastrointestinal tract. J Infect Dis 1999; 180: 38490.
  • 10
    Paul M, Soares-Weiser K, Grozinsky S, Leibovici L. Beta-lactam versus beta-lactam-aminoglycoside combination therapy in cancer patients with neutropaenia. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2003; 3: CD003038.
  • 11
    Paul M, Silbiger I, Grozinsky S, Soares-Weiser K, Leibovici L. Beta lactam antibiotic monotherapy versus beta lactam-aminoglycoside antibiotic combination therapy for sepsis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2006; Jan 25: CD003344.
  • 12
    Furno P, Bucaneve G, Del Favero A. Monotherapy or aminoglycoside-containing combinations for empirical antibiotic treatment of febrile neutropenic patients: a meta-analysis. Lancet Infect Dis 2002; 2: 23142.
  • 13
    Klastersky J. Management of fever in neutropenic patients with different risks of complications. Clin Infect Dis 2004; 39 (Suppl 1): S327.
  • 14
    Lingaratnam S, Slavin MA, Mileshkin L, Burbury K, Solomon B, Koczwara B et al. An Australian survey of clinical practices in management of neutropenic fever in adult cancer patients 2009. Intern Med J. 2011; 41b: 11020.
  • 15
    Kumar A, Roberts D, Wood KE, Light B, Parrillo JE, Sharma S et al. Duration of hypotension before initiation of effective antimicrobial therapy is the critical determinant of survival in human septic shock. Crit Care Med 2006; 34: 158996.
  • 16
    Dellinger RP, Levy MM, Carlet JM, Bion J, Parker MM, Jaeschke R et al. Surviving Sepsis Campaign: international guidelines for management of severe sepsis and septic shock: 2008. Crit Care Med 2008; 36: 296327.
  • 17
    Worth LJ, Lingaratnam S, Taylor A, Hayward HM, Morrissey S, Cooney J et al. Use of risk stratification to guide ambulatory management of neutropenic fever. Intern Med J 2011; 41b: 829.
  • 18
    Lee A, Mirrett S, Reller LB, Weinstein MP. Detection of bloodstream infections in adults: how many blood cultures are needed? J Clin Microbiol 2007; 45: 35468.
  • 19
    Towns ML, Jarvis WR, Hsueh PR. Guidelines on Blood Cultures. J Microbiol Immunol Infect 2010; 43: 34749.
  • 20
    Raad I, Hanna HA, Alakech B, Chatzinikolaou I, Johnson MM, Tarrand J. Differential time to positivity: a useful method for diagnosing catheter-related bloodstream infections. Ann Intern Med 2004; 140: 1825.
  • 21
    Abdelkefi A, Achour W, Ben Othman T, Torjman L, Ladeb S, Lakhal A et al. Difference in time to positivity is useful for the diagnosis of catheter-related bloodstream infection in hematopoietic stem cell transplant recipients. Bone Marrow Transplant 2005; 35: 397401.
  • 22
    Bow EJ, Rotstein C, Noskin GA, Laverdiere M, Schwarer AP, Segal BH et al. A randomized, open-label, multicenter comparative study of the efficacy and safety of piperacillin-tazobactam and cefepime for the empirical treatment of febrile neutropenic episodes in patients with hematologic malignancies. Clin Infect Dis 2006; 43: 44759.
  • 23
    Kim MK, Capitano B, Mattoes HM, Xuan D, Quintiliani R, Nightingale CH et al. Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic evaluation of two dosing regimens for piperacillin-tazobactam. Pharmacotherapy 2002; 22: 56977.
  • 24
    Turnidge J. SENTRY Antimicrobial Surveillance Database 2009. 2009.
  • 25
    Kim PW, Wu YT, Cooper C, Rochester G, Valappil T, Wang Y et al. Meta-analysis of a possible signal of increased mortality associated with cefepime use. Clin Infect Dis 2010; 51: 3819.
  • 26
    Navas D, Caillon J, Batard E, Le Conte P, Kergueris MF, Moreau P et al. Trough serum concentrations of beta-lactam antibiotics in cancer patients: inappropriateness of conventional schedules to pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic properties of beta-lactams. Int J Antimicrob Agents 2006; 27: 1027.
  • 27
    Goldstein FW. Cephalosporinase induction and cephalosporin resistance: a longstanding misinterpretation. Clin Microbiol Infect 2002; 8: 8235.
  • 28
    Tunkel AR, Sepkowitz KA. Infections caused by viridans streptococci in patients with neutropenia. Clin Infect Dis 2002; 34: 15249.
  • 29
    Rolston KV, Bodey GP. Comment on: empirical antibiotic monotherapy for febrile neutropenia: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J Antimicrob Chemother 2006; 58: 478; author reply 79-80.
  • 30
    Glasmacher A, von Lilienfeld-Toal M, Schulte S, Hahn C, Schmidt-Wolf IG, Prentice A. An evidence-based evaluation of important aspects of empirical antibiotic therapy in febrile neutropenic patients. Clin Microbiol Infect 2005; 11 (Suppl 5): 1723.
  • 31
    Paul M, Leibovici L. Systematic reviews and meta-analysis of febrile neutropenia. Mayo Clin Proc 2005; 80: 11225.
  • 32
    Bru JP, Michallet M, Legrand C, Swierz P, Stahl JP, Leautet JB et al. A prospective randomized study comparing the efficacy of Timentin alone or in combination with amikacin in the treatment of febrile neutropenic patients. J Antimicrob Chemother 1986; 17 (Suppl C): 2039.
  • 33
    Hsueh PR, Chen WH, Luh KT. Relationships between antimicrobial use and antimicrobial resistance in Gram-negative bacteria causing nosocomial infections from 1991–2003 at a university hospital in Taiwan. Int J Antimicrob Agents 2005; 26: 46372.
  • 34
    Jacobson K, Rolston K, Elting L, LeBlanc B, Whimbey E, Ho DH. Susceptibility surveillance among gram-negative bacilli at a cancer center. Chemotherapy 1999; 45: 32534.
  • 35
    Lautenbach E, Marsicano R, Tolomeo P, Heard M, Serrano S, Stieritz DD. Epidemiology of antimicrobial resistance among gram-negative organisms recovered from patients in a multistate network of long-term care facilities. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2009; 30: 7903.
  • 36
    Peleg AY, Franklin C, Bell JM, Spelman DW. Emergence of carbapenem resistance in Acinetobacter baumannii recovered from blood cultures in Australia. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2006; 27: 75961.
  • 37
    Harris AD, Kotetishvili M, Shurland S, Johnson JA, Morris JG, Nemoy LL et al. How important is patient-to-patient transmission in extended-spectrum beta-lactamase Escherichia coli acquisition. Am J Infect Control 2007; 35: 97101.
  • 38
    Harris AD, Perencevich EN, Johnson JK, Paterson DL, Morris JG, Strauss SM et al. Patient-to-patient transmission is important in extended-spectrum beta-lactamase-producing Klebsiella pneumoniae acquisition. Clin Infect Dis 2007; 45: 134750.
  • 39
    Johnson JK, Smith G, Lee MS, Venezia RA, Stine OC, Nataro JP et al. The Role of Patient-to-Patient Transmission in the Acquisition of Imipenem-Resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa Colonization in the Intensive Care Unit. J Infect Dis 2009; 200: 9005.
  • 40
    Lautenbach E, Metlay JP, Bilker WB, Edelstein PH, Fishman NO. Association between fluoroquinolone resistance and mortality in Escherichia coli and Klebsiella pneumoniae infections: the role of inadequate empirical antimicrobial therapy. Clin Infect Dis 2005; 41: 9239.
  • 41
    Paul M, Andreassen S, Tacconelli E, Nielsen AD, Almanasreh N, Frank U et al. Improving empirical antibiotic treatment using TREAT, a computerized decision support system: cluster randomized trial. J Antimicrob Chemother 2006; 58: 123845.
  • 42
    Shaw KJ, Rather PN, Hare RS, Miller GH. Molecular genetics of aminoglycoside resistance genes and familial relationships of the aminoglycoside-modifying enzymes. Microbiol Rev 1993; 57: 13863.
  • 43
    Martin JA, Igea JM, Fraj J, Lezaun A, Parra F, Losada E. Allergy to amoxicillin in patients who tolerated benzylpenicillin, aztreonam, and ceftazidime. Clin Infect Dis 1992; 14: 5923.
  • 44
    Saxon A, Swabb EA, Adkinson NF Jr. Investigation into the immunologic cross-reactivity of aztreonam with other beta-lactam antibiotics. Am J Med 1985; 78: 1926.
  • 45
    Vega JM, Blanca M, Garcia JJ, Miranda A, Carmona MJ, Garcia A et al. Tolerance to aztreonam in patients allergic to beta-lactam antibiotics. Allergy 1991; 46: 196202.
  • 46
    Moss RB, McClelland E, Williams RR, Hilman BC, Rubio T, Adkinson NF. Evaluation of the immunologic cross-reactivity of aztreonam in patients with cystic fibrosis who are allergic to penicillin and/or cephalosporin antibiotics. Rev Infect Dis 1991; 13 (Suppl 7): S598607.
  • 47
    Parmar JS, Nasser S. Antibiotic allergy in cystic fibrosis. Thorax 2005; 60: 51720.
  • 48
    American Academy of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology, Joint_Task_Force_on_Practice_Parameters. The diagnosis and management of anaphylaxis: an updated practice parameter. J Allergy Clin Immunol 2005; 115: S483523.
  • 49
    Paul M, Borok S, Fraser A, Vidal L, Leibovici L. Empirical antibiotics against Gram-positive infections for febrile neutropenia: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J Antimicrob Chemother 2005; 55: 43644.
  • 50
    Vardakas KZ, Samonis G, Chrysanthopoulou SA, Bliziotis IA, Falagas ME. Role of glycopeptides as part of initial empirical treatment of febrile neutropenic patients: a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. Lancet Infect Dis 2005; 5: 4319.
  • 51
    D'Antonio D, Staniscia T, Piccolomini R, Fioritoni G, Rotolo S, Parruti G et al. Addition of teicoplanin or vancomycin for the treatment of documented bacteremia due to gram-positive cocci in neutropenic patients with hematological malignancies: microbiological, clinical and economic evaluation. Chemotherapy 2004; 50: 817.
  • 52
    Hahn-Ast C, Glasmacher A, Arns A, Muhling A, Orlopp K, Marklein G et al. An audit of efficacy and toxicity of teicoplanin versus vancomycin in febrile neutropenia: is the different toxicity profile clinically relevant? Infection 2008; 36: 548.
  • 53
    Tamura K, Imajo K, Akiyama N, Suzuki K, Urabe A, Ohyashiki K et al. Randomized trial of cefepime monotherapy or cefepime in combination with amikacin as empirical therapy for febrile neutropenia. Clin Infect Dis 2004; 39 (Suppl 1): S1524.
  • 54
    Cometta A, Kern WV, De Bock R, Paesmans M, Vandenbergh M, Crokaert F et al. Vancomycin versus placebo for treating persistent fever in patients with neutropenic cancer receiving piperacillin-tazobactam monotherapy. Clin Infect Dis 2003; 37: 3829.
  • 55
    Slavin MA. Introduction to the updated Australian and New Zealand consensus guidelines for the use of antifungal agents in the haematology/oncology setting, 2008. Intern Med J 2008; 38: 45767.
  • 56
    Hughes WT, Armstrong D, Bodey GP, Bow EJ, Brown AE, Calandra T et al. 2002 guidelines for the use of antimicrobial agents in neutropenic patients with cancer. Clin Infect Dis 2002; 34: 73051.
  • 57
    Rolston KV, Manzullo EF, Elting LS, Frisbee-Hume SE, McMahon L, Theriault RL et al. Once daily, oral, outpatient quinolone monotherapy for low-risk cancer patients with fever and neutropenia: a pilot study of 40 patients based on validated risk-prediction rules. Cancer 2006; 106: 248994.
  • 58
    Vidal L, Paul M, Ben-Dor I, Pokroy E, Soares-Weiser K, Leibovici L. Oral versus intravenous antibiotic treatment for febrile neutropenia in cancer patients. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2007; Oct 18: CD003992.