Browse by author
Lookup NU author(s): Dr Victoria Coyle, Professor Ruth Plummer
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0).
Background: Neutropenic sepsis is a common complication of systemic anticancer treatment. There is variation in practice in timing of switch to oral antibiotics after commencement of empirical intravenous antibiotic therapy. Objectives: To establish the clinical and cost effectiveness of early switch to oral antibiotics in patients with neutropenic sepsis at low risk of infective complications. Design: A randomised, multicentre, open-label, allocation concealed, non-inferiority trial to establish the clinical and cost effectiveness of early oral switch in comparison to standard care. Setting: Nineteen UK oncology centres. Participants: Patients aged 16 years and over receiving systemic anticancer therapy with fever (≥ 38°C), or symptoms and signs of sepsis, and neutropenia (≤ 1.0 × 109/l) within 24 hours of randomisation, with a Multinational Association for Supportive Care in Cancer score of ≥ 21 and receiving intravenous piperacillin/tazobactam or meropenem for < 24 hours were eligible. Patients with acute leukaemia or stem cell transplant were excluded. Intervention: Early switch to oral ciprofloxacin (750 mg twice daily) and co-amoxiclav (625 mg three times daily) within 12-24 hours of starting intravenous antibiotics to complete 5 days treatment in total. Control was standard care, that is, continuation of intravenous antibiotics for at least 48 hours with ongoing treatment at physician discretion. Main outcome measures: Treatment failure, a composite measure assessed at day 14 based on the following criteria: fever persistence or recurrence within 72 hours of starting intravenous antibiotics; escalation from protocolised antibiotics; critical care support or death. Results: The study was closed early due to under-recruitment with 129 patients recruited; hence, a definitive conclusion regarding non-inferiority cannot be made. Sixty-five patients were randomised to the early switch arm and 64 to the standard care arm with subsequent intention-to-treat and per-protocol analyses including 125 (intervention n = 61 and control n = 64) and 113 (intervention n = 53 and control n = 60) patients, respectively. In the intention-to-treat population the treatment failure rates were 14.1% in the control group and 24.6% in the intervention group, difference = 10.5% (95% confidence interval 0.11 to 0.22). In the per-protocol population the treatment failure rates were 13.3% and 17.7% in control and intervention groups, respectively; difference = 3.7% (95% confidence interval 0.04 to 0.148). Treatment failure predominantly consisted of persistence or recurrence of fever and/or physician-directed escalation from protocolised antibiotics with no critical care admissions or deaths. The median length of stay was shorter in the intervention group and adverse events reported were similar in both groups. Patients, particularly those with care-giving responsibilities, expressed a preference for early switch. However, differences in health-related quality of life and health resource use were small and not statistically significant. Conclusions: Non-inferiority for early oral switch could not be proven due to trial under-recruitment. The findings suggest this may be an acceptable treatment strategy for some patients who can adhere to such a treatment regimen and would prefer a potentially reduced duration of hospitalisation while accepting increased risk of treatment failure resulting in re-admission. Further research should explore tools for patient stratification for low-risk de-escalation or ambulatory pathways including use of biomarkers and/or point-of-care rapid microbiological testing as an adjunct to clinical decision-making tools. This could include application to shorter-duration antimicrobial therapy in line with other antimicrobial stewardship studies. Trial registration: This trial is registered as ISRCTN84288963. Funding: This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: 13/140/05) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 28, No. 14. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.Neutropenic sepsis, or infection with a low white blood cell count, can occur following cancer treatment. Usually patients receive treatment with intravenous antibiotics (antibiotics delivered into a vein) for two or more days. Patients at low risk of complications from their infection may be able to have a shorter period of intravenous antibiotics benefitting both patients and the NHS. The trial compared whether changing from intravenous to oral antibiotics (antibiotics taken by mouth as tablets or liquid) 12–24 hours after starting antibiotic treatment (‘early switch’) is as effective as usual care. Patients could take part if they had started intravenous antibiotics for low-risk neutropenic sepsis. Patients were randomly allocated to ‘early switch’ or to usual care. The main outcome measured was treatment failure. Treatment failure happened if fever persisted or recurred despite antibiotics, if patients needed to change antibiotics, if they needed to be re-admitted to hospital or needed to be admitted to intensive care within 14 days or died. We had originally intended that 628 patients would take part, but after review of the design of the study the number needed to take part was revised to 230. We were not able to complete the trial as planned as unfortunately only 129 patients took part. As the trial was smaller than expected we were not able to draw conclusions as to whether ‘early switch’ is no less effective than usual care. Our findings suggest that ‘early switch’ might result in a shorter time in hospital initially; however, treatment failure was more likely to occur, meaning some patients had to return to hospital for further antibiotics. There were no differences in side effects and no serious complications from treatment or treatment failure (such as intensive care admission or death) among the 65 patients in the ‘early switch’ group. Patients were satisfied with ‘early switch’. Early switch may be a treatment option for some patients with low-risk neutropenic sepsis who would prefer a shorter duration of hospital admission but accept a risk of needing hospital re-admission.
Author(s): Coyle V, Forde C, Adams R, Agus A, Barnes R, Chau I, Clarke M, Doran A, Grayson M, McAuley D, McDowell C, Phair G, Plummer R, Storey D, Thomas A, Wilson R, McMullan R
Publication type: Article
Publication status: Published
Journal: Health Technology Assessment
Year: 2024
Volume: 28
Issue: 14
Pages: 1-101
Print publication date: 01/03/2024
Acceptance date: 30/10/2022
Date deposited: 02/04/2024
ISSN (print): 1366-5278
ISSN (electronic): 2046-4924
Publisher: NIHR Journals Library
URL: https://doi.org/10.3310/RGTP7112
DOI: 10.3310/RGTP7112
PubMed id: 38512064
Altmetrics provided by Altmetric
