Dadwal, Sanjeet

Abstract Background Contemporary information regarding fever and neutropenia (FN) management, including approaches to antibacterial prophylaxis, empiric therapy, and de-escalation across US cancer centers, is lacking. Methods This was a self-administered, electronic, cross-sectional survey of antimicrobial stewardship physicians and pharmacists at US cancer centers. The survey ascertained institutional practices and individual attitudes on FN management in high-risk cancer patients. A 5-point Likert scale assessed individual attitudes. Results Providers from 31 of 86 hospitals (36%) responded, and FN management guidelines existed in most (29/31, 94%) hospitals. Antibacterial prophylaxis was recommended in 27/31 (87%) hospitals, with levofloxacin as the preferred agent (23/27, 85%). Cefepime was the most recommended agent for empiric FN treatment (26/29, 90%). Most institutional guidelines (26/29, 90%) recommended against routine addition of empiric gram-positive agents except for specific scenarios. Eighteen of 29 (62%) hospitals explicitly provided guidance on de-escalation of empiric, systemic antibacterial therapy; however, timing of de-escalation was variable according to clinical scenario. Among 34 individual respondents, a majority agreed with use of antibiotic prophylaxis in high-risk patients (25, 74%). Interestingly, only 10 (29%) respondents indicated agreement with the statement that benefits of antibiotic prophylaxis outweigh potential harms. Conclusion Most US cancer centers surveyed had institutional FN management guidelines. Antibiotic de-escalation guidance was lacking in nearly 40% of centers, with heterogeneity in approaches when recommendations existed. Further research is needed to inform FN guidelines on antibacterial prophylaxis and therapy de-escalation.

AbstractBackgroundHematopoietic-cell transplant (HCT) recipients are at risk for severe respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) infection. We evaluated the RSV fusion inhibitor presatovir in a randomized, double-blind, Phase II trial in HCT recipients with RSV upper respiratory tract infections.MethodsPatients were stratified by lymphopenia (<200/µL) and ribavirin use; were randomized, stratified by lymphopenia (<200/μL) and ribavirin use, to receive oral presatovir at 200 mg or a placebo on Days 1, 5, 9, 13, and 17, and were followed through Day 28. The coprimary efficacy endpoints were the time-weighted average change in the nasal RSV viral load between Days 1 and 9 and the proportion of patients developing lower respiratory tract complications (LRTCs) through Day 28.ResultsFrom 23 January 2015 to 16 June 2017, 189 patients were randomly assigned to treatment (96 to presatovir and 93 to the placebo). Presatovir treatment, compared with the placebo treatment, did not significantly affect (prespecified α = 0.01) a time-weighted average decline in the RSV viral load from Day 1 to 9 (treatment difference, −0.33 log10 copies/mL; 95% confidence interval [CI] −.64 to −.02 log10 copies/mL; P = .040) or the progression to LRTC (11.2% vs 19.5%, respectively; odds ratio, 0.50; 95% CI, .22–1.18; P = .11). In a post hoc analysis among patients with lymphopenia, presatovir decreased LRTC development by Day 28 (2/15 [13.3%] vs 9/14 [64.3%], respectively; P = .008), compared with the placebo. Adverse events were similar for patients receiving presatovir and the placebo.ConclusionsPresatovir had a favorable safety profile in adult HCT recipients with RSV but did not achieve the coprimary endpoints. Exploratory analyses suggest an antiviral effect among patients with lymphopenia.Clinical Trials RegistrationNCT02254408; EUDRA-CT#2014-002474-36.

Key PointsHCT recipients have increased susceptibility to herpes zoster, but live-attenuated vaccines are not appropriate for highly immunocompromised people. An adjuvanted subunit vaccine against herpes zoster elicits strong immune responses with an acceptable safety profile in adult autologous HCT recipients.