Oral pristinamycin for the treatment of resistant Gram-positive infections in patients with cancer: Evaluation of clinical outcomes.

Pristinamycin has been used to treat a range of Gram-positive infections, but reported experience in patients with malignancy is limited. This study aimed to evaluate the use of pristinamycin in patients with cancer at an Australian centre. All patients commenced on oral pristinamycin therapy at the Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre between January 2005 and December 2014 were identified using the hospital pharmacy dispensing system. Information on demographics, co-morbidities, cancer diagnosis, infection characteristics, pristinamycin regimen, pristinamycin tolerability and outcomes was collected. The median duration of follow-up was 398 days. In total, 26 patients received pristinamycin, with median age of 61 years and a male predominance (65%). Underlying diagnoses were haematological malignancies (50%) and solid tumours (50%). Pathogens included 13 meticillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus, 6 vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus faecium, 4 meticillin-resistant Staphylococcus epidermidis, 2 meticillin-susceptible S. aureus and 1 vancomycin-susceptible E. faecium. Infection sites were osteomyelitis (6), skin and soft-tissue (4), intra-abdominal/pelvic abscess (4), bloodstream (3), empyema (3), endocarditis/endovascular (3), prosthesis-related infection (2) and epididymo-orchitis (1). One patient ceased pristinamycin due to nausea. Regarding outcome, 13 patients (50%) were cured of infection, 8 (31%) had suppression and 5 (19%) had relapse. Relapses included 1 endovascular infection, 2 episodes of osteomyelitis, 1 pelvic abscess and 1 skin and soft-tissue infection. Overall, 81% of patients achieved cure or suppression of antibiotic-resistant or complex Gram-positive infections, consistent with published experience in non-cancer populations. A favourable tolerability profile makes oral pristinamycin a viable treatment option, particularly in settings where outpatient management of cancer is the objective.

A survey of manufacturing and handling practices for monoclonal antibodies by pharmacy, nursing and medical personnel.

INTRODUCTION: There is a paucity of data available to assess the occupational health and safety risk associated with exposure to monoclonal antibodies. Industry standards and published guidelines are conflicting or outdated. Guidelines offer contrary recommendations based on an array of methodological approaches. This survey aimed to describe current practices, beliefs and attitudes relating to the handling of monoclonal antibodies by Australian medical, nursing and pharmacy clinicians. METHODS: An electronic survey was distributed between June and September 2013. Respondents were surveyed on three focus areas: institutional guideline availability and content, current practices and attitudes. Demographic data relating to respondent and primary place of practice were also collected. RESULTS: A total of 222 clinicians completed the survey, with representation from all targeted professional groups and from a variety of geographic locations. 92% of respondents reported that their institution prepared or administered monoclonal antibodies, with 87% specifically handling anti-cancer monoclonal antibodies. Monoclonal antibodies were mostly prepared onsite (84-90%) and mostly within pharmacy clean-rooms (75%) and using cytotoxic cabinets (61%). 43% of respondents reported access to institutional monoclonal antibody handling guidelines with risk reduction strategies including training and education (71%), spill and waste management (71%), procedures for transportation (57%) and restricted handling (50%). Nurses had a stronger preference towards pharmacy manufacturing than both doctors and pharmacists for a range of clinical scenarios. 95% of all respondents identified that professional or regulatory body guidelines are an important resource when considering handling practices. CONCLUSION: Monoclonal antibodies are most commonly handled according to cytotoxic drug standards and often in the absence of formal guidelines.

Australian consensus guidelines for the safe handling of monoclonal antibodies for cancer treatment by healthcare personnel.

These consensus guidelines provide recommendations for the safe handling of monoclonal antibodies. Definitive recommendations are given for the minimum safe handling requirements to protect healthcare personnel. The seven recommendations cover: (i) appropriate determinants for evaluating occupational exposure risk; (ii) occupational risk level compared with other hazardous and non-hazardous drugs; (iii) stratification of risk based on healthcare personnel factors; (iv) waste products; (v) interventions and safeguards; (vi) operational and clinical factors and (vii) handling recommendations. The seventh recommendation includes a risk assessment model and flow chart for institutions to consider and evaluate clinical and operational factors unique to individual healthcare services. These guidelines specifically evaluated monoclonal antibodies used in the Australian cancer clinical practice setting; however, the principles may be applicable to monoclonal antibodies used in non-cancer settings. The guidelines are only applicable to parenterally administered agents.

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

BACKGROUND: Although Australian consensus guidelines support the use of ambulatory care strategies for management of adult patients with low-risk neutropenic fever (NF), few centres have successfully implemented viable programmes. AIMS: To study the feasibility of an early discharge programme for adult patients with low-risk NF and assess organisational factors likely to influence successful implementation across participating Victorian hospitals. METHODS: Four hospitals participated in an organisational readiness assessment preceding selection of a pilot site for programme implementation. Prospective baseline auditing of current practice (i.e. inpatient care until resolution of NF) across three hospitals preceded programme implementation and evaluation. RESULTS: Barriers and facilitators to successful implementation were identified. One hundred and seventeen NF episodes were evaluated during audit phases. The frequency of low-risk NF presentations eligible for early discharge was low (less than two episodes per week). The programme reduced median (interquartile range) duration of parenteral antibiotics and length of stay for eligible patients (n = 11) from 4 (4, 5) days at baseline to 1 (1, 2) day during pilot (P = 0.02) and 4.5 (4, 5) days (baseline) to 2 (1, 3) days (pilot) (P = 0.02) respectively. The proportion of ineligible patients stepped down to oral antibiotics was improved from 38% (baseline) to 67% (pilot). No patients failed ambulatory care requiring readmission into hospital. CONCLUSION: The ambulatory care strategy for management of NF proposed by Australian consensus guidelines has been successfully piloted at a single Victorian centre. Organisational readiness tools can be used to identify potential barriers to the implementation of evidence based practices in patients with NF.

Introduction to the Australian consensus guidelines for the management of neutropenic fever in adult cancer patients, 2010/2011. Australian Consensus Guidelines 2011 Steering Committee.

The current consensus guidelines were developed to standardize the clinical approach to the management of neutropenic fever in adult cancer patients throughout Australian treating centres. The three areas of clinical practice covered by the guidelines, the process for developing consensus opinion, and the system used to grade the evidence and relative strength of recommendations are described. The health economics implications of establishing clinical guidance are also discussed.

Use of risk stratification to guide ambulatory management of neutropenic fever. Australian Consensus Guidelines 2011 Steering Committee.

Utilization of risk-stratification tools in the setting of neutropenic fever is currently limited by inadequate knowledge and lack of awareness. Within this context, the approach to management of low-risk patients with neutropenic fever is inconsistent with the available evidence across many Australian treating centres. These clinical guidelines define and clarify an accepted standard of care for this patient group given the current evidence base. The Multinational Association for Supportive Care in Cancer risk index is presented as the preferred risk assessment tool for determining patient risk. Suitability of ambulatory care within specific patient populations is discussed, with defined eligibility criteria provided to guide clinical decision-making. Detailed recommendations for implementing appropriate ambulatory strategies, such as early discharge and outpatient antibiotic therapy, are also provided. Due consideration is given to infrastructural requirements and other supportive measures at a resourcing and operational level. An analysis of the relevant health economics is also presented.

Use of empiric antimicrobial therapy in neutropenic fever. Australian Consensus Guidelines 2011 Steering Committee.

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.

Use of antibacterial prophylaxis for patients with neutropenia. Australian Consensus Guidelines 2011 Steering Committee.

The use of oral prophylactic antibiotics in patients with neutropenia is controversial and not recommended by this group because of a lack of evidence showing a reduction in mortality and concerns that such practice promotes antimicrobial resistance. Recent evidence has demonstrated non-significant but consistent, improvement in all-cause mortality when fluoroquinolones (FQs) are used as primary prophylaxis. However, the consensus was that this evidence was not strong enough to recommend prophylaxis. The evidence base for FQ prophylaxis is presented alongside current consensus opinion to guide the appropriate and judicious use of these agents. Due consideration is given to patient risk, as it pertains to specific patient populations, as well as the net effect on selective pressure from antibiotics if FQ prophylaxis is routinely used in a target population. The potential costs and consequences of emerging FQ resistance, particularly among Escherichia coli, Clostridium difficile and Gram-positive organisms, are considered. As FQ prophylaxis has been advocated in some chemotherapy protocols, specific regard is given to whether FQ prophylaxis should be used to support these regimens. The group also provides recommendations for monitoring and surveillance of emerging resistance in those centres that have adopted FQ prophylaxis.

The disease and economic burden of neutropenic fever in adult patients in Australian cancer treatment centres 2008: analysis of the Victorian Admitted Episodes Dataset.

BACKGROUND: Although the incidence of neutropenic fever (FN) is estimated to be up to 80% for some malignancies, the epidemiological characteristics and economic burden are not well understood for Australian patients. AIMS: To describe underlying malignant conditions, potential aetiologies, clinical outcomes and healthcare utilization for an Australian population with FN, and to estimate the economic burden of this condition within the Australian healthcare sector. METHODS: Epidemiological features of FN were extracted from a population-based hospital morbidity dataset, the Victorian Admitted Episodes Dataset (VAED), for a 12-month period (2008). These were analysed according for a range of malignancy categories. Economic burden of hospitalizations was estimated according to data presented in the Round 12 National Hospital Cost Data Collection Report. RESULTS: A total of 2599 admitted episodes across 92 Victorian hospitals fulfilled inclusion criteria for FN. Metropolitan hospitalizations accounted for 79% episodes. FN illness comprised underlying solid tumours diagnoses (40%), followed by leukaemia (29.3%), lymphoma (22%) and myeloma (8.5%). Length of hospital stay was >15 days for approximately one-third of hospitalizations. intensive care unit admission rates were 5.9-11.7%. Weighted average costs of hospitalization (AUD) for solid tumours, lymphoma, myeloma and leukaemia were $8309 ± $391, 18,145 ± $1602, $21,764 ± $1289 and $22,596 ± $2618 respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Using VAED indices, epidemiological features of Australian patients with FN appear comparable with international reports. In contrast to US data, estimated healthcare costs are up to 50% lower in the Australian healthcare sector. These data offer important insights for prioritizing of research agendas and resource allocation.

An Australian survey of clinical practices in management of neutropenic fever in adult cancer patients 2009.

BACKGROUND: An abundance of new evidence regarding treatment strategies for neutropenic fever is likely to contribute to variability in practice across institutions and clinicians alike. AIMS: To describe current clinical practices in Australia, by surveying haematologists, oncologists and infectious diseases physicians involved in cancer care. METHODS: Clinician members from Australian professional associations, accounting for the vast majority of Australian cancer specialists, were invited to participate in an electronic survey, comprising of a clinical case-based questionnaire. Clinical practice areas explored were: use of risk-assessment and empiric antibiotic strategies across various treatment settings; use of anti-bacterial prophylaxis; and use of granulocyte-colony stimulating factors for established neutropenic fever and for secondary prophylaxis. RESULTS: A total of 252 clinicians returned responses (approximately 30% response rate). The majority (>70%) were representative of practices in public, major city, tertiary referral hospitals. Less than half of clinicians were aware of risk-assessment tools and less than quarter currently used ambulatory care strategies. If adequate resources were made available, more than 80% were willing to use risk-assessment tools and 60% more clinicians were likely to use ambulatory care strategies. Most clinicians prescribed dual therapy parenteral antibiotics, even for clinically stable patients (53% haematologists, 56% oncologists). Granulocyte-colony stimulating factor was used frequently as secondary prophylaxis in the breast cancer case (91%), follicular lymphoma case (59%) and non-small cell lung cancer case (31%). Fluoroquinolone prophylaxis was infrequently prescribed (19% oncologists, 30% haematologists). CONCLUSIONS: Evidence-practice gaps were identified around the use of risk-assessment-based empiric therapy, and help to inform better clinical guidance.