Antibiotic practice and stewardship in the management of neutropenic fever: a survey of US institutions.

OBJECTIVE

To describe neutropenic fever management practices among healthcare institutions.

DESIGN

Survey.

PARTICIPANTS

Members of the Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America Research Network (SRN) representing healthcare institutions within the United States.

METHODS

An electronic survey was distributed to SRN representatives, with questions pertaining to demographics, antimicrobial prophylaxis, supportive care, and neutropenic fever management. The survey was distributed from fall 2022 through spring 2023.

RESULTS

40 complete responses were recorded (54.8% response rate), with respondent institutions accounting for approximately 15.7% of 2021 US hematologic malignancy hospitalizations and 14.9% of 2020 US bone marrow transplantations. Most entities have institutional guidelines for neutropenic fever management (35, 87.5%) and prophylaxis (31, 77.5%), and first-line treatment included IV antipseudomonal antibiotics (35, 87.5% cephalosporin; 5, 12.5% penicillin; 0, 0% carbapenem).We observed significant heterogeneity in treatment course decisions, with roughly half (18, 45.0%) of respondents continuing antibiotics until neutrophil recovery, while the remainder having criteria for de-escalation prior to neutrophil recovery. Respondents were more willing to de-escalate prior to neutrophil recovery in patients with identified clinical (27, 67.5% with pneumonia) or microbiological (30, 75.0% with bacteremia) sources after dedicated treatment courses.

CONCLUSIONS

We found substantial variation in the practice of de-escalation of empiric antibiotics relative to neutrophil recovery, highlighting a need for more robust evidence for and adoption of this practice. No respondents use carbapenems as first-line therapy, comparing favorably to prior survey studies conducted in other countries.