Neutropenic FeverNCT06794320
Antibiotic Stewardship in Suspected Neutropenic Fever (ASTERIC Trial)
A study testing NF Protocol and ASTERIC protocol in people with Neutropenic Fever, run by The University of Hong Kong at 1 site in Hong Kong.
Trial summary
Executive Summary Background: Neutropenic Fever (NF), or febrile neutropenia, occurs in patients with early stage and metastatic solid tumours, non-leukaemic haematological cancers and acute leukaemia. It has a crude mortality rate of 3 to 18%. Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 18 years and older
- Conditions the study is for
- Neutropenic Fever
- What is being tested?
- NF Protocol and ASTERIC protocol
- Type of treatment
- Injection or infusion
- Could I receive a placebo?
- No, everyone receives an active treatment
- How many people
- 648 participants
- Where
- 1 siteHong Kong
- Study dates
- 1 Feb 2025to 31 Dec 2026
- Phase
- Interventional
- Are there results?
- Not yet: the study is under way
Key requirements
Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.
- Ages 18 years and older
- All sexes
- No healthy volunteers
- Adult, Older adult
Who may be able to join
- ≥18 years
- Tympanic temperature ≥38.3ºC within 24 hours before ED registration
- Last chemotherapy or targeted therapy within 6 weeks for any solid tumour, or in any period following therapies against leukaemia, lymphoma, myelodysplastic syndrome, aplastic anaemia, multiple myeloma, or recipient of HSCT.
Who cannot join
- The decision on how far to apply or deviate from a protocol rests with the clinician. Patients would be excluded from follow up if were unable or unwilling to provide informed consent for data access
Trial locations and contacts
1 site in 1 country. Contact the study team or a site near you to ask about taking part.
Hong Kong1 site
The University of Hong Kong
Hong Kong
Timothy Hudson Professor Rainer, MBBCh
About this study
Official title: Antibiotic Stewardship in Suspected Neutropenic Fever (ASTERIC Trial): a Multi-centre, Type 1 Hybrid Effectiveness-implementation, Stepped-wedge, Randomised Controlled Trial
Executive Summary
Background: Neutropenic Fever (NF), or febrile neutropenia, occurs in patients with early stage and metastatic solid tumours, non-leukaemic haematological cancers and acute leukaemia. It has a crude mortality rate of 3 to 18%. In Hong Kong, and in line with international guidelines, the target time from ED registration to ultra-broad spectrum antibiotic (UBSA) administration (door-to-antibiotic time, DTA time) is one hour disregarding the absolute neutrophil count (ANC). However, over 80% patients presenting to hospital with suspected NF (sNF) do not have NF and do not require UBSAs. Thus there is a need for evidence for a safe role for early treatments in patients with sNF to reduce unnecessary use of antibiotics.
Read more
Protocol, Eligibility and Randomisation: This protocol describes the ASTERIC Trial, a pragmatic, multi-centre, type 1, hybrid effectiveness-implementation, stepped-wedge, before and after, cluster randomised controlled trial with variable baseline and follow up periods. Hospitals will be randomised to start dates comparing usual standard of care (SoC) (Period 1, before) with a new antibiotic stewardship protocol (Period 2, after). Hospitals, not patients, are randomised to variable start dates. The evidence for starting early UBSAs in patients with NF is well-established. What is unclear is how to optimise personalised care and the start times of UBSA when the majority of sNF patients do not have NF, there are delays to receiving an ANC report, and a proportion of patients might not need hospital admission.
Study design: a multi-centre, hybrid type 1 effectiveness-implementation trial which is an appropriate study design to evaluate the real-world effectiveness of an antibiotic stewardship protocol; and the barriers to and facilitators of its implementation in the ED setting.
Settings: Eight hospitals in Hong Kong with patient involvement 24/7.
Outcomes: The Trial has two co-primary outcomes 1) mean total dose of UBSAs prescribed in 7 days and censored at 30 days from the time of randomisation; 2) safety (defined as the proportion of patients with a SAE), censored at 30 days from the time of randomisation.
This multifaceted trial addresses three broad domains of implementation according to Proctor's conceptual framework and taxonomy which incorporates the RE-AIM framework, namely: Service Outcomes; Implementation Outcomes and Client outcomes. Simplicity on the frontline: Patient enrolment and other front-line trial procedures will be streamlined. Informed consent is brief and simple and required for follow-up. Follow-up information may be ascertained by contacting participants in person, by phone or electronically, or by review of medical records and databases.
Data to be collected: Information will be collected on the patient, age, sex, major co-morbidity, sNF symptom onset date and severity, as well as any contraindications to study treatments. Follow-up information includes antibiotics - name, dose and duration; SAEs; mortality; sepsis; length of hospital stay; cost-effectiveness; patient satisfaction.
Numbers: 648 patients (324 patients in each group) adult patients with sNF ≥38.3ºC and Modified Early Warning Score ≤6 within 24 hours of ED registration.
Benefit to Healthcare/Expected results: Study results will inform health policy with improvement in hospital services in treating stable sNF evidenced by improved personalised, safe antibiotic stewardship, early antibiotic de-escalation, early discharge, and reduced costs and length of stay. The ASTERIC protocol safely reduces the type, duration and dose of antibiotics.
Read the detailed description
1 Background and Rationale
1.1 Background
Burden of neutropenic fever Neutropenic fever (NF), or febrile neutropenia, is characterised by a high body temperature and low absolute neutrophil count (ANC) after myelosuppressive cancer treatment. It occurs in patients with early-stage and metastatic solid tumours, non-leukaemic haematological cancers and acute leukaemia. The crude mortality rate varies from 3 to 18%. In the United States (US), each year, 7.83 per 1,000 cancer patients are hospitalised with NF. The mean direct hospitalisation costs of managing NF vary from EUR3,950 [about HKD$ 34,000] to US$19,110 [about HKD$150,000] per patient.
Aetiology
NF can have infectious and non-infectious causes. Although 30 - 50% cases appear clinically to be infections only 20 - 30% have microbiologically documented infections. Bloodstream infections, bacterial translocations from the respiratory tract and perianal region, and from the central venous catheter are major sources.
Fever may be the only manifestation of infection during neutropenia because the typical signs of inflammation are obscured. Neutropenia usually results from myelosuppressive cancer treatments, pre-engraftment phases of haematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT), bone marrow failure and/or defective neutrophil maturation.
Neutropenic Fever
NF is defined by 1) a single oral temperature ≥38.3ºC (101ºF), or a sustained temperature ≥38.0ºC (100.4ºF) over 1 hour; and 2) an ANC <1.0 x 10^9/L ("moderate" neutropenia). Neutropenia is classified as "severe", "profound" or "protracted" if the ANC is 0.5 x 10^9/L, <0.1 x 10^9/L, or lasts for more than one week, respectively. This definition only applies to oncological and haematological patients.
In Hong Kong
Local public emergency departments (EDs) have standard operating procedures and guidelines for managing NF. In line with international guidelines the target time from ED registration to antibiotic administration (door-to-antibiotic time, DTA time) is one hour disregarding ANC. The clinical pathways for suspected NF (sNF) expedites medical consultation, septic workup, and early prescription of ultra-broad spectrum antibiotics (UBSAs) such as Meropenem or Piperacillin/ Tazobactam. After implementing clinical pathways in local EDs, DTA times have shortened.
However, over 80% patients presenting to Hong Kong's Queen Mary Hospital with sNF have an ANC>1x10^9/L, do not have NF, do not require UBSAs and possibly do not require hospital admission. Widespread, inappropriate use of UBSAs may contribute to the emergence of antimicrobial resistance (AMR) and multi-drug resistance strains (MDR). Thus, there is a need for prudent, pragmatic, personalised antibiotic stewardship and appropriate de-escalation.
Antibiotic stewardship for cancer patients
As cancer patients are frequently prescribed antibiotics, they are more vulnerable to MDR, and are in special need of antibiotic stewardship. UBSAs are often started empirically in the ED for patients with sNF, assuming infection by drug-resistant bacteria. However, clinicians infrequently de-escalate once antibiotics have been started. Prolonged exposure to parenteral broad-spectrum antibiotic (BSA) impose risks of nosocomial infection and injection site complications. There is also evidence that meeting the one hour target does not improve outcomes but using appropriate antibiotic regimes does.
Research Gap and Unmet Clinical Need
Evidence-based practices are slow to be implemented into routine care. Implementation science seeks to narrow the research-to practice gap by identifying barriers and facilitators to effective implementation and designing strategies to achieve desired implementation outcomes. Most patients with sNF receive UBSAs. Yet <20% have confirmed NF and 16% have a confirmed microbe. Therefore, it is likely that antibiotics are being used inappropriately. There are knowledge gaps on methods for rapidly delivering ANC results in the acute setting; microbiological patterns (AMR and MDR rates); service, implementation and client outcomes; a lack of understanding on physician and nursing attitudes, perceptions and practice; a lack of good evidence on the real-world effectiveness, safety, and cost-implications of good prescribing practice (antibiotic stewardship and de-escalation); and a need for evidence-based education in patients with sNF. Implementation science supports translational medicine research to practice gaps. It identifies barriers and facilitators to effective implementation and designs evolving strategies to achieve desired service, implementation and client outcomes. This proposal addresses these issues.
1.2 Treatment Strategies
There is good evidence that patients with NF presenting to hospital benefit from early UBSA/BSA treatment and this is reflected in current guidelines. There is also good evidence that patients with NF and a high Multinational Association for Supportive Care in Cancer (MASCC) Risk Index do not need to be admitted to hospital. However, some healthcare settings have adopted a one hour limit on starting BSA/UBSA treatment and admit all patients to hospital. As ANC results are not usually available within one hour, more than 80% sNF may be treated unnecessarily with inappropriate antibiotics. Consequently, there is a need for implementation studies to identify barriers and facilitators of care, and to optimise early management.
There is currently little clinical evidence for the early management of sNF patients presenting to hospital. Early BSA/UBSA is recommended for patients with NF but the evidence for a strict one hour target for the first dose of antibiotics in patients with sNF has little evidence base. Most protocols would not recommend starting antibiotics where they are not necessary.
All patients with sNF will receive SoC during the first period in the participating hospitals. Later, hospitals will switch to the ASTERIC. Initially randomisation will be between hospitals to determine the time that each hospital will convert to the new protocol:
Period 1, Before: Although there is evidence that early treatment of sNF with UBSAs is safe, a high proportion of patients receive antibiotics unnecessarily. Thus, there is uncertainty over implementing personalised care and strategies to optimises antibiotic stewardship.
Period 2, After: The ASTERIC protocol seeks to safely optimise personalised care.
- Conditions
- Neutropenic Fever
- Being tested
- NF Protocol, ASTERIC protocol
- Keywords
- Antibiotic stewardship, Cancer, Carcinoma, Emergency care, Emergency department, Febrile Neutropenia, Health policy, Hematologic Neoplasms, Hospitalization, Length of stay, Meropenem, Neoplasms, Neutrophils, Oncology, Randomized Controlled Trial, RCT, Safety, Tumor
- Medical subject headings
- Febrile Neutropenia, Neoplasms, Carcinoma, Emergencies, Hematologic Neoplasms
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
NF ProtocolOther
The daily practice of physicians in evaluating and treating patients with sNF.
ASTERIC protocolOther
- Risk-assessment tools
ASTERIC protocolOther
ii. Fast track absolute neutrophil counts turnaround service
ASTERIC ProtocolOther
iii. A decision tool for patient management and initial antibiotic use
ASTERIC ProtocolOther
iv. A decision tool for patient management and subsequent antibiotic use
ASTERIC ProtocolOther
- An educational package
ASTERIC ProtocolOther
vi. A decision tool for patient disposal - discharge or emergency department ward observation
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| Period 1(Before): Standard of Care(SoC) + Neutropenic Fever(NF) Protocol | Other | Not described Receives: Other: NF Protocol |
| Period 2(After): SoC + ASTERIC Protocol | Other | The ASTERIC protocol seeks to evaluate and address barriers and facilitators to a fast-track ANC service coupled with prudent, timely antibiotic stewardship and assessment of admission. Receives: Other: ASTERIC protocol |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
7-day mean UBSA dose
Outcome 1 measure: The mean total UBSA dose per patient from ED registration [Continuous]
Measured: Up to 7-days
30-day Severe Adverse Events
Outcome 2 measure: The proportion of patients with an SAE [Binary Y/N]
Measured: Up to 30-days
Secondary outcomes (2)
Mortality
Outcome 3 measure: The proportion of patients with mortality [Binary: Y/N]
Measured: Up to 30-days
Length of Hospital Stay
Outcome 4 measure: Difference in median LOS between period 1 care and period 2 care [Numerical]
Measured: Up to 30-days
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted27 Jan 2025
- Study start1 Feb 2025 (estimated)
- Primary completion31 Dec 2026 (estimated)
- Study completion31 Dec 2026 (estimated)
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Publications (15)Papers the sponsor has linked to this study.
- Other trials for Neutropenic FeverStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- More trials run by The University of Hong KongThe sponsor's other registered studies.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
More details
For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.
Study design
- Study type
- Interventional
- Phase
- Phase N/A
- Primary purpose
- Treatment
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Sequential
- Masking
- None (open label)
- Enrolment
- 648 participants (estimated)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- The University of Hong Kong
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Responsible party
- Principal investigator, Prof. Timothy Hudson RAINER, The University of Hong Kong
- Investigators
- Professor RAINER Timothy Hudson, MBBCh, Principal investigator, The University of Hong Kong
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT06794320
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- ASTERIC
- Other IDs
- 21222361
- Status last verified
- Oct 2024
- First submitted
- 14 Jan 2025
- Last updated
- 27 Jan 2025
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- Yes
- FDA-regulated drug
- No
- FDA-regulated device
- No
- Individual data sharing
- No
Publications
Peyrony O, Gerlier C, Barla I, Ellouze S, Legay L, Azoulay E, Chevret S, Fontaine JP. Antibiotic prescribing and outcomes in cancer patients with febrile neutropenia in the emergency department. PLoS One. 2020 Feb 28;15(2):e0229828. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0229828. eCollection 2020.
PubMed 32109264Freifeld AG, Bow EJ, Sepkowitz KA, Boeckh MJ, Ito JI, Mullen CA, Raad II, Rolston KV, Young JA, Wingard JR; Infectious Diseases Society of America. Clinical practice guideline for the use of antimicrobial agents in neutropenic patients with cancer: 2010 update by the infectious diseases society of america. Clin Infect Dis. 2011 Feb 15;52(4):e56-93. doi: 10.1093/cid/cir073.
PubMed 21258094Zhu J, Zhou K, Jiang Y, Liu H, Bai H, Jiang J, Gao Y, Cai Q, Tong Y, Song X, Wang C, Wan L. Bacterial Pathogens Differed Between Neutropenic and Non-neutropenic Patients in the Same Hematological Ward: An 8-Year Survey. Clin Infect Dis. 2018 Nov 13;67(suppl_2):S174-S178. doi: 10.1093/cid/ciy643.
PubMed 30423039Ko HF, Tsui SS, Tse JW, Kwong WY, Chan OY, Wong GC. Improving the emergency department management of post-chemotherapy sepsis in haematological malignancy patients. Hong Kong Med J. 2015 Feb;21(1):10-5. doi: 10.12809/hkmj144280. Epub 2014 Oct 10.
PubMed 25306894Levy MM, Evans LE, Rhodes A. The Surviving Sepsis Campaign Bundle: 2018 Update. Crit Care Med. 2018 Jun;46(6):997-1000. doi: 10.1097/CCM.0000000000003119. No abstract available.
PubMed 29767636Taplitz RA, Kennedy EB, Bow EJ, Crews J, Gleason C, Hawley DK, Langston AA, Nastoupil LJ, Rajotte M, Rolston K, Strasfeld L, Flowers CR. Outpatient Management of Fever and Neutropenia in Adults Treated for Malignancy: American Society of Clinical Oncology and Infectious Diseases Society of America Clinical Practice Guideline Update. J Clin Oncol. 2018 May 10;36(14):1443-1453. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2017.77.6211. Epub 2018 Feb 20.
PubMed 29461916Boxer L, Dale DC. Neutropenia: causes and consequences. Semin Hematol. 2002 Apr;39(2):75-81. doi: 10.1053/shem.2002.31911.
PubMed 11957188Pizzo PA, Robichaud KJ, Wesley R, Commers JR. Fever in the pediatric and young adult patient with cancer. A prospective study of 1001 episodes. Medicine (Baltimore). 1982 May;61(3):153-65. doi: 10.1097/00005792-198205000-00003. No abstract available.
PubMed 7078399Pasikhova Y, Ludlow S, Baluch A. Fever in Patients With Cancer. Cancer Control. 2017 Apr;24(2):193-197. doi: 10.1177/107327481702400212.
PubMed 28441374Kuderer NM, Dale DC, Crawford J, Cosler LE, Lyman GH. Mortality, morbidity, and cost associated with febrile neutropenia in adult cancer patients. Cancer. 2006 May 15;106(10):2258-66. doi: 10.1002/cncr.21847.
PubMed 16575919Caggiano V, Weiss RV, Rickert TS, Linde-Zwirble WT. Incidence, cost, and mortality of neutropenia hospitalization associated with chemotherapy. Cancer. 2005 May 1;103(9):1916-24. doi: 10.1002/cncr.20983.
PubMed 15751024Klastersky J, Ameye L, Maertens J, Georgala A, Muanza F, Aoun M, Ferrant A, Rapoport B, Rolston K, Paesmans M. Bacteraemia in febrile neutropenic cancer patients. Int J Antimicrob Agents. 2007 Nov;30 Suppl 1:S51-9. doi: 10.1016/j.ijantimicag.2007.06.012. Epub 2007 Aug 8.
PubMed 17689933Culakova E, Thota R, Poniewierski MS, Kuderer NM, Wogu AF, Dale DC, Crawford J, Lyman GH. Patterns of chemotherapy-associated toxicity and supportive care in US oncology practice: a nationwide prospective cohort study. Cancer Med. 2014 Apr;3(2):434-44. doi: 10.1002/cam4.200. Epub 2014 Feb 17.
PubMed 24706592Weycker D, Li X, Edelsberg J, Barron R, Kartashov A, Xu H, Lyman GH. Risk and Consequences of Chemotherapy-Induced Febrile Neutropenia in Patients With Metastatic Solid Tumors. J Oncol Pract. 2015 Jan;11(1):47-54. doi: 10.1200/JOP.2014.001492. Epub 2014 Dec 9.
PubMed 25491042Rainer TH, Lam RPK, Tsang TC, Wai AK, Leung SC, Leung RYY, Wong CKH, Gill H, Lam WWT, Wing Lok Chan W, Chi Kin Cheung A, Lau MT, Lee SF, Choi YF, Fong Lun Lee H, Mok KL, Lam HC, Lee SY, Ho Ting Yeung M, Hung IF. Antibiotic stewardship in suspected neutropenic fever (ASTERIC trial): a multicentre, type 1 hybrid effectiveness-implementation, stepped-wedge, randomised controlled trial study protocol. BMJ Open. 2025 Nov 24;15(11):e108010. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2025-108010.
PubMed 41290295
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 27 Jan 2025. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- Antibiotic Stewardship in Suspected Neutropenic Fever (ASTERIC Trial): a Multi-centre, Type 1 Hybrid Effectiveness-implementation, Stepped-wedge, Randomised Controlled Trial
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT06794320
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- ASTERIC
- Conditions
- Neutropenic Fever
- Keywords
- Antibiotic stewardship, Cancer, Carcinoma, Emergency care, Emergency department, Febrile Neutropenia, Health policy, Hematologic Neoplasms
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Not yet recruiting
- Enrolment
- 648 participants (estimated)
- Lead sponsor
- The University of Hong KongUniversity, hospital or other
- Study start
- 1 Feb 2025 (estimated)
- Primary completion
- 31 Dec 2026 (estimated)
- Study completion
- 31 Dec 2026 (estimated)
- First posted
- 27 Jan 2025 (actual)
- Results
- Not posted in the source record
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
Executive Summary
Background: Neutropenic Fever (NF), or febrile neutropenia, occurs in patients with early stage and metastatic solid tumours, non-leukaemic haematological cancers and acute leukaemia. It has a crude mortality rate of 3 to 18%. In Hong Kong, and in line with international guidelines, the target time from ED registration to ultra-broad spectrum antibiotic (UBSA) administration (door-to-antibiotic time, DTA time) is one hour disregarding the absolute neutrophil count (ANC). However, over 80% patients presenting to hospital with suspected NF (sNF) do not have NF and do not require UBSAs. Thus there is a need for evidence for a safe role for early treatments in patients with sNF to reduce unnecessary use of antibiotics.
Protocol, Eligibility and Randomisation: This protocol describes the ASTERIC Trial, a pragmatic, multi-centre, type 1, hybrid effectiveness-implementation, stepped-wedge, before and after, cluster randomised controlled trial with variable baseline and follow up periods. Hospitals will be randomised to start dates comparing usual standard of care (SoC) (Period 1, before) with a new antibiotic stewardship protocol (Period 2, after). Hospitals, not patients, are randomised to variable start dates. The evidence for starting early UBSAs in patients with NF is well-established. What is unclear is how to optimise personalised care and the start times of UBSA when the majority of sNF patients do not have NF, there are delays to receiving an ANC report, and a proportion of patients might not need hospital admission.
Study design: a multi-centre, hybrid type 1 effectiveness-implementation trial which is an appropriate study design to evaluate the real-world effectiveness of an antibiotic stewardship protocol; and the barriers to and facilitators of its implementation in the ED setting.
Settings: Eight hospitals in Hong Kong with patient involvement 24/7.
Outcomes: The Trial has two co-primary outcomes 1) mean total dose of UBSAs prescribed in 7 days and censored at 30 days from the time of randomisation; 2) safety (defined as the proportion of patients with a SAE), censored at 30 days from the time of randomisation.
This multifaceted trial addresses three broad domains of implementation according to Proctor's conceptual framework and taxonomy which incorporates the RE-AIM framework, namely: Service Outcomes; Implementation Outcomes and Client outcomes. Simplicity on the frontline: Patient enrolment and other front-line trial procedures will be streamlined. Informed consent is brief and simple and required for follow-up. Follow-up information may be ascertained by contacting participants in person, by phone or electronically, or by review of medical records and databases.
Data to be collected: Information will be collected on the patient, age, sex, major co-morbidity, sNF symptom onset date and severity, as well as any contraindications to study treatments. Follow-up information includes antibiotics - name, dose and duration; SAEs; mortality; sepsis; length of hospital stay; cost-effectiveness; patient satisfaction.
Numbers: 648 patients (324 patients in each group) adult patients with sNF ≥38.3ºC and Modified Early Warning Score ≤6 within 24 hours of ED registration.
Benefit to Healthcare/Expected results: Study results will inform health policy with improvement in hospital services in treating stable sNF evidenced by improved personalised, safe antibiotic stewardship, early antibiotic de-escalation, early discharge, and reduced costs and length of stay. The ASTERIC protocol safely reduces the type, duration and dose of antibiotics.
Detailed description
1 Background and Rationale
1.1 Background
Burden of neutropenic fever Neutropenic fever (NF), or febrile neutropenia, is characterised by a high body temperature and low absolute neutrophil count (ANC) after myelosuppressive cancer treatment. It occurs in patients with early-stage and metastatic solid tumours, non-leukaemic haematological cancers and acute leukaemia. The crude mortality rate varies from 3 to 18%. In the United States (US), each year, 7.83 per 1,000 cancer patients are hospitalised with NF. The mean direct hospitalisation costs of managing NF vary from EUR3,950 [about HKD$ 34,000] to US$19,110 [about HKD$150,000] per patient.
Aetiology
NF can have infectious and non-infectious causes. Although 30 - 50% cases appear clinically to be infections only 20 - 30% have microbiologically documented infections. Bloodstream infections, bacterial translocations from the respiratory tract and perianal region, and from the central venous catheter are major sources.
Fever may be the only manifestation of infection during neutropenia because the typical signs of inflammation are obscured. Neutropenia usually results from myelosuppressive cancer treatments, pre-engraftment phases of haematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT), bone marrow failure and/or defective neutrophil maturation.
Neutropenic Fever
NF is defined by 1) a single oral temperature ≥38.3ºC (101ºF), or a sustained temperature ≥38.0ºC (100.4ºF) over 1 hour; and 2) an ANC <1.0 x 10^9/L ("moderate" neutropenia). Neutropenia is classified as "severe", "profound" or "protracted" if the ANC is 0.5 x 10^9/L, <0.1 x 10^9/L, or lasts for more than one week, respectively. This definition only applies to oncological and haematological patients.
In Hong Kong
Local public emergency departments (EDs) have standard operating procedures and guidelines for managing NF. In line with international guidelines the target time from ED registration to antibiotic administration (door-to-antibiotic time, DTA time) is one hour disregarding ANC. The clinical pathways for suspected NF (sNF) expedites medical consultation, septic workup, and early prescription of ultra-broad spectrum antibiotics (UBSAs) such as Meropenem or Piperacillin/ Tazobactam. After implementing clinical pathways in local EDs, DTA times have shortened.
However, over 80% patients presenting to Hong Kong's Queen Mary Hospital with sNF have an ANC>1x10^9/L, do not have NF, do not require UBSAs and possibly do not require hospital admission. Widespread, inappropriate use of UBSAs may contribute to the emergence of antimicrobial resistance (AMR) and multi-drug resistance strains (MDR). Thus, there is a need for prudent, pragmatic, personalised antibiotic stewardship and appropriate de-escalation.
Antibiotic stewardship for cancer patients
As cancer patients are frequently prescribed antibiotics, they are more vulnerable to MDR, and are in special need of antibiotic stewardship. UBSAs are often started empirically in the ED for patients with sNF, assuming infection by drug-resistant bacteria. However, clinicians infrequently de-escalate once antibiotics have been started. Prolonged exposure to parenteral broad-spectrum antibiotic (BSA) impose risks of nosocomial infection and injection site complications. There is also evidence that meeting the one hour target does not improve outcomes but using appropriate antibiotic regimes does.
Research Gap and Unmet Clinical Need
Evidence-based practices are slow to be implemented into routine care. Implementation science seeks to narrow the research-to practice gap by identifying barriers and facilitators to effective implementation and designing strategies to achieve desired implementation outcomes. Most patients with sNF receive UBSAs. Yet <20% have confirmed NF and 16% have a confirmed microbe. Therefore, it is likely that antibiotics are being used inappropriately. There are knowledge gaps on methods for rapidly delivering ANC results in the acute setting; microbiological patterns (AMR and MDR rates); service, implementation and client outcomes; a lack of understanding on physician and nursing attitudes, perceptions and practice; a lack of good evidence on the real-world effectiveness, safety, and cost-implications of good prescribing practice (antibiotic stewardship and de-escalation); and a need for evidence-based education in patients with sNF. Implementation science supports translational medicine research to practice gaps. It identifies barriers and facilitators to effective implementation and designs evolving strategies to achieve desired service, implementation and client outcomes. This proposal addresses these issues.
1.2 Treatment Strategies
There is good evidence that patients with NF presenting to hospital benefit from early UBSA/BSA treatment and this is reflected in current guidelines. There is also good evidence that patients with NF and a high Multinational Association for Supportive Care in Cancer (MASCC) Risk Index do not need to be admitted to hospital. However, some healthcare settings have adopted a one hour limit on starting BSA/UBSA treatment and admit all patients to hospital. As ANC results are not usually available within one hour, more than 80% sNF may be treated unnecessarily with inappropriate antibiotics. Consequently, there is a need for implementation studies to identify barriers and facilitators of care, and to optimise early management.
There is currently little clinical evidence for the early management of sNF patients presenting to hospital. Early BSA/UBSA is recommended for patients with NF but the evidence for a strict one hour target for the first dose of antibiotics in patients with sNF has little evidence base. Most protocols would not recommend starting antibiotics where they are not necessary.
All patients with sNF will receive SoC during the first period in the participating hospitals. Later, hospitals will switch to the ASTERIC. Initially randomisation will be between hospitals to determine the time that each hospital will convert to the new protocol:
Period 1, Before: Although there is evidence that early treatment of sNF with UBSAs is safe, a high proportion of patients receive antibiotics unnecessarily. Thus, there is uncertainty over implementing personalised care and strategies to optimises antibiotic stewardship.
Period 2, After: The ASTERIC protocol seeks to safely optimise personalised care.
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Treatment
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Sequential
- Masking
- None (open label)
- Number of arms
- 2
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| Period 1(Before): Standard of Care(SoC) + Neutropenic Fever(NF) Protocol | Other | Other: NF Protocol |
| Period 2(After): SoC + ASTERIC Protocol | Other | Other: ASTERIC protocolThe ASTERIC protocol seeks to evaluate and address barriers and facilitators to a fast-track ANC service coupled with prudent, timely antibiotic stewardship and assessment of admission. |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 18 years and older
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Not accepted
- Age groups
- Adult, Older adult
Key inclusion criteria (3 listed)
- ≥18 years
- Tympanic temperature ≥38.3ºC within 24 hours before ED registration
- Last chemotherapy or targeted therapy within 6 weeks for any solid tumour, or in any period following therapies against leukaemia, lymphoma, myelodysplastic syndrome, aplastic anaemia, multiple myeloma, or recipient of HSCT.
Key exclusion criteria (1 listed)
- The decision on how far to apply or deviate from a protocol rests with the clinician. Patients would be excluded from follow up if were unable or unwilling to provide informed consent for data access
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Interventions
| Intervention | Type | Arms |
|---|---|---|
| NF ProtocolThe daily practice of physicians in evaluating and treating patients with sNF. | Other | Period 1(Before): Standard of Care(SoC) + Neutropenic Fever(NF) Protocol |
| ASTERIC protocoli. Risk-assessment tools | Other | Period 2(After): SoC + ASTERIC Protocol |
| ASTERIC protocolii. Fast track absolute neutrophil counts turnaround service | Other | Period 2(After): SoC + ASTERIC Protocol |
| ASTERIC Protocoliii. A decision tool for patient management and initial antibiotic use | Other | Period 2(After): SoC + ASTERIC Protocol |
| ASTERIC Protocoliv. A decision tool for patient management and subsequent antibiotic use | Other | Period 2(After): SoC + ASTERIC Protocol |
| ASTERIC Protocolv. An educational package | Other | Period 2(After): SoC + ASTERIC Protocol |
| ASTERIC Protocolvi. A decision tool for patient disposal - discharge or emergency department ward observation | Other | Period 2(After): SoC + ASTERIC Protocol |
Primary outcome
7-day mean UBSA dose
Time frame: Up to 7-days
Outcome 1 measure: The mean total UBSA dose per patient from ED registration [Continuous]
30-day Severe Adverse Events
Time frame: Up to 30-days
Outcome 2 measure: The proportion of patients with an SAE [Binary Y/N]
2 secondary outcomes
Mortality
Time frame: Up to 30-days
Length of Hospital Stay
Time frame: Up to 30-days
Results and safety
This study is still under way. Results are not available in the source record yet.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 27 Jan 2025.
- Background: PubMed 32109264Peyrony O, Gerlier C, Barla I, Ellouze S, Legay L, Azoulay E, Chevret S, Fontaine JP. Antibiotic prescribing and outcomes in cancer patients with febrile neutropenia in the emergency department. PLoS One. 2020 Feb 28;15(2):e0229828. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0229828. eCollection 2020.
- Background: PubMed 21258094Freifeld AG, Bow EJ, Sepkowitz KA, Boeckh MJ, Ito JI, Mullen CA, Raad II, Rolston KV, Young JA, Wingard JR; Infectious Diseases Society of America. Clinical practice guideline for the use of antimicrobial agents in neutropenic patients with cancer: 2010 update by the infectious diseases society of america. Clin Infect Dis. 2011 Feb 15;52(4):e56-93. doi: 10.1093/cid/cir073.
- Background: PubMed 30423039Zhu J, Zhou K, Jiang Y, Liu H, Bai H, Jiang J, Gao Y, Cai Q, Tong Y, Song X, Wang C, Wan L. Bacterial Pathogens Differed Between Neutropenic and Non-neutropenic Patients in the Same Hematological Ward: An 8-Year Survey. Clin Infect Dis. 2018 Nov 13;67(suppl_2):S174-S178. doi: 10.1093/cid/ciy643.
- Background: PubMed 25306894Ko HF, Tsui SS, Tse JW, Kwong WY, Chan OY, Wong GC. Improving the emergency department management of post-chemotherapy sepsis in haematological malignancy patients. Hong Kong Med J. 2015 Feb;21(1):10-5. doi: 10.12809/hkmj144280. Epub 2014 Oct 10.
- Background: PubMed 29767636Levy MM, Evans LE, Rhodes A. The Surviving Sepsis Campaign Bundle: 2018 Update. Crit Care Med. 2018 Jun;46(6):997-1000. doi: 10.1097/CCM.0000000000003119. No abstract available.
- Background: PubMed 29461916Taplitz RA, Kennedy EB, Bow EJ, Crews J, Gleason C, Hawley DK, Langston AA, Nastoupil LJ, Rajotte M, Rolston K, Strasfeld L, Flowers CR. Outpatient Management of Fever and Neutropenia in Adults Treated for Malignancy: American Society of Clinical Oncology and Infectious Diseases Society of America Clinical Practice Guideline Update. J Clin Oncol. 2018 May 10;36(14):1443-1453. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2017.77.6211. Epub 2018 Feb 20.
- Background: PubMed 11957188Boxer L, Dale DC. Neutropenia: causes and consequences. Semin Hematol. 2002 Apr;39(2):75-81. doi: 10.1053/shem.2002.31911.
- Background: PubMed 7078399Pizzo PA, Robichaud KJ, Wesley R, Commers JR. Fever in the pediatric and young adult patient with cancer. A prospective study of 1001 episodes. Medicine (Baltimore). 1982 May;61(3):153-65. doi: 10.1097/00005792-198205000-00003. No abstract available.
- Background: PubMed 28441374Pasikhova Y, Ludlow S, Baluch A. Fever in Patients With Cancer. Cancer Control. 2017 Apr;24(2):193-197. doi: 10.1177/107327481702400212.
- Background: PubMed 16575919Kuderer NM, Dale DC, Crawford J, Cosler LE, Lyman GH. Mortality, morbidity, and cost associated with febrile neutropenia in adult cancer patients. Cancer. 2006 May 15;106(10):2258-66. doi: 10.1002/cncr.21847.
- Background: PubMed 15751024Caggiano V, Weiss RV, Rickert TS, Linde-Zwirble WT. Incidence, cost, and mortality of neutropenia hospitalization associated with chemotherapy. Cancer. 2005 May 1;103(9):1916-24. doi: 10.1002/cncr.20983.
- Background: PubMed 17689933Klastersky J, Ameye L, Maertens J, Georgala A, Muanza F, Aoun M, Ferrant A, Rapoport B, Rolston K, Paesmans M. Bacteraemia in febrile neutropenic cancer patients. Int J Antimicrob Agents. 2007 Nov;30 Suppl 1:S51-9. doi: 10.1016/j.ijantimicag.2007.06.012. Epub 2007 Aug 8.
- Individual participant dataSharing planned: No
Related trials for Neutropenic Fever
Not yet recruiting
Impact of a Telemonitoring Device on the Occurever at Home in Children at Risk of Chemotherapy-Induced Neutropenia
Oncopediatrics, Febrile Neutropenia
Not yet recruitingPhase 2
Restrictive Versus Standard Antibiotic Treatment During CAR-T Therapy
Large B-Cell Lymphoma (LBCL), Multiple Myeloma (MM)
Recruiting
Antibiotic Duration and Outcomes in High-Risk Febrile Neutropenia Patients
Bloodstream Infection, Gram Negative Infections
Enrolling by invitationObservational study
Study on the Efficacy and Safety of Different Doses of PEG-rhG-CSF for Primary Prevention of Febrile Neutropenia
Malignant Tumor
RecruitingPhase 4
Ceftolozane/Tazobactam Versus Meropenem for Febrile Neutropenia on Patients Colonized With or at Risk for Infection With Extended Spectrum Beta Lactamase - Producing Pathogens
Febrile Neutropenia
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part.
Professor RAINER Timothy Hudson, MBBCh principal investigator
The University of Hong Kong
1 site in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A study testing NF Protocol and ASTERIC protocol in people with Neutropenic Fever, run by The University of Hong Kong at 1 site in Hong Kong.
The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.
Who may be eligible to take part?
The sponsor lists 3 inclusion and 1 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.
Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?
The record says: opening soon, as of the sponsor's last update on 27 Jan 2025. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
Where is the study taking place?
The record lists 1 site in Hong Kong. Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.
What are the possible benefits and risks?
They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.
Are results available for this study?
This study is still under way. Results are not available in the source record yet.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
Contact Timothy Hudson Professor Rainer, MBBCh (39176846, thrainer@hku.hk), or a site near the patient. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
7-day mean UBSA dose (time frame: Up to 7-days). The study lists 2 primary outcomes in all. It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
On the ClinicalTrials.gov record for NCT06794320, which also lists 15 linked publications.
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?
No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.
How often is this information updated?
AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 27 Jan 2025.