Alison G. Freifeld

This document updates and expands the initial Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) Fever and Neutropenia Guideline that was published in 1997 and first updated in 2002. It is intended as a guide for the use of antimicrobial agents in managing patients with cancer who experience chemotherapy-induced fever and neutropenia. Recent advances in antimicrobial drug development and technology, clinical trial results, and extensive clinical experience have informed the approaches and recommendations herein. Because the previous iteration of this guideline in 2002, we have a developed a clearer definition of which populations of patients with cancer may benefit most from antibiotic, antifungal, and antiviral prophylaxis. Furthermore, categorizing neutropenic patients as being at high risk or low risk for infection according to presenting signs and symptoms, underlying cancer, type of therapy, and medical comorbidities has become essential to the treatment algorithm. Risk stratification is a recommended starting point for managing patients with fever and neutropenia. In addition, earlier detection of invasive fungal infections has led to debate regarding optimal use of empirical or preemptive antifungal therapy, although algorithms are still evolving. What has not changed is the indication for immediate empirical antibiotic therapy. It remains true that all patients who present with fever and neutropenia should be treated swiftly and broadly with antibiotics to treat both gram-positive and gram-negative pathogens. Finally, we note that all Panel members are from institutions in the United States or Canada; thus, these guidelines were developed in the context of North American practices. Some recommendations may not be as applicable outside of North America, in areas where differences in available antibiotics, in the predominant pathogens, and/or in health care-associated economic conditions exist. Regardless of venue, clinical vigilance and immediate treatment are the universal keys to managing neutropenic patients with fever and/or infection.

BACKGROUND: Invasive fungal infections (IFIs) are a major cause of morbidity and mortality among organ transplant recipients. Multicenter prospective surveillance data to determine disease burden and secular trends are lacking. METHODS: The Transplant-Associated Infection Surveillance Network (TRANSNET) is a consortium of 23 US transplant centers, including 15 that contributed to the organ transplant recipient dataset. We prospectively identified IFIs among organ transplant recipients from March, 2001 through March, 2006 at these sites. To explore trends, we calculated the 12-month cumulative incidence among 9 sequential cohorts. RESULTS: During the surveillance period, 1208 IFIs were identified among 1063 organ transplant recipients. The most common IFIs were invasive candidiasis (53%), invasive aspergillosis (19%), cryptococcosis (8%), non-Aspergillus molds (8%), endemic fungi (5%), and zygomycosis (2%). Median time to onset of candidiasis, aspergillosis, and cryptococcosis was 103, 184, and 575 days, respectively. Among a cohort of 16,808 patients who underwent transplantation between March 2001 and September 2005 and were followed through March 2006, a total of 729 IFIs were reported among 633 persons. One-year cumulative incidences of the first IFI were 11.6%, 8.6%, 4.7%, 4.0%, 3.4%, and 1.3% for small bowel, lung, liver, heart, pancreas, and kidney transplant recipients, respectively. One-year incidence was highest for invasive candidiasis (1.95%) and aspergillosis (0.65%). Trend analysis showed a slight increase in cumulative incidence from 2002 to 2005. CONCLUSIONS: We detected a slight increase in IFIs during the surveillance period. These data provide important insights into the timing and incidence of IFIs among organ transplant recipients, which can help to focus effective prevention and treatment strategies.

BACKGROUND: The incidence and epidemiology of invasive fungal infections (IFIs), a leading cause of death among hematopoeitic stem cell transplant (HSCT) recipients, are derived mainly from single-institution retrospective studies. METHODS: The Transplant Associated Infections Surveillance Network, a network of 23 US transplant centers, prospectively enrolled HSCT recipients with proven and probable IFIs occurring between March 2001 and March 2006. We collected denominator data on all HSCTs preformed at each site and clinical, diagnostic, and outcome information for each IFI case. To estimate trends in IFI, we calculated the 12-month cumulative incidence among 9 sequential subcohorts. RESULTS: We identified 983 IFIs among 875 HSCT recipients. The median age of the patients was 49 years; 60% were male. Invasive aspergillosis (43%), invasive candidiasis (28%), and zygomycosis (8%) were the most common IFIs. Fifty-nine percent and 61% of IFIs were recognized within 60 days of neutropenia and graft-versus-host disease, respectively. Median onset of candidiasis and aspergillosis after HSCT was 61 days and 99 days, respectively. Within a cohort of 16,200 HSCT recipients who received their first transplants between March 2001 and September 2005 and were followed up through March 2006, we identified 718 IFIs in 639 persons. Twelve-month cumulative incidences, based on the first IFI, were 7.7 cases per 100 transplants for matched unrelated allogeneic, 8.1 cases per 100 transplants for mismatched-related allogeneic, 5.8 cases per 100 transplants for matched-related allogeneic, and 1.2 cases per 100 transplants for autologous HSCT. CONCLUSIONS: In this national prospective surveillance study of IFIs in HSCT recipients, the cumulative incidence was highest for aspergillosis, followed by candidiasis. Understanding the epidemiologic trends and burden of IFIs may lead to improved management strategies and study design.

Evidence-based guidelines for the management of patients with histoplasmosis were prepared by an Expert Panel of the Infectious Diseases Society of America. These updated guidelines replace the previous treatment guidelines published in 2000 (Clin Infect Dis 2000; 30:688-95). The guidelines are intended for use by health care providers who care for patients who either have these infections or may be at risk for them. Since 2000, several new antifungal agents have become available, and clinical trials and case series have increased our understanding of the management of histoplasmosis. Advances in immunosuppressive treatment for inflammatory disorders have created new questions about the approach to prevention and treatment of histoplasmosis. New information, based on publications from the period 1999-2006, are incorporated into this guideline document. In addition, the panel added recommendations for management of histoplasmosis in children for those aspects that differ from aspects in adults.

This document updates and expands the initial Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) Fever and Neutropenia Guideline that was published in 1997 and first updated in 2002. It is intended as a guide for the use of antimicrobial agents in managing patients with cancer who experience chemotherapy-induced fever and neutropenia. Recent advances in antimicrobial drug development and technology, clinical trial results, and extensive clinical experience have informed the approaches and recommendations herein. Because the previous iteration of this guideline in 2002, we have a developed a clearer definition of which populations of patients with cancer may benefit most from antibiotic, antifungal, and antiviral prophylaxis. Furthermore, categorizing neutropenic patients as being at high risk or low risk for infection according to presenting signs and symptoms, underlying cancer, type of therapy, and medical comorbidities has become essential to the treatment algorithm. Risk stratification is a recommended starting point for managing patients with fever and neutropenia. In addition, earlier detection of invasive fungal infections has led to debate regarding optimal use of empirical or preemptive antifungal therapy, although algorithms are still evolving. What has not changed is the indication for immediate empirical antibiotic therapy. It remains true that all patients who present with fever and neutropenia should be treated swiftly and broadly with antibiotics to treat both gram-positive and gram-negative pathogens. Finally, we note that all Panel members are from institutions in the United States or Canada; thus, these guidelines were developed in the context of North American practices. Some recommendations may not be as applicable outside of North America, in areas where differences in available antibiotics, in the predominant pathogens, and/or in health care-associated economic conditions exist. Regardless of venue, clinical vigilance and immediate treatment are the universal keys to managing neutropenic patients with fever and/or infection.