Search

Background Neutropenic sepsis frequently requires admission to an intensive care unit (ICU). Differences between subgroups of patients with neutropenic sepsis are not well characterized. Aims To investigate clinical outcomes among patients with neutropenic sepsis and hematological malignancy, metastatic solid cancer, or no cancer diagnosis. Methods Retrospective cohort study of all patients admitted to ICU in Australia or New Zealand between January 2000 and December 2022 with a primary admission diagnosis of sepsis and total white cell count <1.0 × 109 cells/L. Results We identified 8617 ICU admissions with neutropenic sepsis (hematological malignancy n = 4660; metastatic solid cancer n = 1034; no cancer n = 2800). Patients with hematological malignancy were younger (median, 61.5 years) with low rates of chronic comorbidities (4.7%) and were usually admitted to ICU from the ward (67.4%). Mechanical ventilation rates were 20.2% and in-hospital mortality was 30.6%. Patients with metastatic solid cancers were older (median, 66.3 years), with higher rates of chronic comorbidities (9.9%), and were usually admitted to the ICU from the emergency department (50.8%). Mechanical ventilation rates were 16.9% and in-hospital mortality was 42.4%. Patients with no documented cancer had highest rates of mechanical ventilation (41.7%) and mortality (46.3%). Neutropenia was independently associated with mortality among patients with solid cancers or no cancer but did not confer increased risk among patients with hematological malignancy (odds ratio, 0.98; 95% confidence interval,.90–1.06; P =.60). Conclusions Patients with neutropenic sepsis and hematological malignancy, metastatic solid cancer, or no cancer diagnosis constitute 3 distinct clinical groups. Management approaches should be tailored accordingly. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Despite widespread vaccination rates, we are living with high transmission rates of SARS‐CoV‐2. Although overall hospitalisation rates are falling, the risk of serious infection remains high for patients who are immunocompromised because of haematological malignancies. In light of the ongoing pandemic and the development of multiple agents for treatment, representatives from the Haematology Society of Australia and New Zealand and infectious diseases specialists have collaborated on this consensus position statement regarding COVID‐19 management in patients with haematological disorders. It is our recommendation that both patients with haematological malignancies and treating specialists be educated regarding the preventive and treatment options available and that patients continue to receive adequate vaccinations, keeping in mind the suboptimal vaccine responses that occur in haematology patients, in particular, those with B‐cell malignancies and on B‐cell‐targeting or depleting therapy. Patients with haematological malignancies should receive treatment for COVID‐19 in accordance with the severity of their symptoms, but even mild infections should prompt early treatment with antiviral agents. The issue of de‐isolation following COVID‐19 infection and optimal time to treatment for haematological malignancies is discussed but remains an area with evolving data. This position statement is to be used in conjunction with advice from infectious disease, respiratory and intensive care specialists, and current guidelines from the National COVID‐19 Clinical Evidence Taskforce and the New Zealand Ministry of Health and Cancer Agency Te Aho o Te Kahu COVID‐19 Guidelines. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Australia and New Zealand have achieved excellent community control of COVID‐19 infection. In light of the imminent COVID‐19 vaccination roll out in both countries, representatives from the Haematology Society of Australia and New Zealand and infectious diseases specialists have collaborated on this consensus position statement regarding COVID‐19 vaccination in patients with haematological disorders. It is our recommendation that patients with haematological malignancies, and some benign haematological disorders, should have expedited access to high‐efficacy COVID‐19 vaccines, given that these patients are at high risk of morbidity and mortality from COVID‐19 infection. Vaccination should not replace other public health measures in these patients, given that the effectiveness of COVID‐19 vaccination, specifically in patients with haematological malignancies, is not known. Given the limited available data, prospective collection of safety and efficacy data of COVID‐19 vaccination in this patient group is a priority. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Acquired hypogammaglobulinaemia secondary to haematological malignancies is associated with increased infection risk. Immunoglobulin (Ig) replacement reduces major infections but not mortality, and is costly. No prospective randomised trials have compared Ig replacement with prophylactic antibiotics. Aims: To identify variation in current practice regarding management of secondary hypogammaglobulinaemia in Australia and New Zealand, to identify barriers to best practice, and to inform the development of a clinical trial assessing antibiotic prophylaxis in secondary hypogammaglobulinaemia. Methods: We conducted an online survey of current clinical practice regarding management of secondary hypogammaglobulinaemia among haematologists in Australia and New Zealand. Results: Seventy‐two haematologists responded; 89% of whom reported commencing Ig replacement for secondary hypogammaglobulinaemia in the setting of recurrent or severe infection. Most monitored trough immunoglobulin G levels, most often 3 monthly. Criteria for stopping Ig replacement varied. Most respondents recommended influenza and pneumococcal vaccination, while only 21% reported using antibiotic prophylaxis. Few respondents (3%) reported prescribing prophylactic antibiotics before commencing Ig replacement. Most reported an interest in recruiting patients to a clinical trial comparing Ig replacement with prophylactic antibiotics. Conclusion: In comparison to limited international data, this survey finds variation in practice, which may be due to differences in local policies governing access to Ig. These findings highlight the need for research into the indications for Ig commencement and cessation, and will inform design of prospective trials of infection prevention in secondary hypogammaglobulinaemia. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]