Published online April 3, 2006
PEDIATRICS Vol. 117 No. 4 April 2006, pp. 1067-1076 (doi:10.1542/peds.2005-1865)
This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow E-mail this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My File Cabinet
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via CrossRef
Right arrow Citing Articles via Web of Science (6)
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Madsen, K. A.
Right arrow Articles by Downs, S. M.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Madsen, K. A.
Right arrow Articles by Downs, S. M.
Related Collections
Right arrow Infectious Disease & Immunity
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Facebook   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

The Role of Parental Preferences in the Management of Fever Without Source Among 3- to 36-Month-Old Children: A Decision Analysis

Kristine A. Madsen, MD, MPHa, Jonathan E. Bennett, MDb and Stephen M. Downs, MD, MSc

a Department of Pediatrics, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California
b Division of Emergency Medicine, A.I. duPont Hospital for Children, Wilmington, Delaware
c Department of Children's Health Services Research, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, Indiana


   ABSTRACT
TOP
 ABSTRACT
METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 
OBJECTIVES. Recent analyses assessing the impact of the conjugate pneumococcal vaccine on the care of febrile children do not reflect the role parental preferences play in physicians' decisions. The objective of this study was to identify the management strategy that would best suit parents, on the basis of their values for possible outcomes of fever of ≥39°C without source among well-appearing, 3- to 36-month-old children.

METHODS. A decision analysis was performed to compare the benefits and outcomes of 3 management options (treat: blood culture and antibiotics for all children; test: blood culture and complete blood count for all children, with antibiotics for selected children; observe: no immediate intervention). A hypothetical cohort of 100000 children with fever of ≥39°C with no obvious source of infection was modeled for each strategy. Using this model, we identified the treatment option that would best suit each parent's preferences, on the basis of parental utilities (from a prior study) for various interventions and outcomes at vaccine efficacies of 0% (ie, no vaccine) and 95%. In addition, we performed survival analyses to assess the morbidity and mortality rates associated with each treatment strategy at various vaccine efficacies.

RESULTS. At a vaccine efficacy of 0%, the majority of parents' preferences suggested the treat option, the strategy with the lowest mortality rate. At a vaccine efficacy of 95%, mortality rates were similar for all 3 management options (~1 in 100000), but parental preferences were still aligned with different options; 50% suggested observe, 42% suggested test, and 8% suggested treat.

CONCLUSIONS. Like physicians, parents have different approaches to risk. With the conjugate pneumococcal vaccine, risks of complications from fever without source are low regardless of treatment strategy. Rather than having a "one size fits all" approach, it is reasonable to incorporate parental preferences into the treatment decision.

Key Words: child • decision-making • fever of unknown origin • parental attitudes • patient-doctor communication

Abbreviations: WBC—white blood cell

Guidelines for the care of febrile children 3 to 36 months of age, without a source of infection,1 have generated much debate.2–5 When Baraff et al1 published guidelines a decade ago, the reported risk of occult bacteremia (3–11%) supported the use of empiric antibiotic therapy for all children with fever of ≥39°C, with or without a peripheral white blood cell (WBC) count of ≥15000 cells per mm3. Since the guidelines were issued, however, the Haemophilus influenzae type b conjugate vaccine has virtually eliminated H influenzae as an invasive pathogen among children,6 and it seems that the conjugate pneumococcal vaccine will reduce invasive pneumococcal infections similarly.7,8 In addition, as antibiotic resistance rates increase, physicians are less apt to treat well-appearing febrile children without a proven bacterial infection, to minimize exposure to antibiotics.9,10

The reduction in the incidence of occult bacteremia and the increase in antibiotic resistance rates have generated additional inquiry into the care of young children with fever without apparent source. Assuming high efficacy of the pneumococcal vaccine, recent analyses found that observation alone would be the best treatment option, on the basis of cost and quality-adjusted life expectancy.11,12 However, these analyses do not reflect the complexities that affect physicians' care of febrile children, including each physician's comfort with risk and the desires of the child's family.

No recent studies have formally analyzed the parental perspective on treating febrile children. Although physicians may think that the risk of a serious bacterial infection is sufficiently low to warrant observation alone, parental preferences may not coincide with this management strategy. Although some parents accept many interventions, including blood draws and hospitalizations, to avoid a minute risk of death,13 other parents are more eager to avoid potentially unnecessary interventions.14,15 Therefore, we undertook a study that incorporates parental preferences in evaluating management options for febrile children with no obvious source of infection.


   METHODS
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 METHODS
RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 
Study Design
The objective of this study was to measure the effects of parental values (utilities) and the heptavalent pneumococcal vaccine on the optimal treatment of febrile children 3 to 36 months of age without an obvious source of infection. We used decision analysis, a quantitative model that calculates expected values for alternative strategies, to choose the best management strategy. The 3 management strategies evaluated were as follows. (1) Treat assumes that blood is sent for culture and all children are treated presumptively with parenteral antibiotic therapy. This option carries a small risk of death related to treatment. The majority of children (97–99%) are exposed to antibiotics unnecessarily.16–18 (2) Test assumes that blood is sent for culture and a complete blood count is performed for all children; only children with WBC counts of ≥15000 cells per mm3 receive parenteral antibiotic therapy. This option also carries a small risk of death related to treatment. Because the sensitivity of WBC counts is not 100%, some children with bacteremia go untreated (20–50% of those with bacteremia, depending on the pathogen); because the specificity is <100%, some children receive antibiotics unnecessarily (~30% of those without bacterial infection).18–20 (3) Observe assumes that no blood is drawn and no children receive presumptive antibiotic treatment; therefore, any child with occult bacteremia goes untreated initially. No child is at risk of treatment-related death, and no child receives antibiotics unnecessarily. This option carries the risk of death from untreated bacteremia and its sequelae.

We assigned parental utilities from a previously published study13 to each possible outcome of the model, ie, blood draw, hospitalization, meningitis with full recovery, meningitis with sequelae, and death. Parental utilities were assessed with the standard gamble utility assessment technique. Parents were presented with outcomes in groups of 3 and were asked to choose between a certain intermediate outcome (eg, hospitalization) and a gamble between some chance of a better outcome (eg, blood draw) and a worse outcome (eg, meningitis with recovery). A question might be as follows: "Would you prefer certain hospitalization, or would you rather take a gamble that your child might have only a blood draw (50% chance) or might have meningitis with full recovery (50% chance)?" After this question, interviewers vary the probabilities in the gamble until the parent is indifferent between hospitalization and the gamble between blood draw and meningitis with recovery. The probability of blood draw (the better outcome) at which the parent is indifferent defines the utility for hospitalization (the intermediate outcome).

Clinical Assumptions
To frame the problem for decision analysis, the following assumptions were made. (1) Each child has no underlying medical problems and exhibits no toxicity (with no signs of meningitis); urinary tract infection and bacterial pneumonia have been ruled out as sources of fever. (2) Each child would have follow-up assessments in 24 hours. (3) Nonbacteremic children would recover without sequelae. (4) A WBC count of ≥15000 cells per mm3 affects the probability of bacteremia but not the probability of subsequent complications among children with bacteremia. (5) Antibiotics affect the probability that bacteremia would resolve. If bacteremia were to persist, then our model assumed that the pathogen was resistant to the antibiotic used and that antibiotics would not affect the risk of meningitis. (6) We did not model serious bacterial infections other than bacteremia or meningitis. (7) Our model did not include complications resulting from persistent bacteremia or from antibiotic therapy other than death.

Decision Tree
We created a decision tree to model the possible outcomes of fever without a source (Fig 1) by using DATA 4.0 software (TreeAge Software, Williamstown, MA). Branches representing therapeutic options emanate from decision nodes (squares); branches representing chance events (eg, presence or absence of bacteremia) emanate from chance nodes (circles). Each terminal branch (ending in a triangle) represents a possible outcome, ie, (1) death (treatment-related, from meningitis, or from sepsis), (2) survival with sequelae, or (3) survival without sequelae (no bacteremia or full recovery). The proportion of children ending up at each terminal branch was determined by the probability assigned to each chance occurrence leading up to that terminal branch. The baseline probabilities used in this model were derived from published studies and are shown in Table 1.


Figure 1
View larger version (21K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		FIGURE 1 Decision tree. Paths for Salmonella and N meningitidis are identical to that for S pneumonia.

 

View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		TABLE 1 Baseline Assumptions and Threshold Values for Sensitive Variables

 
If persistent fever was attributable to bacteremia, then it was assumed the child appeared ill and was admitted to the hospital. The child would then recover or develop sepsis or meningitis, which would resolve or end in death or sequelae.

This model included Streptococcus pneumoniae, Salmonella species, and Neisseria meningitidis. Although other pathogens are implicated in occult bacteremia (eg, group A Streptococcus, Moraxella catarrhalis, and Escherichia coli), they have been less common than S pneumoniae or Salmonella species and less invasive than meningococcus.16–18,21 Therefore, it is unlikely that including other organisms would change the outcomes of this decision tree significantly.

Probabilities
Baseline Values
The probabilities used at baseline in this analysis are presented in Table 1. For all probabilities, we included the highest and lowest reported values in our sensitivity analysis. Rationale for the choice of baseline values follows.

Prevalence of Bacteremia Among Febrile Children Without Toxicity
The most recent studies reported 1.5% to 2.5% prevalence for pneumococcus (before the pneumococcal vaccine),16–18 and our model assumed 2% at baseline. An earlier study reported a prevalence of 5.7%, but this was among only children who had been assigned randomly22; if nonassigned children were also included, then the prevalence was 3%. Reported prevalence rates for Salmonella range from 0.074% to 0.25%16,18,20,22 and those for N meningitidis range from 0.02% to 0.03%,17,18,20 and our model assumed 0.10% and 0.025%, respectively.

Likelihood of Spontaneous Resolution of Bacteremia
For pneumococcus, we used 90% from the meta-analysis by Rothrock et al23; other studies reported 81% to 94%.21,22 Because Salmonella and N meningitidis are much less common, the values are less definitive and range from 40% to 50% for Salmonella20,24 (we assumed 50%) and from 33% to 57% for N meningitidis25,26 (we assumed 33%).

Antibiotic Efficacy in Clearing Bacteremia
For pneumococcus, we used an efficacy of 95% at baseline, from the large prospective study by Jaffe et al.22 Although other studies using parenteral antibiotic therapy reported efficacy rates of up to 100%,17,21,27 the lower efficacy incorporates increasing antibiotic resistance of pneumococcus. Because Salmonella and N meningitidis bacteremia are less common, the ranges are broad, with reports of 50% to 100% for Salmonella17,20 (we used 50%) and 60% to 100% for N meningitidis, with oral and parenteral antibiotic therapy included17,20 (we used 80%).

Likelihood of Meningitis in Persistent Bacteremia
Because meningitis is a rare outcome, there are few data and very few studies report outcomes with parenteral antibiotic therapy.17,21,27 To facilitate analysis, this model simplified possible outcomes, as follows: a child's bacteremia would resolve or persist (risk affected by antibiotics); if bacteremia persisted, then the child might develop meningitis (risk unaffected by antibiotics). The probability that a child with persistent bacteremia would develop meningitis was derived from reports of children not receiving antibiotics. We assumed that 2.5% of children with pneumococcal bacteremia would develop meningitis, as presented in the meta-analysis by Rothrock et al23 (individual studies reported rates from 0% to 5.1%21,22,28). We found no reports of Salmonella bacteremia progressing to meningitis, with a range of 50% to 100% for N meningitidis25,26 (we assumed 50%).

Likelihood of Meningitis Leading to Death
We assumed 10%, the mortality rate reported by most studies for pneumococcus,28–31 with a range from 6.0%11 to 25.0%.21 Reports on N meningitidis range from 4%20 (used in this model) to 7% among children with clinically apparent infection.32

Likelihood of Meningitis Leading to Severe Sequelae
We used 9.7% for pneumococcus, derived from a large study that reported on moderate and severe sequelae.33 A separate study reporting 25.0% included all sequelae of any severity.31 For N meningitidis, we assumed 3% (reported range: 2–3%32,33).

Likelihood of Persistent Bacteremia (Sepsis) Leading to Death
Because this outcome is so rare, few reports exist and we assumed 0% for all bacteria. The only reported pneumococcal death resulting from bacteremia was in a child with undiagnosed congenital asplenia.16 One study of N meningitidis that reported a 14% sepsis mortality rate involved children with clinically apparent infections,32 not occult disease. Our sensitivity analyses included the range of reported values.

Sensitivity of WBC Count of ≥15000 Cells per mm3
For pneumococcus, we assumed 80% (studies report a range of 80–86%18,19). For Salmonella, we used 20% (studies report 10–22%17,24,34). For N meningitidis, we used 30% (studies report 22–32%35,36). Although an absolute neutrophil count of ≥10000 cells per mm3 is more sensitive for predicting N meningitides (sensitivity: 38%), it is less sensitive for pneumococcus (sensitivity: 76%).20 Because pneumococcus is more prevalent, we chose WBC count ≥15 000 as the better marker.

Specificity of WBC Count of ≥15000 Cells per mm3
Reports range from 69% to 77%.18,19 We assumed 69% for all bacteria.

Efficacy of Heptavalent Pneumococcal Vaccine
An initial evaluation of heptavalent pneumococcal vaccine reported 97.4% efficacy against pneumococcal serotypes7 contained in the vaccine. The study by Alpern et al37 of children with occult bacteremia found that 97.7% of pneumococcal disease was caused by vaccine serotypes. Therefore, we assumed a maximal vaccine efficacy of 95.2%. Other studies reported that vaccine serotypes cause only 75% to 92% of pneumococcal bacteremia,38–40 and early studies of the pneumococcal vaccine showed it to be only 89% effective when all serotypes were considered.7 However, those studies included overt and occult bacteremia38–40 and children with comorbidities (such as HIV infection and sickle cell disease) that placed them at risk for infection from less-invasive pathogens,38–40 as well as other types of invasive disease such as otitis media.7 Although these studies may not reflect serotype distribution in occult bacteremia, our model likely portrays the best possible scenario for vaccine efficacy.

Likelihood of Treatment-Related Death
Our estimate of 1 treatment-related death per 100000 treated children was based on studies of penicillin-related deaths conducted with young Army recruits.41,42 No large-scale prospective studies exist for cephalosporins, and the rates of treatment-related anaphylaxis and death are not known. Although rare, deaths resulting from cephalosporins have been reported.43

Utilities
In a previously published study, Bennett et al13 conducted computer-based interviews of 94 parents to determine their values for treatment and possible outcomes of occult bacteremia. Parents were first asked to rank, from best to worst, a list of outcomes and interventions related to occult bacteremia, including blood draw, hospitalization, sequelae from meningitis, and death (see Table 2 for full list). Parents then evaluated each outcome/intervention, comparing it with perfect health and the next worst outcome. For example, a parent is asked to compare a blood draw (to test and possibly to treat a child), which ostensibly guarantees perfect health, with the possibility of hospitalization. A parent who wants a 100% chance of perfect health and would accept a definite blood draw to avoid any chance of hospitalization would assign a utility of 1 to blood draw. In contrast, a parent who is willing to accept some risk of hospitalization if perfect health means getting stuck with a needle would have a utility for blood draw somewhere between 0 and 1. After the utility for blood draw is established, the parent would be asked to compare hospitalization (with perfect health) with a risk of meningitis with full recovery (the next worst outcome). Questions continue in this manner to include all outcomes, and results are scaled to adjust to a full range of utilities. Mean and median parental values (known as utilities) are shown in Table 2.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		TABLE 2 Parental Utilities as Published13

 
We assigned parental utilities from the study by Bennett et al13 to each outcome in the decision tree. For branches that included multiple interventions/outcomes (eg, venipuncture followed by meningitis, with subsequent hearing loss), the utilities for each intervention/outcome were multiplied. This assumed mutual independence of utilities, which we considered reasonable in this setting.44 Each of the 3 treatment strategies was assigned a value (termed its "expected utility") as follows: a hypothetical cohort of children undergoes the treatment, eg, treat; based on probabilities at each chance node under treat, a certain proportion of children end up at each terminal branch (outcome) of the treat option. The percentage of children ending up with each outcome is then multiplied by the utility for that outcome, giving the outcome's expected utility, and the sum of all expected utilities is the expected utility for treat.

We calculated expected utilities for the 3 treatment strategies by using each parent's set of utilities (90 of the 94 original sets of utilities were available for this analysis). The treatment strategy with the highest expected utility represents the strategy most compatible with parental preferences for interventions and outcomes.

Sensitivity Analysis
The decision tree provided the optimal treatment strategy for parents based on their expected utilities. However, because expected utilities depend on assumed probabilities, if assumptions change (eg, if the incidence of treatment-related death is higher or lower than the 1 case per 100000 patients we assumed at baseline), then the strategy most compatible with parental preferences might also change. Sensitivity analysis was the technique used to determine how sensitive outcomes are to changes in assumptions. To perform sensitivity analyses for all 90 parents, we grouped parents according to their optimal treatment strategy (based on expected utilities) at 0% vaccine efficacy and at 95.2% vaccine efficacy. We then calculated mean utilities for each of these groups (Table 3). Using the mean parental utilities for each group, we performed 1-way sensitivity analyses on all other variables, to determine whether changing any probability would change that group's preferred treatment strategy. All sensitivity analyses for clinical variables included the range of probabilities reported in the literature (Table 1).


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		TABLE 3 Group Mean Utilities

 
We also performed sensitivity analyses of parental utilities to identify parental utilities that, if changed slightly, might alter the preferred treatment strategy. For the group of parents preferring the observe strategy at a vaccine efficacy of 95.2%, we determined the threshold value for each of the 5 parental utilities, ie, the value for each utility at which either treat or test became the preferred treatment. We performed identical sensitivity analyses on the group mean utilities for parents whose preferences suggested treat and test at 95.2% vaccine efficacy. For each sensitivity analysis, we used the mean of the group's utilities; 4 utilities are kept constant at the group's mean while the threshold value (if any) is determined for 1 particular utility.


   RESULTS
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 METHODS
 RESULTS
DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 
Risk and Survival Analyses
Figure 2 depicts outcomes for a hypothetical cohort of 100000 non-toxic-appearing children who present with fever of ≥39°C without apparent source. At 0% efficacy (all other probabilities at baseline), the smallest number of children died with the treat strategy. Once the vaccine reached an efficacy of 47.1%, testing prevented more deaths than presumptive treatment. When vaccine efficacy was ≥94.1%, observation alone prevented the most deaths. Although the fewest children died with observation at high vaccine efficacy, this management strategy led to the most cases of meningitis and serious sequelae.


Figure 2
View larger version (18K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		FIGURE 2 Expected outcomes for a hypothetical cohort of 100000 children 3 to 36 months of age with fever without a source, at vaccine efficacies of 0% and 95.2%. Meng indicates meningitis.

 
In sensitivity analysis with a vaccine efficacy of 0%, treat (as the strategy with the best survival rate) was insensitive to changes in all variables except the risk of death resulting from treatment. If the risk of death was >1 in 59000, then testing saved more lives; if the risk was >1 in 8000, then observation saved more lives. At an assumed vaccine efficacy of 95.2%, the difference in survival rates among treatment strategies was very small (4 of 10 million children between the observe and test strategies), making this decision a "toss-up"45 and sensitive to changes in other variables. The optimal strategy was affected by rates of death resulting from meningitis and sepsis and by the sensitivity and specificity of the WBC count. If these variables took on values higher than our baseline assumptions but within the range of values reported in the literature, then fewer children died with the test and treat strategies than with the observe strategy. The results of sensitivity analyses on survival results are shown in Table 1, which displays the threshold values for all variables.

Parental Utilities
At a vaccine efficacy of 0%, 84% of parents' preferences favored the treat strategy and 16% the observe strategy. As the efficacy of the vaccine was increased, the treatment strategy most consistent with parental preferences proceeded from treat to test to observe (Fig 3). When vaccine efficacy reached 95.2%, 50% of parents' preferences favored observation, 42% favored testing, and 8% favored presumptive treatment. At 95.2% efficacy, parents in the observe group had the lowest utility for venipuncture, parents in the test group had low utilities for sequelae but high utilities for full recovery from meningitis, and parents in the treat group had low utilities for meningitis with or without sequelae (Fig 4).


Figure 3
View larger version (20K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		FIGURE 3 Preferred treatment strategy. The percentage of parents whose measured utilities suggest observation, treatment, or testing at various vaccine efficacies are shown.

 

Figure 4
View larger version (13K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		FIGURE 4 Group mean utilities with vaccine efficacy of 95.2%. Each line depicts the mean utilities for the group of parents whose utilities suggest the corresponding treatment option (observe, treat, or test) at a vaccine efficacy of 95.2%.

 
With the use of mean utilities for the group of parents whose preferences suggested treat at 95.2% efficacy, sensitivity analysis showed that the risk of treatment-related death would have to exceed 1 in 30000 for this set of parents to prefer test. No other probabilities had threshold values within the reported range.

At 95.2% efficacy, observe was a robust result for parents in the observe group and was insensitive to any single probability changing. For parents in the test group, test was a less robust result. This group's mean utilities would favor observe if the risk of treatment-related death were >1 in 70000 or treat if the risk were <1 in 190000. In addition, if the rate of death resulting from meningococcal sepsis were ≥7% or if the incidence of severe sequelae from meningococcal meningitis were >12.7%, then utilities would suggest treat.

Sensitivity analyses of parental utilities suggested that disutility for blood draw was the utility most strongly associated with treatment preference. For the group of parents whose preferences suggested treat at 95.2% efficacy, if the mean utility for blood draw was <0.99998 (equivalent to a willingness to take more than a 1 in 50000 chance of death to avoid venipuncture), then observe became the strategy with the highest expected utility. Conversely, for parents in the observe group, when there was no parental disutility for blood draw (utility of ≥0.999995), test became the preferred option. For parents in the test group, slightly lower parental utilities for hospitalization (<0.9892) or recovery (<0.9279) made treat the preferred option, whereas a minute decrease in utility for blood draw made observe the best choice.


   DISCUSSION
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
REFERENCES
 
As pneumococcal vaccine rates increase in the community and the incidence of occult pneumococcal bacteremia declines subsequently, the treatment strategy most compatible with survival shifts from treating all febrile children without toxicity presumptively with antibiotics to treating none (assuming that close follow-up monitoring is ensured). However, regardless of vaccine efficacy, parental preferences are divided among treatment strategies.

With this model's baseline assumptions, the risk of death for febrile 3- to 36-month-old children without a pneumococcal vaccine would be 1 in 76000 with the treat strategy and 1 in 18800 with the observe strategy. With a high-efficacy pneumococcal vaccine, the risk of death decreases to 1 in 93000 with treatment and 1 in 172000 with observation. To put these risks in perspective, the annual risk of death in the United States in this age group is 1 in 22000 from a motor vehicle accident and 1 in 27000 from drowning.46

Some parents are willing to accept a >1 in 200 chance of death to avoid venipuncture. Other parents would not accept a risk of death of even 1 in 10000000 to avoid venipuncture. These strikingly different numbers highlight the diverse approaches parents take to risk. Although it may be counterintuitive that parents would risk a 1 in 200 chance of death to avoid venipuncture, other studies of parental utilities, using visual analog scales, found that parents were even more averse to venipuncture.14,15 When a child looks well and the possibility of bacteremia is low but a needle stick is imminent, some parents will understandably opt for observation.

With a successful vaccine, new recommendations will likely be that we observe immunized febrile children.47,48 However, even with a highly efficacious vaccine, a subset of parents will prefer testing or treating presumptively. In addition, perceptions of risk affect physicians' practice styles,49,50 and physicians may be uncomfortable with observation alone, either to avoid the chagrin factor (missing a case of bacteremia) or from fear of a lawsuit.

This model, as with any decision analysis, is limited by the assumptions made in its creation. For example, we did not model antibiotic resistance, because we do not have measures of parental utilities for it and because of the temporal and regional variations in resistance. Including antibiotic resistance could make observe the best choice for most parents at lower vaccine efficacies. However, it is unlikely that including antibiotic resistance or other possible complications would lead to agreement among all parents because parents differ in their approaches to risk. In addition to the assumptions made in constructing the model, the accuracy of the probabilities used within it affect the results of the decision analysis. Although they were well researched and based on existing data, some of the probabilities are difficult to predict, such as the pneumococcal vaccine efficacy, or are controversial, such as the incidence of bacteremia and treatment-related death. The 2% probability of occult pneumococcal bacteremia assumed in this model reflects the low rates seen in 2 large studies.16,18 This prevalence is lower than that in previous studies,17,21,22 likely because Alpern et al16 and Lee and Harper18 included patients who were already receiving antibiotics at the time of blood culture, as well as those immunized recently. We preferred to include these children because recent immunization has not been shown to affect rates of bacteremia51 and the only adverse outcomes (death and meningitis) in the study by Alpern et al16 occurred among children who were receiving oral antibiotic therapy when they presented to the emergency department with fever.

In a recent decision analysis, Yamamoto12 assumed risk of treatment-related death to be between 0.001 and 0.0001, using the "occurrence rate of the negative consequences of treatment perceived by practicing physicians." Our model's baseline incidence of 0.00001 was derived from data for penicillin treatment-related deaths.41 No such large-scale prospective study has been performed for cephalosporins, and the rates of treatment-related anaphylaxis and death are not known. Although rare, deaths resulting from cephalosporins have been reported.43 There is no reason to think, however, that the risk is greater than that with penicillins.52

From a cost standpoint, the study by Lee et al11 suggests that, if the pneumococcal vaccine is highly effective, then observation is the most cost-effective strategy. However, the uncertainties regarding vaccine efficacy, the risks of treatment-related death, and other concerns (such as the possibility of nonvaccine pneumococcal serotypes increasing in prevalence53) highlight the difficulty of promoting a single treatment strategy as categorically best. Most parents accept observation; they do not wish to subject their child to pain to avoid unlikely complications. However, some parents are very risk-averse and prefer to test or to treat presumptively. These parents find venipuncture, in the context of the possible risks associated with bacteremia, much more acceptable than do parents who prefer observation. On the basis of the study by Lee et al,11 with a highly efficacious pneumococcal vaccine, the incremental cost of the test strategy would average approximately $60 per case over the cost of observation alone.

As vaccine efficacy improves, adverse outcomes of fever without source are rare, regardless of the treatment strategy chosen. This model, because it demonstrates that parents vary in their approach to risk, can aid practitioners in understanding parents' resistance to observation alone and can thus inform the physician/parent dialogue regarding treatment options.


   FOOTNOTES
 
Accepted Sep 26, 2005.

Address correspondence to Kristine A. Madsen, MD, MPH, University of California, San Francisco, Box 0503, 3333 California St, San Francisco, CA 94118. E-mail: madsenk{at}peds.ucsf.edu

This work was performed at the Department of Children's Health Services Research, Indiana University School of Medicine.

The authors have indicated they have no financial relationships relevant to this article to disclose.


   REFERENCES
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 

  1. Baraff LJ, Bass JW, Fleisher GR, et al. Practice guideline for the management of infants and children 0 to 36 months of age with fever without source. Pediatrics. 1993;92 :1 –12[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  2. Baraff LJ, Schriger DL, Bass JW, et al. Management of the young febrile child: commentary on practice guidelines. Pediatrics. 1997;100 :134 –136[Free Full Text]
  3. Bauchner H, Pelton SI. Management of the young febrile child: a continuing controversy. Pediatrics. 1997;100 :137 –138[Free Full Text]
  4. Kramer MS, Shapiro ED. Management of the young febrile child: a commentary on recent practice guidelines. Pediatrics. 1997;100 :128 –134[Free Full Text]
  5. Downs SM, McNutt RA, Margolis PA. Management of infants at risk for occult bacteremia: a decision analysis. J Pediatr. 1991;118 :11 –20[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  6. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Progress toward elimination of Haemophilus influenzae type b disease among infants and children: United States, 1987–1995. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 1996;45 :901 –906[Medline]
  7. Black S, Shinefield H, Fireman B, et al. Efficacy, safety and immunogenicity of heptavalent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine in children: Northern California Kaiser Permanente Vaccine Study Center Group. Pediatr Infect Dis J. 2000;19 :187 –195[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  8. Black SB, Shinefield HR, Hansen J, et al. Postlicensure evaluation of the effectiveness of seven valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine. Pediatr Infect Dis J. 2001;20 :1105 –1107[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  9. Halasa NB, Griffin MR, Zhu Y, et al. Decreased number of antibiotic prescriptions in office-based settings from 1993 to 1999 in children less than five years of age. Pediatr Infect Dis J. 2002;21 :1023 –1028[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  10. Perz JF, Craig AS, Coffey CS, et al. Changes in antibiotic prescribing for children after a community-wide campaign. JAMA. 2002;287 :3103 –3109[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  11. Lee GM, Fleisher GR, Harper MB. Management of febrile children in the age of the conjugate pneumococcal vaccine: a cost-effectiveness analysis. Pediatrics. 2001;108 :835 –844[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  12. Yamamoto LG. Revising the decision analysis for febrile children at risk for occult bacteremia in a future era of widespread pneumococcal immunization. Clin Pediatr. 2001;40 :583 –594[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  13. Bennett JE, Sumner W II, Downs SM, et al. Parents' utilities for outcomes of occult bacteremia. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2000;154 :43 –48[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  14. Kramer MS, Etezadiamoli J, Ciampi A, et al. Parents versus physicians values for clinical outcomes in young febrile children. Pediatrics. 1994;93 :697 –702[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  15. Kramer MS, MacLellan AM, Ciampi A, et al. Parents' vs physicians' utilities (values) for clinical outcomes in potentially bacteremic children. J Clin Epidemiol. 1990;43 :1319 –1325[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  16. Alpern ER, Alessandrini EA, Bell LM, et al. Occult bacteremia from a pediatric emergency department: current prevalence, time to detection, and outcome. Pediatrics. 2000;106 :505 –511[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  17. Fleisher GR, Rosenberg N, Vinci R, et al. Intramuscular versus oral antibiotic-therapy for the prevention of meningitis and other bacterial sequelae in young, febrile children at risk for occult bacteremia. J Pediatr. 1994;124 :504 –512[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  18. Lee GM, Harper MB. Risk of bacteremia for febrile young children in the post-Haemophilus influenzae type b era. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 1998;152 :624 –628[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  19. Kuppermann N, Fleisher GR, Jaffe DM. Predictors of occult pneumococcal bacteremia in young febrile children. Ann Emerg Med. 1998;31 :679 –687[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  20. Kuppermann N. Occult bacteremia in young febrile children. Pediatr Clin North Am. 1999;46 :1073[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  21. Harper MB, Bachur R, Fleisher GR. Effect of antibiotic therapy on the outcome of outpatients with unsuspected bacteremia. Pediatr Infect Dis J. 1995;14 :760 –767[Web of Science][Medline]
  22. Jaffe DM, Tanz RR, Davis AT, et al. Antibiotic administration to treat possible occult bacteremia in febrile children. N Engl J Med. 1987;317 :1175 –1180[Abstract]
  23. Rothrock SG, Harper MB, Green SM, et al. Do oral antibiotics prevent meningitis and serious bacterial infections in children with Streptococcus pneumoniae occult bacteremia? A meta-analysis. Pediatrics. 1997;99 :438 –444[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  24. Katz BZ, Shapiro ED. Predictors of persistently positive blood cultures in children with "occult" Salmonella bacteremia. Pediatr Infect Dis. 1986;5 :713 –714[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  25. Edwards KM, Jones LM, Stephens DS. Clinical features of mild systemic meningococcal disease with characterization of bacterial isolates. Clin Pediatr (Phila). 1985;24 :617 –620
  26. Sullivan TD, LaScolea LJ Jr. Neisseria meningitidis bacteremia in children: quantitation of bacteremia and spontaneous clinical recovery without antibiotic therapy. Pediatrics. 1987;80 :63 –67[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  27. Carroll WL, Farrell MK, Singer JI, et al. Treatment of occult bacteremia: a prospective randomized clinical trial. Pediatrics. 1983;72 :608 –612[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  28. Baraff LJ, Lee SI, Schriger DL. Outcomes of bacterial meningitis in children: a meta-analysis. Pediatr Infect Dis J. 1993;12 :389 –394[Web of Science][Medline]
  29. Jacobs NM, Lerdkachornsuk S, Metzger WI. Pneumococcal bacteremia in infants and children: a ten-year experience at the Cook County Hospital with special reference to the pneumococcal serotypes isolated. Pediatrics. 1979;64 :296 –300[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  30. Laxer RM, Marks MI. Pneumococcal meningitis in children. Am J Dis Child. 1977;131 :850 –853[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  31. Arditi M, Mason EO Jr, Bradley JS, et al. Three-year multicenter surveillance of pneumococcal meningitis in children: clinical characteristics, and outcome related to penicillin susceptibility and dexamethasone use. Pediatrics. 1998;102 :1087 –1097[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  32. Fellick JM, Sills JA, Marzouk O, et al. Neurodevelopmental outcome in meningococcal disease: a case-control study. Arch Dis Child. 2001;85 :6 –11[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  33. Bedford H, de Louvois J, Halket S, et al. Meningitis in infancy in England and Wales: follow up at age 5 years. BMJ. 2001;323 :533 –536[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  34. Meadow WL, Schneider H, Beem MO. Salmonella enteritidis bacteremia in childhood. J Infect Dis. 1985;152 :185 –189[Web of Science][Medline]
  35. Dashefsky B, Teele DW, Klein JO. Unsuspected meningococcemia. J Pediatr. 1983;102 :69 –72[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  36. Kuppermann N, Malley R, Inkelis SH, et al. Clinical and hematologic features do not reliably identify children with unsuspected meningococcal disease. Pediatrics. 1999;103 (2). Available at: www.pediatrics.org/cgi/content/full/103/2/e20
  37. Alpern ER, Alessandrini EA, McGowan KL, et al. Serotype prevalence of occult pneumococcal bacteremia. Pediatrics. 2001;108(2) . Available at: www.pediatrics.org/cgi/content/full/108/2/e23
  38. Hausdorff WP, Bryant J, Kloek C, et al. The contribution of specific pneumococcal serogroups to different disease manifestations: implications for conjugate vaccine formulation and use, part II. Clin Infect Dis. 2000;30 :122 –140[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  39. Hausdorff WP, Bryant J, Paradiso PR, et al. Which pneumococcal serogroups cause the most invasive disease: implications for conjugate vaccine formulation and use, part I. Clin Infect Dis. 2000;30 :100 –121[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  40. Babl FE, Pelton SI, Theodore S, et al. Constancy of distribution of serogroups of invasive pneumococcal isolates among children: experience during 4 decades. Clin Infect Dis. 2001;32 :1155 –1161[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  41. Rudolph AH, Price EV. Penicillin reactions among patients in venereal disease clinics: a national survey. JAMA. 1973;223 :499 –501[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  42. Tompkins RK, Burnes DC, Cable WE. An analysis of the cost-effectiveness of pharyngitis management and acute rheumatic fever prevention. Ann Intern Med. 1977;86 :481 –492[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  43. Pumphrey RS, Davis S. Under-reporting of antibiotic anaphylaxis may put patients at risk. Lancet. 1999;353 :1157 –1158[Web of Science][Medline]
  44. Keeney R, Raiffa H. Decisions With Multiple Objectives: Preferences and Tradeoffs. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons; 1976
  45. Kassirer JP, Pauker SG. The toss-up. N Engl J Med. 1981;305 :1467 –1469[Medline]
  46. National Center for Injury and Prevention. Web-Based Injury Statistics Query and Reporting System. Available at: www.cdc.gov/ncipc/wisqars. Accessed February 16, 2006
  47. American College of Emergency Physicians Clinical Policies Committee, American College of Emergency Physicians Clinical Policies Subcommittee on Pediatric Fever. Clinical policy for children younger than three years presenting to the emergency department with fever. Ann Emerg Med. 2003;42 :530 –545[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  48. Baraff LJ. Management of fever without source in infants and children. Ann Emerg Med. 2000;36 :602 –614[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  49. Glassman PA, Rolph JE, Petersen LP, et al. Physicians' personal malpractice experiences are not related to defensive clinical practices. J Health Polit Policy Law. 1996;21 :219 –241[Web of Science][Medline]
  50. Zimmerman RK, Schlesselman JJ, Mieczkowski TA, et al. Physician concerns about vaccine adverse effects and potential litigation. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 1998;152 :12 –19[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  51. Burstein JL, Fleisher GR. Does recent vaccination increase the risk of occult bacteremia? Pediatr Emerg Care. 1994;10 :138 –140[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  52. Romano A, Torres MJ, Namour F, et al. Immediate hypersensitivity to cephalosporins. Allergy. 2002;57(suppl 72) :52 –57
  53. Kaplan SL, Mason EO Jr, Wald ER, et al. Decrease of invasive pneumococcal infections in children among 8 children's hospitals in the United States after the introduction of the 7-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine. Pediatrics. 2004;113 :443 –449[Abstract/Free Full Text]
PEDIATRICS (ISSN 1098-4275). ©2006 by the American Academy of Pediatrics

Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Facebook Facebook   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 PediatricsHome page
B. W. Trautner, C. G. Macias, and A. C. Caviness
High Fever: In Reply.
Pediatrics, December 1, 2006; 118(6): 2604a - 2605.
[Full Text] [PDF]

This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow E-mail this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My File Cabinet
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via CrossRef
Right arrow Citing Articles via Web of Science (6)
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Madsen, K. A.
Right arrow Articles by Downs, S. M.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Madsen, K. A.
Right arrow Articles by Downs, S. M.
Related Collections
Right arrow Infectious Disease & Immunity
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Facebook   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?