Outpatient Parenteral Antimicrobial Therapy Among People Who Inject Drugs: A Review of the Literature

Current practices and challenges of outpatient parenteral antimicrobial therapy: a narrative review

Extended hospitalization for infection management increases inpatient care costs and the risk of healthcare-associated adverse events, including infections. The growing global demand for healthcare, the diminishing availability of hospital beds and an increasing patient preference for care within their own home have been the primary drivers of the expansion of hospital-in-the-home programmes. Such programmes include the use of IV antimicrobials in outpatient settings, known as outpatient parenteral antimicrobial therapy (OPAT). However, OPAT practices vary globally. This review article aims to describe the current OPAT practices and challenges worldwide. OPAT practice begins with patient evaluation and selection using eligibility criteria, which requires collaboration between the interdisciplinary OPAT team, patients and caregivers. Depending on care requirements, eligible patients may be enrolled to various models of care, receiving medication by healthcare professionals at outpatient infusion centres, hospital clinics, home visits or through self-administration. OPAT can be used for the management of many infections where an effective oral treatment option is lacking. Various classes of parenteral antimicrobials, including β-lactams, aminoglycosides, glycopeptides, fluoroquinolones and antifungals such as echinocandins, are used globally in OPAT practice. Despite its benefits, OPAT has numerous challenges, including complications from medication administration devices, antimicrobial side effects, monitoring requirements, antimicrobial instability, patient non-adherence, patient OPAT rejection, and challenges related to OPAT team structure and administration, all of which impact its outcome. A negative outcome could include unplanned hospital readmission. Future research should focus on mitigating these challenges to enable optimization of the OPAT service and thereby maximize the documented benefits for the healthcare system, patients and healthcare providers.

Home inotrope therapy in chronic stimulant-induced cardiomyopathy: a case series

Background

Patients with chronic stimulant-induced cardiomyopathy presenting with cardiogenic shock can be stabilized with conventional measures. However, their management post-stabilization has not been well described and poses unique challenges: (i) less chance of myocardial recovery compared to acute stimulant-induced cardiomyopathy, (ii) psychosocial barriers to left ventricular assist device (LVAD) and heart transplantation, and (iii) concern for use of peripherally inserted central catheter for home inotrope in those with a history of substance abuse.

Case summary

Three patients with chronic stimulant-induced cardiomyopathy were admitted with cardiogenic shock progressing to Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions stage D or E. They were stabilized with inotrope and/or biventricular mechanical circulatory support. Long-term home inotrope was used as either a bridge to LVAD, reverse remodelling, or stabilization.

Discussion

Home inotrope should be viewed as an option in chronic stimulant-induced cardiomyopathy on a case-by-case basis. It can buy time to allow for myocardial stabilization or recovery through goal-directed medical therapy and stimulant cessation. It can also serve as a 'psychosocial stress test' for future consideration of advanced heart failure therapies.

Safety and efficacy of outpatient parenteral antimicrobial therapy: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials

BACKGROUND

Outpatient parenteral antimicrobial therapy (OPAT) offers an alternative to inpatient (hospital bed-based) treatment of infections that require intravenous administration of antimicrobials. This meta-analysis aimed to summarise the evidence available from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) regarding the efficacy and safety of OPAT compared to inpatient parenteral antimicrobial therapy.

METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, Embase, PubMed, and Web of Sciences databases for RCTs comparing outpatient versus inpatient parenteral antimicrobial therapy. We included studies without restrictions on language or publication year. Eligibility was reviewed independently by two assessors, and data extraction was cross validated. We evaluated bias risk via the Cochrane tool and determined the evidence certainty using GRADE. Meta-analysis was conducted using a random effects model. The protocol of this review was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42023460389).

RESULT

Thirteen RCTs, involving 1,310 participants were included. We found no difference in mortality (Risk Ratio [RR] 0.54, 95% Confidence Interval [CI] 0.23 to 1.26; P = 0.93), treatment failure (RR 1.0, CI 0.59 to 1.72; P = 0.99), adverse reaction related to antimicrobials (RR 0.89, CI 0.69 to 1.15; P = 0.38), and administration device (RR 0.58, CI 0.17 to 1.98; P = 0.87) between outpatient and inpatient parenteral antimicrobial therapy. The overall body of evidence had a low level of certainty.

CONCLUSION

Existing evidence suggests OPAT is a safe and effective alternative to inpatient treatment. Further RCTs are warranted for a thorough comparison of inpatient and outpatient parenteral antimicrobial therapy with a high level of certainty.

How I manage severe bacterial infections in people who inject drugs

BACKGROUND

Injecting drug use is a risk factor for severe bacterial infection, but there is limited high-quality evidence to guide clinicians providing care to people who inject drugs. Management can be complicated by mistrust, stigma, and competing patient priorities.

OBJECTIVES

To review the management of severe infections in people who inject drugs, using an illustrative clinical scenario of complicated Staphylococcus aureus bloodstream infection.

SOURCES

The discussion is based on recent literature searches of relevant topics. Very few randomized clinical trials have focussed specifically on the management of severe bacterial infections among people who inject drugs. Most recommendations are, therefore, based on observational studies, extrapolation from other patient groups, and the experience and opinions of the authors.

CONTENT

We discuss evidence and options regarding the following management issues for severe bacterial infections among people who inject drugs: initial management of sepsis; indications for surgical management; assessment and management of substance dependence; approaches to antibiotic administration following clinical stability; opportunistic health promotion; and secondary prevention of bacterial infections. Throughout, we highlight the importance of harm reduction and strategies to optimize patient engagement in care through a patient-centred approach.

IMPLICATIONS

We advocate for a multi-disciplinary trauma-informed approach to the management of severe bacterial infection among people who inject drugs. We emphasize the need for pragmatic trials to inform management guidelines, including those that are co-designed with the community. In particular, research is needed to establish the comparative effectiveness, safety, and cost-effectiveness of inpatient intravenous antibiotics vs. early oral antibiotic switch, outpatient parenteral therapy, and long-acting lipoglycopeptide antibiotics in this scenario.

Update: The 2024 Infusion Therapy Standards of Practice

The Infusion Therapy Standards of Practice provide evidence-based recommendations for infusion and access device related care in any healthcare setting. Developed and published by the Infusion Nurses Society, the Standards have increased the frequency of the revision process from an every 5-year cycle to a 3-year cycle due to the growing base of literature and to deliver the most updated and current practice recommendations. This article provides an overview of the development process and a brief description of selected standards. Notably, a new standard entitled Home Infusion Therapy was added in this latest edition. The Standards are an essential reference that should be available to every home care agency that provides home infusion therapy.

PICC Your Poison: Resident Beliefs and Attitudes Regarding Discharge Parenteral Antibiotics for Patients Who Inject Drugs

Background

Serious injection-related infections (SIRIs) in people who inject drugs often lead to prolonged hospitalizations or premature discharges. This may be in part due to provider reluctance to place peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) for outpatient parenteral antibiotic therapy in this population. Because internal medicine (IM) residents are often frontline providers in academic centers, understanding their perspectives on SIRI care is important to improve outcomes.

Methods

We surveyed IM residents in a large urban multicenter hospital system about SIRI care with a novel case-based survey that elicited preferences, comfort, experience, and stigma. The survey was developed using expert review, cognitive interviewing, and pilot testing. Results are reported with descriptive statistics and linear regression.

Results

Of 116 respondents (response rate 34%), most (73%) were uncomfortable discharging a patient with active substance use home with a PICC, but comfortable (87%) with discharge to postacute facilities. Many (∼40%) endorsed high levels of concern for PICC misuse or secondary line infections, but larger numbers cited concerns about home environment (50%) or loss to follow-up (68%). While overall rates were low, higher stigma was associated with more concerns around PICC use (r = -0.3, P = .002). A majority (58%) believed hospital policies against PICC use in SIRI may act as a barrier to discharge, and 74% felt initiation of medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD) would increase their comfort discharging with a PICC.

Conclusions

Most IM residents endorsed high levels of concern about PICC use for SIRI, related to patient outcomes and perceived institutional barriers, but identified MOUD as a mitigating factor.

Cost evaluation of continuation of therapy with dalbavancin compared to standard-of-care antibiotics alone in hospitalized persons who inject drugs with severe gram-positive infections

PURPOSE

Persons who inject drugs (PWID) are at risk for severe gram-positive infections and may require prolonged hospitalization and intravenous (IV) antibiotic therapy. Dalbavancin (DBV) is a long-acting lipoglycopeptide that may reduce costs and provide effective treatment in this population.

METHODS

This was a retrospective review of PWID with severe gram-positive infections. Patients admitted from January 1, 2017, to November 1, 2019 (standard-of-care [SOC] group) and from November 15, 2019, to March 31, 2022 (DBV group) were included. The primary outcome was the total cost to the healthcare system. Secondary outcomes included hospital days saved and treatment failure.

RESULTS

A total of 87 patients were included (37 in the DBV group and 50 in the SOC group). Patients were a median of 34 years old and were predominantly Caucasian (82%). Staphylococcus aureus (82%) was the most common organism, and bacteremia (71%) was the most common type of infection. Compared to the SOC group, the DBV group would have had a median of 14 additional days of hospitalization if they had stayed to complete their therapy (P = 0.014). The median total cost to the healthcare system was significantly lower in the DBV group than in the SOC group ($31,698.00 vs $45,093.50; P = 0.035). The rate of treatment failure was similar between the groups (32.4% in the DBV group vs 36% in the SOC group; P = 0.729).

CONCLUSION

DBV is a cost-saving alternative to SOC IV antibiotics for severe gram-positive infections in PWID, with similar treatment outcomes. Larger prospective studies, including other patient populations, may demonstrate additional benefit.

Strategies to Improve Patient-Centered Care for Drug Use-Associated Infective Endocarditis: JACC Focus Seminar 2/4

Drug use-associated infective endocarditis (DUA-IE) is a major cause of illness and death for people with substance use disorder (SUD). Investigations to date have largely focused on advancing the care of patients with DUA-IE and included drug use disorder treatment, decisions about surgery, and choice of antibiotics during the period of hospitalization. Transitions from hospital to outpatient care are relatively unstudied and frequently a key factor of uncontrolled infection, continued substance use, and death. In this paper, we review the evidence supporting cross-disciplinary care for people with DUA-IE and highlight domains that need further clinician, institutional, and research investment in clinicians and institutions. We highlight best practices for treating people with DUA-IE, with a focus on addressing health disparities, meeting health-related social needs, and policy changes that can support care for people with DUA-IE in the hospital and when transitioning to the community.

The burden of skin and soft tissue, bone and joint infections in an Australian cohort of people who inject drugs

INTRODUCTION

There are currently limited data regarding the clinical and economic significance of skin and soft tissue infections (SSTI) and bone and joint infections in Australian people who inject drugs (PWID).

METHODS

Retrospective cohort study in adult PWID admitted to Monash Health, a large heath care network with six hospitals in Victoria, Australia. Inpatients were identified using administrative datasets and International Classification of Disease (ICD-10) coding for specific infection-related conditions. Cost analysis was based on mean ward, intensive care and hospital-in-the-home (HITH) lengths of stay. Spinal infections and endocarditis were excluded as part of previous studies.

RESULTS

A total of 185 PWID (61 female, 124 male, median age 37) meeting the study criteria were admitted to Monash Health between January 2010 and January 2021. Admitting diagnoses included 78 skin abscesses, 80 cellulitis, 17 septic arthritis, 4 osteomyelitis, 3 thrombophlebitis and 1 each of necrotising fasciitis, vasculitis and myositis. Pain (87.5%) and swelling (75.1%) were the most common presenting complaints. Opioids (67.4%) and methamphetamine (37.5%) were the most common primary drugs injected. Almost half (46.5%) of patients had concurrent active hepatitis C (HCV) infection on admission. Hepatitis B (HBV) and Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) were uncommon. The most significant causative organism was methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus (24.9%). In 40.0% (74/185) no organism was identified. Patients required a median acute hospital stay of 5 days (2-51 days). There were 15 patients admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) with median duration 2 days. PICC line insertion for antibiotics was required in 16.8% of patients, while 51.4% required surgical intervention. Median duration of both oral and IV antibiotic therapy was 11 days. Almost half (48.6%) of patients were enrolled in an opioid maintenance program on discharge. Average estimated expenditure was AUD $16, 528 per admission.

CONCLUSION

Skin and soft tissue and joint infections are a major cause of morbidity for PWID. Admission to hospital provides opportunistic involvement of addiction specialty services.

Effect of a Co-Located Bridging Recovery Initiative on Hospital Length of Stay Among Patients With Opioid Use Disorder: The BRIDGE Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance

Co-located bridge clinics aim to facilitate a timely transition to outpatient care for inpatients with opioid use disorder (OUD); however, their effect on hospital length of stay (LOS) and postdischarge outcomes remains unclear.

Objective

To evaluate the effect of a co-located bridge clinic on hospital LOS among inpatients with OUD.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This parallel-group randomized clinical trial recruited 335 adult inpatients with OUD seen by an addiction consultation service and without an existing outpatient clinician to provide medication for OUD (MOUD) between November 25, 2019, and September 28, 2021, at a tertiary care hospital affiliated with a large academic medical center and its bridge clinic.

Intervention

The bridge clinic included enhanced case management before and after hospital discharge, MOUD prescription, and referral to a co-located bridge clinic. Usual care included MOUD prescription and referrals to community health care professionals who provided MOUD.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary outcome was the index admission LOS. Secondary outcomes, assessed at 16 weeks, were linkage to health care professionals who provided MOUD, MOUD refills, same-center emergency department (ED) and hospital use, recurrent opioid use, quality of life (measured by the Schwartz Outcome Scale-10), overdose, mortality, and cost. Analysis was performed on an intent-to-treat basis.

Results

Of 335 participants recruited (167 randomized to the bridge clinic and 168 to usual care), the median age was 38.0 years (IQR, 31.9-45.7 years), and 194 (57.9%) were male. The median LOS did not differ between arms (adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 0.94 [95% CI, 0.65-1.37]; P = .74). At the 16-week follow-up, participants referred to the bridge clinic had fewer hospital-free days (AOR, 0.54 [95% CI, 0.32-0.92]), more readmissions (AOR, 2.17 [95% CI, 1.25-3.76]), and higher care costs (AOR, 2.25 [95% CI, 1.51-3.35]), with no differences in ED visits (AOR, 1.15 [95% CI, 0.68-1.94]) or deaths (AOR, 0.48 [95% CI, 0.08-2.72]) compared with those receiving usual care. Follow-up calls were completed for 88 participants (26.3%). Participants referred to the bridge clinic were more likely to receive linkage to health care professionals who provided MOUD (AOR, 2.37 [95% CI, 1.32-4.26]) and have more MOUD refills (AOR, 6.17 [95% CI, 3.69-10.30]) and less likely to experience an overdose (AOR, 0.11 [95% CI, 0.03-0.41]).

Conclusions and Relevance

This randomized clinical trial found that among inpatients with OUD, bridge clinic referrals did not improve hospital LOS. Referrals may improve outpatient metrics but with higher resource use and expenditure. Bending the cost curve may require broader community and regional partnerships.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04084392.

Dalbavancin Use in Persons Who Use Drugs May Increase Adherence Without Increasing Cost

Background: Dalbavancin (DAL) may obviate concerns regarding misuse of IV access in persons who use drugs (PWUD) completing treatment for infections in an outpatient setting. However, hesitancy to adopt its use exists due to the cost-prohibitive nature of DAL and perceived issues with insurance reimbursement. Our study looks to determine the financial impact of DAL use in actual, measured cost, and health care utilization, data as well as the effect on treatment completion rates. Methods: This is a retrospective cohort comparing cost information and treatment completion rates of patients who received DAL to a random sample of patients with Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia prior to the institutional availability of DAL. Results: From June 2020 to January 2022, 29 PWUD received DAL. Dalbavancin use resulted in the completion of intended duration in 19 patients (66%) compared with 11 (55%) without DAL. The contribution margin with DAL use was $7180 compared with $6655 without; this was not statistically significant (P = 0.47). Conclusion: Dalbavancin use in PWUD may increase treatment completion, with no statistically significant difference in contribution margins.

Contemporary Management of Staphylococcus aureus Bacteremia-Controversies in Clinical Practice

Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia (SAB) carries a high risk for excess morbidity and mortality. Despite its prevalence, significant practice variation continues to permeate clinical management of this syndrome. Since the publication of the 2011 Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) guidelines on management of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus infections, the field of SAB has evolved with the emergence of newer diagnostic strategies and therapeutic options. In this review, we seek to provide a comprehensive overview of the evaluation and management of SAB, with special focus on areas where the highest level of evidence is lacking to inform best practices.

Prevalence and incidence of emergency department presentations and hospital separations with injecting-related infections in a longitudinal cohort of people who inject drugs

People who inject drugs are at risk of acute bacterial and fungal injecting-related infections. There is evidence that incidence of hospitalizations for injecting-related infections are increasing in several countries, but little is known at an individual level. We aimed to examine injecting-related infections in a linked longitudinal cohort of people who inject drugs in Melbourne, Australia. A retrospective descriptive analysis was conducted to estimate the prevalence and incidence of injecting-related infections using administrative emergency department and hospital separation datasets linked to the SuperMIX cohort, from 2008 to 2018. Over the study period, 33% (95%CI: 31-36%) of participants presented to emergency department with any injecting-related infections and 27% (95%CI: 25-30%) were admitted to hospital. Of 1,044 emergency department presentations and 740 hospital separations, skin and soft tissue infections were most common, 88% and 76%, respectively. From 2008 to 2018, there was a substantial increase in emergency department presentations and hospital separations with any injecting-related infections, 48 to 135 per 1,000 person-years, and 18 to 102 per 1,000 person-years, respectively. The results emphasize that injecting-related infections are increasing, and that new models of care are needed to help prevent and facilitate early detection of superficial infection to avoid potentially life-threatening severe infections.

Real-World Application of Oral Therapy for Infective Endocarditis: A Multicenter, Retrospective, Cohort Study

BACKGROUND

We sought to compare the outcomes of patients treated with intravenous (IV)-only vs oral transitional antimicrobial therapy for infective endocarditis (IE) after implementing a new expected practice within the Los Angeles County Department of Health Services (LAC DHS).

METHODS

We conducted a multicentered, retrospective cohort study of adults with definite or possible IE treated with IV-only vs oral therapy at the 3 acute care public hospitals in the LAC DHS system between December 2018 and June 2022. The primary outcome was clinical success at 90 days, defined as being alive and without recurrence of bacteremia or treatment-emergent infectious complications.

RESULTS

We identified 257 patients with IE treated with IV-only (n = 211) or oral transitional (n = 46) therapy who met study inclusion criteria. Study arms were similar for many demographics; however, the IV cohort was older, had more aortic valve involvement, were hemodialysis patients, and had central venous catheters present. In contrast, the oral cohort had a higher percentage of IE caused by methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. There was no significant difference between the groups in clinical success at 90 days or last follow-up. There was no difference in recurrence of bacteremia or readmission rates. However, patients treated with oral therapy had significantly fewer adverse events. Multivariable regression adjustments did not find significant associations between any selected variables and clinical success across treatment groups.

CONCLUSIONS

These results demonstrate similar outcomes of real-world use of oral vs IV-only therapy for IE, in accord with prior randomized, controlled trials and meta-analyses.

Association of Early Opioid Withdrawal Treatment Strategy and Patient-Directed Discharge Among Hospitalized Patients with Opioid Use Disorder

BACKGROUND

Medical hospitalizations for people with opioid use disorder (OUD) frequently result in patient-directed discharges (PDD), often due to untreated pain and withdrawal.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the association between early opioid withdrawal management strategies and PDD.

DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study using three datasets representing 362 US hospitals.

PARTICIPANTS

Adult patients hospitalized between 2009 and 2015 with OUD (as identified using ICD-9-CM codes or inpatient buprenorphine administration) and no PDD on the day of admission.

INTERVENTIONS

Opioid withdrawal management strategies were classified based on day-of-admission receipt of any of the following treatments: (1) medications for OUD (MOUD) including methadone or buprenorphine, (2) other opioid analgesics, (3) adjunctive symptomatic medications without opioids (e.g., clonidine), and (4) no withdrawal treatment.

MAIN MEASURES

PDD was assessed as the main outcome and hospital length of stay as a secondary outcome.

KEY RESULTS

Of 6,715,286 hospitalizations, 127,158 (1.9%) patients had OUD and no PDD on the day of admission, of whom 7166 (5.6%) had a later PDD and 91,051 (71.6%) patients received some early opioid withdrawal treatment (22.3% MOUD; 43.4% opioid analgesics; 5.9% adjunctive medications). Compared to no withdrawal treatment, MOUD was associated with a lower risk of PDD (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 0.73, 95%CI 0.68-0.8, p < .001), adjunctive treatment alone was associated with higher risk (aOR = 1.13, 95%CI: 1.01-1.26, p = .031), and treatment with opioid analgesics alone was associated with similar risk (aOR 0.95, 95%CI: 0.89-1.02, p = .148). Among those with PDD, both MOUD (adjusted incidence rate ratio [aIRR] = 1.24, 95%CI: 1.17-1.3, p < .001) and opioid analgesic treatments (aIRR = 1.39, 95%CI: 1.34-1.45, p < .001) were associated with longer hospital stays.

CONCLUSIONS

MOUD was associated with decreased risk of PDD but was utilized in < 1 in 4 patients. Efforts are needed to ensure all patients with OUD have access to effective opioid withdrawal management to improve the likelihood they receive recommended hospital care.

Evaluation of Hepatitis C Treatment Outcomes Among Patients Enrolled in Outpatient Parenteral Antibiotic Therapy-Boston, Massachusetts, 2016-2021

In our Boston-based outpatient parenteral antibiotic therapy (OPAT) program between 2016 and 2021, we found that a low proportion of patients with active hepatitis C virus (HCV) were prescribed HCV treatment by their OPAT provider and few achieved sustained virologic response. Clinicians should consider concurrent HCV treatment during OPAT.

Perspectives on the Use of Outpatient Parenteral Antibiotic Therapy for People who Inject Drugs: Results From an Online Survey of Infectious Diseases Clinicians

Injection-related infections require prolonged antibiotic therapy. Outpatient parenteral antimicrobial therapy (OPAT) has been shown to be feasible for people who inject drugs (PWID) in some settings. We report a national survey on practice patterns and attitudes of infectious diseases clinicians in the United States regarding use of OPAT for PWID.

Epidemiology and Management of invasive infections among people who Use drugs (EMU): protocol for a prospective, multicentre cohort study

INTRODUCTION

People who inject drugs (PWID) are at risk of invasive infections such as bloodstream infections, endocarditis, osteomyelitis and septic arthritis. Such infections require prolonged antibiotic therapy, but there is limited evidence about the optimal care model to deliver to this population. The Epidemiology and Management of invasive infections among people who Use drugs (EMU) study aims to (1) describe the current burden, clinical spectrum, management and outcomes of invasive infections in PWID; (2) determine the impact of currently available models of care on completion of planned antimicrobials for PWID admitted to hospital with invasive infections and (3) determine postdischarge outcomes of PWID admitted with invasive infections at 30 and 90 days.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

EMU is a prospective multicentre cohort study of Australian public hospitals who provide care to PWIDs with invasive infections. All patients who have injected drugs in the previous six months and are admitted to a participating site for management of an invasive infection are eligible. EMU has two components: (1) EMU-Audit will collect information from medical records, including demographics, clinical presentation, management and outcomes; (2) EMU-Cohort will augment this with interviews at baseline, 30 and 90 days post-discharge, and data linkage examining readmission rates and mortality. The primary exposure is antimicrobial treatment modality, categorised as inpatient intravenous antimicrobials, outpatient antimicrobial therapy, early oral antibiotics or lipoglycopeptide. The primary outcome is confirmed completion of planned antimicrobials. We aim to recruit 146 participants over a 2-year period.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

EMU has been approved by the Alfred Hospital Human Research Ethics Committee (Project number 78815.) EMU-Audit will collect non-identifiable data with a waiver of consent. EMU-Cohort will collect identifiable data with informed consent. Findings will be presented at scientific conferences and disseminated by peer-review publications.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ACTRN12622001173785; Pre-results.

Outpatient Parenteral Antibiotic Therapy in Older Adults

Outpatient parenteral antimicrobial therapy (OPAT) for older adults is a complex process that involves multiple stakeholders and care coordination, but it is a useful and patient-centered tool with opportunities for the treatment of complicated infections, improved patient satisfaction, and reduced health-care costs. Older age should not be an exclusion for OPAT but rather prompt the OPAT provider to thoroughly evaluate candidacy and safety. Amid the on-going COVID-19 pandemic, innovations in OPAT are needed to shepherd OPAT care into a more patient-centered, thoughtful practice, whereas minimizing harm to older patients from unnecessary health-care exposure and thus health-care associated infections.

"I know my body better than anyone else": a qualitative study of perspectives of people with lived experience on antimicrobial treatment decisions for injection drug use-associated infections

Background

People who inject drugs (PWID) are at risk for severe bacterial and fungal infections including skin and soft tissue infections, endocarditis, and osteomyelitis. PWID have high rates of self-directed discharge and are often not offered outpatient antimicrobial therapies, despite studies showing their efficacy and safety in PWID. This study fills a gap in knowledge of patient and community partner perspectives on treatment and discharge decision making for injection drug use (IDU)-associated infections.

Methods

We conducted semi-structured interviews with patients (n = 10) hospitalized with IDU-associated infections and community partners (n = 6) in the Portland, Maine region. Community partners include peer support workers at syringe services programs (SSPs) and outreach specialists working with PWID. We transcribed and thematically analyzed interviews to explore perspectives on three domains: perspectives on long-term hospitalization, outpatient treatment options, and patient involvement in decision making.

Results

Participants noted that stigma and inadequate pain management created poor hospitalization experiences that contributed to self-directed discharge. On the other hand, patients reported hospitalization provided opportunities to connect to substance use disorder (SUD) treatment and protect them from outside substance use triggers. Many patients expressed interest in outpatient antimicrobial treatment options conditional upon perceived efficacy of the treatment, perceived ability to complete treatment, and available resources and social support. Finally, both patients and community partners emphasized the importance of autonomy and inclusion in medical decision making. Although some participants acknowledged their SUD, withdrawal symptoms, or undertreated pain might interfere with decision making, they felt these medical conditions were not justification for health care professionals withholding treatment options. They recommended open communication to build trust and reduce harms.

Conclusion

Patients with IDU-associated infections desire autonomy, respect, and patient-centered care from healthcare workers, and may self-discharge when needs or preferences are not met. Involving patients in treatment decisions and offering outpatient antimicrobial options may result in better outcomes. However, patient involvement in decision making may be complicated by many contextual factors unique to each patient, suggesting a need for shared decision making to meet the needs of hospitalized patients with IDU-associated infections.

From sea to shining IV: the current state of OPAT in the United States

First described in the United States, outpatient parenteral antibiotic therapy (OPAT) has become an indispensable part of treating serious infections. The proportion of infectious disease (ID) physicians utilizing a formal OPAT program has increased in recent years, but remains a minority. In addition, many ID physicians have indicated that OPAT programs have inadequate financial and administrative support. Given the medical complexity of patients receiving OPAT, as well as the challenges of communicating with OPAT providers across health care facilities and systems, OPAT programs ideally should involve a multidisciplinary team. The majority of patients in the United States receive OPAT either at home with assistance from home infusion companies and visiting nurses or at a skilled nursing facility (SNF), though the latter has been associated with lower rates of patient satisfaction. Current and future opportunities and challenges for OPAT programs include providing OPAT services for people who inject drugs (PWID) and incorporating the increasing use of oral antibiotics for infections historically treated with parenteral therapy. In this review, we will discuss the current practice patterns and patient experiences with OPAT in the United States, as well as identify future challenges and opportunities for OPAT programs.

Improving care for individuals with serious infections who inject drugs

Background

Hospitalizations for serious infections requiring long-term intravenous (IV) antimicrobials related to injection drug use have risen sharply over the last decade. At our rural tertiary care center, opportunities for treatment of underlying substance use disorders were often missed during these hospital admissions. Once medically stable, home IV antimicrobial therapy has not traditionally been offered to this patient population due to theoretical concerns about misuse of long-term IV catheters, leading to discharges with suboptimal treatment regimens, lengthy hospital stays, or care that is incongruent with patient goals and preferences.

Methods

A multidisciplinary group of clinicians and patients set out to redesign and improve care for this patient population through a health care innovation process, with a focus on increasing the proportion of patients who may be discharged on home IV therapy. Baseline assessment of current experience was established through retrospective chart review and extensive stakeholder analysis. The innovation process was based in design thinking and facilitated by a health care delivery improvement incubator.

Results

The components of the resulting intervention included early identification of hospitalized people who inject drugs with serious infections, a proactive psychiatry consultation service for addiction management for all patients, a multidisciplinary care conference to support decision making around treatment options for infection and substance use, and care coordination/navigation in the outpatient setting with a substance use peer recovery coach and infectious disease nurse for patients discharged on home IV antimicrobials. Patients discharged on home IV therapy followed routine outpatient parenteral antimicrobial therapy (OPAT) protocols and treatment protocols for addiction with their chosen provider.

Conclusion

An intervention developed through a design-thinking-based health care redesign process improved patient-centered care for people with serious infections who inject drugs.

Predictors of Nonadherence Among Patients With Infectious Complications of Substance Use Who Are Discharged on Parenteral Antimicrobial Therapy

Background

The management of invasive infections related to substance use disorder (SUD) needing parenteral antimicrobial therapy is challenging and may have poor treatment outcomes including nonadherence and lack of completion of parenteral antimicrobial therapy.

Methods

In this retrospective cohort of 201 patients with invasive infections related to SUD, we looked at frequency and determinants of unfavorable outcomes including nonadherence.

Results

Seventy-nine percent of patients with SUD-related infection completed parenteral antibiotic therapy in skilled nursing facilities. A total of 21.5% of patient episodes had documentation of nonadherence. Nonadherence was higher in patients with active injection drug use (IDU) (28.5% versus 15% in non IDU; adjusted odds ratio [OR] 2.36; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.1-5.5; P = .024), patients with active SUD in the prior year (24.5% vs 11%, P = .047), patients with use of more than 1 illicit substance (30.3% vs 17%, P = .031), as well as in people experiencing homelessness (32.8% vs 15.7% in stably housed, P = .005). In a multivariate model, nonadherence was significantly associated with IDU (OR, 2.38; 95% CI, 1.03-5.5) and homelessness (OR, 2.25; 95% CI, 1.01-4.8) Medication for opioid use disorder was prescribed at discharge in 68% of overall cohort and was not associated with improved outcomes for any of the above groups.

Conclusions

Nonadherence to parenteral antimicrobial therapy is high in the most vulnerable patients with unstable high-risk SUD and adverse social determinants of health.

OUD MEETS: A novel program to increase initiation of medications for opioid use disorder and improve outcomes for hospitalized patients being discharged to skilled nursing facilities

INTRODUCTION

Rates of hospitalizations from medical complications of opioid use disorder (OUD) are rising and many of these patients require post-acute care at skilled nursing facilities (SNFs). However, access to medication for OUD (MOUD) at SNFs remains low and patients with OUD have high rates of patient-directed discharge (PDD) and hospital readmissions.

METHODS

Opioid Use Disorder Medical Patient Engagement, Enrollment in treatment and Transitional Supports (OUD MEETS) program was a clinical pilot designed to increase initiation of buprenorphine and methadone for hospitalized patients with OUD requiring post-acute care. The program comprises a hospital partnership with two SNFs and two opioid treatment programs (OTPs) to improve recovery supports and access to MOUD for patients discharged to SNF.

RESULTS

Between August 2019 and August 2020, study staff approached 49 hospitalized patients with OUD for participation in OUD MEETS. Twenty-eight of 30 eligible patients enrolled in the program and initiated buprenorphine or methadone. Twenty-seven (96 %) enrolled patients successfully completed hospital treatment. Twenty-three (85 %) patients successfully completed medical treatment at SNF. Thirteen (46 %) enrolled patients had confirmed linkage to OUD treatment post-SNF. One patient left the hospital (4 %) and four patients left SNF (15 %) via PDD.

CONCLUSION

OUD MEETS demonstrates feasibility of hospital, SNF, and OTP partnership to integrate MOUD treatment into SNFs, with high rates of completion of medical treatment and low rates of PDD. Future research should find sustainable ways to improve access to MOUD at post-acute care facilities, including through regulatory and policy changes.

Self-injecting non-prescribed substances into vascular access devices: a case study of one health system's ongoing journey from clinical concern to practice and policy response

BACKGROUND

Overdose-associated deaths and morbidity related to substance use is a global public health emergency with devastating social and economic costs. Complications of substance use are most pronounced among people who inject drugs (PWID), particularly infections, resulting in increased risk of hospitalization. PWID often require intravenous access for medical treatments such as antibiotics; however, vascular access may be limited due to the impacts of long-term self-venipuncture. While vascular access devices including peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) allow reliable and sustained routes of administration for indicated therapies, the use of PICCs among PWID presents unique challenges. The incidence and risks associated with self-injecting non-prescribed substances into vascular access devices (SIVAD) is one such concern for which there is limited evidence and absence of formal practice guidance.

CASE PRESENTATION

We report the experience of a multidisciplinary team at a health organization in Vancouver, Canada, working to characterize the incidence, patient and healthcare provider perspectives, and overall impact of SIVAD. The case study of SIVAD begins with a patient's perspective, including patient rationale for SIVAD, understanding of risks and the varying responses given by healthcare providers following disclosure of SIVAD. Using the limited literature available on the subject, we summarize the intersection of SIVAD and substance use and outline known and anticipated health risks. The case study is further contextualized by experience from a Vancouver in-hospital Overdose Prevention Site (OPS), where 37% of all individual visits involve SIVAD. The case study concludes by describing the systematic process by which local clinical guidance for SIVAD harm reduction was developed with stakeholder engagement, medical ethics consultation, expert consensus guideline development and implementation with staff education and planned research evaluation.

CONCLUSION

SIVAD is encountered with enough frequency in an urban healthcare setting in Vancouver, Canada, to warrant an organizational approach. This case study aims to enhance appreciation of SIVAD as a common and complex clinical issue with anticipated health risks. The authors conclude that using a harm reduction lens for SIVAD policy and research can provide benefit to clinicians and patients by offering a clear and a consistent healthcare response to this common issue.

Acute injection-related infections requiring hospitalisation among people who inject drugs: Clinical features, microbiology and management

INTRODUCTION

People who inject drugs are at risk of hospitalisation with injection-related infections (IRI). We audited the clinical features, microbiology and management of IRI at a tertiary service in Melbourne to describe the burden and identify quality improvement opportunities.

METHODS

We performed retrospective review of IRI admissions from January 2017 to April 2019. We extracted admissions where ICD-10 codes or triage text suggested injecting drug use, and the diagnosis suggested IRI. We reviewed these for eligibility and extracted data using a standardised form. We performed mixed-effects logistic regression to determine predictors of unplanned discharge.

RESULTS

From 574 extracted candidate admissions, 226 were eligible, representing 178 patients. Median age was 41 years (interquartile range 36-47), 66% (117/178) male and 49% (111/226) had unstable housing. Over 50% (96/178) had a psychiatric diagnosis and 35% (62/178) were on opioid agonist therapy (OAT) on admission. Skin and soft tissue infection was the most common IRI (119/205, 58%), followed by bacteraemia (36/205, 18%) and endocarditis (26/205, 13%). Management included addictions review (143/226, 63%), blood-borne virus screening (115/226, 51%), surgery (77/226, 34%) and OAT commencement (68/226, 30%). Aggression events (54/226, 15%) and unplanned discharge (69/226, 30%) complicated some admissions. Opioid use without OAT was associated with almost 3-fold increased odds of unplanned discharge compared to no opioid use (odds ratio 2.90, 95% confidence interval 1.23, 6.85, p = 0.015).

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

Comorbidities associated with IRI may be amenable to opportunistic intervention during hospitalisation. Further research is needed to develop optimal models of care for this vulnerable patient group.

"They Just Assume That We're All Going to Do the Wrong Thing With It. It's Just Not True": Stakeholder Perspectives About Peripherally Inserted Central Catheters in People Who Inject Drugs

Background

In the absence of adequate harm reduction opportunities, people who inject drugs (PWID) are at increased risk for serious infections. Infectious diseases guidelines recommend extended periods of intravenous antibiotic treatment through peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs), but PWID are often deemed unsuitable for this treatment. We conducted semi-structured interviews and focus groups to understand the perspectives and opinions of patients and clinicians on the use of PICCs for PWID.

Methods

We approached patients and clinicians (doctors, nurses, PICC nurses, social workers, and case workers) involved in patient care at Tufts Medical Center (Boston, Massachusetts) between August 2019 and April 2020 for semi-structured interviews and focus groups.

Results

Eleven of 14 (79%) patients agreed to participate in an in-depth interview, and 5 role-specific clinician focus groups (1 group consisting of infectious diseases, internal medicine, and addiction psychiatry doctors, 2 separate groups of floor nurses, 1 group of PICC nurses, and 1 group of social workers) were completed. Emergent themes included the overall agreement that PICCs improve healthcare, patients' feelings that their stage of recovery from addiction was not taken into consideration, and clinicians' anecdotal negative experiences driving decisions on PICCs.

Conclusions

When analyzed together, the experiences of PWID and clinicians shed light on ways the healthcare system can improve the quality of care for PWID hospitalized for infections. Further research is needed to develop a system of person-centered care for PWID that meets the specific needs of patients and improves the relationship between them and the healthcare system.

Health care professional perspectives on discharging hospitalized patients with injection drug use-associated infections

Background:

Patients with injection drug use (IDU)-associated infections traditionally experience prolonged hospitalizations, which often result in negative experiences and bad outcomes. Harm reduction approaches that value patient autonomy and shared decision-making regarding outpatient treatment options may improve outcomes. We sought to identify health care professionals (HCPs) perspectives on the barriers to offering four different options to hospitalized people who use drugs (PWUD): long-term hospitalization, oral antibiotics, long-acting antibiotics at an infusion center, and outpatient parenteral antibiotics.

Methods:

We recruited HCPs (n = 19) from a single tertiary care center in Portland, Maine. We interviewed HCPs involved with discharge decision-making and other HCPs involved in the specialized care of PWUD. Semi-structured interviews elicited lead HCP values, preferences, and concerns about presenting outpatient antimicrobial treatment options to PWUD, while support HCPs provided contextual information. We used the iterative categorization approach to code and thematically analyze transcripts.

Results:

HCPs were willing to present outpatient treatment options for patients with IDU-associated infections, yet several factors contributed to reluctance. First, insufficient resources, such as transportation, may make these options impractical. However, HCPs may be unaware of existing community resources or viable treatment options. They also may believe the hospital protects patients, and that discharging patients into the community exposes them to structural harms. Some HCPs are concerned that patients with substance use disorder will not make ‘good’ decisions regarding outpatient antimicrobial options. Finally, there is uncertainty about how responsibility for offering outpatient treatment is shared across changing care teams.

Conclusion:

HCPs perceive many barriers to offering outpatient care for people with IDU-associated infections, but with appropriate interventions to address their concerns, may be open to considering more options. This study provides important insights and contextual information that can help inform specific harm reduction interventions aimed at improving care of people with IDU-associated infections.

Management of Infective Endocarditis in People Who Inject Drugs: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association

BACKGROUND

The American Heart Association has sponsored both guidelines and scientific statements that address the diagnosis, management, and prevention of infective endocarditis. As a result of the unprecedented and increasing incidence of infective endocarditis cases among people who inject drugs, the American Heart Association sponsored this original scientific statement. It provides a more in-depth focus on the management of infective endocarditis among this unique population than what has been provided in prior American Heart Association infective endocarditis-related documents.

METHODS

A writing group was named and consisted of recognized experts in the fields of infectious diseases, cardiology, addiction medicine, and cardiovascular surgery in October 2021. A literature search was conducted in Embase on November 19, 2021, and multiple terms were used, with 1345 English-language articles identified after removal of duplicates.

CONCLUSIONS

Management of infective endocarditis in people who inject drugs is complex and requires a unique approach in all aspects of care. Clinicians must appreciate that it requires involvement of a variety of specialists and that consultation by addiction-trained clinicians is as important as that of more traditional members of the endocarditis team to improve infective endocarditis outcomes. Preventive measures are critical in people who inject drugs and are cured of an initial bout of infective endocarditis because they remain at extremely high risk for subsequent bouts of infective endocarditis, regardless of whether injection drug use is continued.

Harm reduction in the hospital: An overdose prevention site (OPS) at a Canadian hospital

BACKGROUND

Substance use management in hospitals can be challenging. In response, a Canadian hospital opened an overdose prevention site (OPS) where community members and hospital inpatients can inject pre-obtained illicit drugs under supervision. This study aims to: (1) describe program utilization patterns; (2) characterize OPS visits; and (3) evaluate overdose events and related outcomes.

METHODS

A retrospective chart review was completed at one hospital in Vancouver, Canada. All community members and hospital inpatients who visited the OPS between May 2018 and July 2019 were included. Client measures included: hospital inpatient status, use of intravenous access line for drug injection, and substances used. Program measures included: number of visits (daily/monthly), overdose (fatal/non-fatal) events and overdose-related outcomes.

RESULTS

Overall, 11,673 OPS visits were recorded. Monthly visits increased from 306 to 1198 between May 2018 and July 2019 respectively. On average, 26 visits occurred daily. Among all visits, 20% reported being a hospital inpatient, and 5% reported using a hospital intravenous access line for drug injection. Opioids (56%) and stimulants (24%) were the most common substances used. Overall 39 overdose events occurred - 82% required naloxone reversal, 28% required transfer to the hospital's emergency department and none were fatal. Overdose events were more common among hospital inpatients compared to community clients (6.6 vs 2.2 per 1000 visits respectively; p value = 0.046).

CONCLUSIONS

This unique OPS is an example of a hospital-based harm reduction initiative. Use of the site increased over time among both groups with no fatal overdose events occurring.

Opioid Use Disorder Treatment Initiation and Continuation: a Qualitative Study of Patients Who Received Addiction Consultation and Hospital-Based Providers

BACKGROUND

Hospitalizations related to opioid use disorder (OUD) are rising. Addiction consultation services (ACS) increasingly provide OUD treatment to hospitalized patients, but barriers to initiating and continuing medications for OUD remain. We examined facilitators and barriers to hospital-based OUD treatment initiation and continuation from the perspective of patients and healthcare workers in the context of an ACS.

METHODS

In this qualitative study, we sought input using key informant interviews and focus groups from patients who received care from an ACS during their hospitalization and from hospitalists, pharmacists, social workers, and nurses who work in the hospital setting. A multidisciplinary team coded and analyzed transcripts using a directed content analysis.

FINDINGS

We conducted 20 key informant interviews with patients, nine of whom were interviewed following hospital discharge and 12 of whom were interviewed during a rehospitalization. We completed six focus groups and eight key informant interviews with hospitalists and hospital-based medical staff (n = 62). Emergent themes related to hospital-based OUD treatment included the following: the benefit of an ACS to facilitate OUD treatment engagement; expanded use of methadone or buprenorphine to treat opioid withdrawal; the triad of hospitalization, self-efficacy, and easily accessible, patient-centered treatment motivates change in opioid use; adequate pain control and stabilization of mental health conditions among patients with OUD contributed to opioid agonist therapy (OAT) continuation; and stable housing and social support are prerequisites for OAT uptake and continuation.

CONCLUSION

Modifiable factors which facilitate hospital-based OUD treatment initiation and continuation include availability of in-hospital addiction expertise to offer easily accessible, patient-centered treatment and the use of methadone or buprenorphine to manage opioid withdrawal. Further research and public policy efforts are urgently needed to address reported barriers to hospital-based OUD treatment initiation and continuation which include unstable housing, poorly controlled chronic medical and mental illness, and lack of social support.

Review of management priorities for invasive infections in people who inject drugs: highlighting the need for patient-centred multidisciplinary care

There has been a global increase in the burden of invasive infections in people who inject drugs (PWID). It is essential that patient-centred multidisciplinary care is provided in the management of these infections to engage PWID in care and deliver evidence-based management and preventive strategies. The multidisciplinary team should include infectious diseases, addictions medicine (inclusive of alcohol and other drug services), surgery, psychiatry, pain specialists, pharmacy, nursing staff, social work and peer support workers (where available) to help address the comorbid conditions that may have contributed to the patient's presentation. PWID have a range of antimicrobial delivery options that can be tailored in a patient-centred manner and thus are not limited to prolonged hospital admissions to receive intravenous antimicrobials for invasive infections. These options include discharge with outpatient parenteral antimicrobial therapy, long-acting lipoglycopeptides (dalbavancin and oritavancin) and early oral antimicrobials. Open and respectful discussion with PWID including around harm reduction strategies may decrease the risk of repeat presentations with injecting-related harms.

Management of opioid withdrawal and initiation of medications for opioid use disorder in the hospital setting

Opioid use disorder (OUD) has become increasingly prevalent among hospitalized patients in the United States and globally. As its prevalence increases, this provides a valuable opportunity for clinicians in the hospital setting to engage and initiate management and treatment of OUD. This article aims to provide hospitalists and other clinicians working in the hospital with a narrative review of the management of opioid withdrawal and the initiation of medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD) in the hospital and provide an update on a novel low dose approach to buprenorphine induction (also commonly referred to as the "microinduction" method). Management can initially include treating withdrawal symptoms with opioids as well as with a combination of non-opioid medications such as alpha 2 agonists, benzodiazepines, and/or antiemetics as needed. Besides simply managing withdrawal symptoms, clinicians can further improve the care of patients with OUD through initiating maintenance treatment with MOUD, ideally with opioids used in the initial management of withdrawal. Opioid detoxification is an inferior method of primary treatment and is associated with relapse and poor outcomes. In contrast, treatment with MOUD using methadone or buprenorphine is associated with superior treatment outcomes and reduced relapse compared to detoxification alone. Treatment with MOUD using methadone or buprenorphine can be successfully used in the hospital setting. A novel low dose approach to buprenorphine induction may be useful in minimizing precipitated withdrawals in patients who have recently used or received opioids, which makes this an attractive option in the hospital where patients are frequently on opioids for acutely painful conditions. The hospital setting also provides a valuable opportunity for clinicians to address harm reduction in patients with OUD. Finally, clinicians can improve the long-term outcomes of patients with OUD by ensuring a smooth discharge with adequate and timely follow-up.

Dealing with the epidemic of endocarditis in people who inject drugs

North America is facing an opioid epidemic and growing illicit drug supply, contributing to growing numbers of injection drug use-related infective endocarditis (IDU-IE). Patients with IDU-IE have high early and late mortality. Patients with IDU-IE more commonly present with right-sided IE compared to those with non-IDU-IE and a majority are a result of S. aureus. While most patients can be successfully managed with intravenous antibiotic treatment, surgery is often required in part related to high relapse rates, potential treatment biases, and more aggressive pathophysiology in some. Multidisciplinary management as endocarditis teams, including not only cardiologists and cardiac surgeons but also infectious disease specialists, drug addiction experts, social workers, neurologists and/or neurosurgeons, is essential to best manage substance use disorder and facilitate safe discharge to home and society. Structural and population-level interventions, such as harm reduction programs, are necessary to reduce IDU-IE relapse rates in the community and other IDU-related health concerns such as overdoses. In this review, we describe the pathophysiological, clinical, surgical, social, and ethical characteristics of IDU-IE and the management thereof. We present the most recent clinical guidelines for this condition and discuss existing gaps in knowledge to guide future research, practice changes, and policy interventions.

Outcomes of Orthopaedic Infections in Recreational Intravenous Drug Users Requiring Long-term Antibiotic Treatment

Patients who participate in recreational injection drug use (RIVDU) have an increased risk of orthopaedic infections requiring prolonged treatment with intravenous antibiotics. This study reviews clinical outcomes and complications in RIVDU and have orthopaedic infections requiring long term antibiotic therapy (>4 weeks) and compares these outcomes to non-RIVDU patients. In this retrospective review, patients were divided into cohorts based on RIVDU history; the RIVDU cohort was further divided into subcohorts based on treatment location. Cohorts and subcohorts were compared to evaluate clinical outcomes. Between the two main cohorts, there was a statistically significant difference in treatment compliance (P = 0.0012) and no statistically significant differences for infection resolution at 6- or 12-month follow-up, hospital readmission, or mortality. At the 6-month follow-up, RIVDU patients who remained inpatient had 100% resolution of infection, which was significantly better than the resolution of all other cohorts (P = 0.0019). No differences were observed between the remaining subcohorts for resolution of infection by 12 months, catheter complications, or loss to follow-up. Our findings demonstrate an increased rate of failure in outpatient parenteral antibiotic therapy in RIVDU patients, and this population has better clinical outcomes when they remain inpatient for the duration of treatment.

Diagnosis and Management of Infective Endocarditis in People Who Inject Drugs: JACC State-of-the-Art Review

The incidence of injection drug use-associated infective endocarditis has been increasing rapidly over the last decade. Patients with drug use-associated infective endocarditis present an increasingly common clinical challenge with poor long-term outcomes and high reinfection and readmission rates. Their care raises issues unique to this population, including antibiotic selection and administration, indications for and ethical issues surrounding surgical intervention, and importantly management of the underlying substance use disorder to minimize the risk of reinfection. Successful treatment of these patients requires a broad understanding of these concerns. A multidisciplinary, collaborative approach providing a holistic approach to treating both the acute infection along with effectively addressing substance use disorder is needed to improve short-term and longer-term outcomes.

A Bundle of the Top 10 OPAT Publications in 2021

As outpatient parenteral antimicrobial therapy (OPAT) becomes more common, it may be difficult to stay current with recent related publications. A group of multidisciplinary OPAT clinicians reviewed and ranked all OPAT publications published in 2021. This article provides a high-level summary of the OPAT manuscripts that were voted the “top 10” publications of 2021.

Creation of a Multidisciplinary Drug Use Endocarditis Treatment (DUET) Team: Initial Patient Characteristics, Outcomes, and Future Directions

Background

Consensus guidelines recommend multidisciplinary models to manage infective endocarditis, yet often do not address the unique challenges of treating people with drug use–associated infective endocarditis (DUA-IE). Our center is among the first to convene a Drug Use Endocarditis Treatment (DUET) team composed of specialists from Infectious Disease, Cardiothoracic Surgery, Cardiology, and Addiction Medicine.

Methods

The objective of this study was to describe the demographics, infectious characteristics, and clinical outcomes of the first cohort of patients cared for by the DUET team. This was a retrospective chart review of patients referred to the DUET team between August 2018 and May 2020 with DUA-IE.

Results

Fifty-seven patients were presented to the DUET team between August 2018 and May 2020. The cohort was young, with a median age of 35, and injected primarily opioids (82.5% heroin/fentanyl), cocaine (52.6%), and methamphetamine (15.8%). Overall, 14 individuals (24.6%) received cardiac surgery, and the remainder (75.4%) were managed with antimicrobial therapy alone. Nearly 65% of individuals were discharged on medication for opioid use disorder, though less than half (36.8%) were discharged with naloxone and only 1 patient was initiated on HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis. Overall, the cohort had a high rate of readmission (42.1%) within 90 days of discharge.

Conclusions

Multidisciplinary care models such as the DUET team can help integrate nuanced decision-making from numerous subspecialties. They can also increase the uptake of addiction medicine and harm reduction tools, but further efforts are needed to integrate harm reduction strategies and improve follow-up in future iterations of the DUET team model.

Can I Safely Discharge a Patient with a Substance Use Disorder Home with a Peripherally Inserted Central Catheter?

Discharging Patients Who Use Drugs Home with PICCAmid the U.S. overdose crisis, serious injection-related infections are rising. Determining where a patient goes after hospitalization can be a challenge due to the need for prolonged parenteral antibiotics, prompting a common clinical question: Can I safely discharge a patient with a substance use disorder home with a peripherally inserted central catheter?

Simulated Cost-effectiveness and Long-term Clinical Outcomes of Addiction Care and Antibiotic Therapy Strategies for Patients With Injection Drug Use-Associated Infective Endocarditis

IMPORTANCE

Emerging evidence supports the use of outpatient parenteral antimicrobial therapy (OPAT) and, in many cases, partial oral antibiotic therapy for the treatment of injection drug use-associated infective endocarditis (IDU-IE); however, long-term outcomes and cost-effectiveness remain unknown.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the added value of inpatient addiction care services and the cost-effectiveness and clinical outcomes of alternative antibiotic treatment strategies for patients with IDU-IE.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This decision analytical modeling study used a validated microsimulation model to compare antibiotic treatment strategies for patients with IDU-IE. Model inputs were derived from clinical trials and observational cohort studies. The model included all patients with injection opioid drug use (N = 5 million) in the US who were eligible to receive OPAT either in the home or at a postacute care facility. Costs were annually discounted at 3%. Cost-effectiveness was evaluated from a health care sector perspective over a lifetime starting in 2020. Probabilistic sensitivity, scenario, and threshold analyses were performed to address uncertainty.

INTERVENTIONS

The model simulated 4 treatment strategies: (1) 4 to 6 weeks of inpatient intravenous (IV) antibiotic therapy along with opioid detoxification (usual care strategy), (2) 4 to 6 weeks of inpatient IV antibiotic therapy along with inpatient addiction care services that offered medication for opioid use disorder (usual care/addiction care strategy), (3) 3 weeks of inpatient IV antibiotic therapy along with addiction care services followed by OPAT (OPAT strategy), and (4) 3 weeks of inpatient IV antibiotic therapy along with addiction care services followed by partial oral antibiotic therapy (partial oral antibiotic strategy).

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Mean percentage of patients completing treatment for IDU-IE, deaths associated with IDU-IE, life expectancy (measured in life-years [LYs]), mean cost per person, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs).

RESULTS

All modeled scenarios were initialized with 5 million individuals (mean age, 42 years; range, 18-64 years; 70% male) who had a history of injection opioid drug use. The usual care strategy resulted in 18.63 LYs at a cost of $416 570 per person, with 77.6% of hospitalized patients completing treatment. Life expectancy was extended by each alternative strategy. The partial oral antibiotic strategy yielded the highest treatment completion rate (80.3%) compared with the OPAT strategy (78.8%) and the usual care/addiction care strategy (77.6%). The OPAT strategy was the least expensive at $412 150 per person. Compared with the OPAT strategy, the partial oral antibiotic strategy had an ICER of $163 370 per LY. Increasing IDU-IE treatment uptake and decreasing treatment discontinuation made the partial oral antibiotic strategy more cost-effective compared with the OPAT strategy. When assuming that all patients with IDU-IE were eligible to receive partial oral antibiotic therapy, the strategy was cost-saving and resulted in 0.0247 additional discounted LYs. When treatment discontinuation was decreased from 3.30% to 2.65% per week, the partial oral antibiotic strategy was cost-effective compared with OPAT at the $100 000 per LY threshold.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In this decision analytical modeling study, incorporation of OPAT or partial oral antibiotic approaches along with addiction care services for the treatment of patients with IDU-IE was associated with increases in the number of people completing treatment, decreases in mortality, and savings in cost compared with the usual care strategy of providing inpatient IV antibiotic therapy alone.

Comparative 1-Year Outcomes of Invasive Staphylococcus aureus Infections Among Persons With and Without Drug Use: An Observational Cohort Study

BACKGROUND

Persons who use drugs (PWUD) face substantial risk of Staphylococcus aureus infections. Limited data exist describing clinical and substance use characteristics of PWUD with invasive S. aureus infections or comparing treatment and mortality outcomes in PWUD vs non-PWUD. These are needed to inform optimal care for this marginalized population.

METHODS

We identified adults hospitalized from 2013 to 2018 at 2 medical centers in San Francisco with S. aureus bacteremia or International Classification of Diseases-coded diagnoses of endocarditis, epidural abscess, or vertebral osteomyelitis with compatible culture. In addition to demographic and clinical characteristic comparison, we constructed multivariate Cox proportional hazards models for 1-year infection-related readmission and mortality, adjusted for age, race/ethnicity, housing, comorbidities, and methicillin-resistant S. aureus (MRSA).

RESULTS

Of 963 hospitalizations for S. aureus infections in 946 patients, 372 of 963 (39%) occurred in PWUD. Among PWUD, heroin (198/372 [53%]) and methamphetamine use (185/372 [50%]) were common. Among 214 individuals using opioids, 98 of 214 (46%) did not receive methadone or buprenorphine. PWUD had lower antibiotic completion than non-PWUD (70% vs 87%; P < .001). While drug use was not associated with increased mortality, 1-year readmission for ongoing or recurrent infection was double in PWUD vs non-PWUD (28% vs 14%; adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 2.0 [95% confidence interval {CI}: 1.3-2.9]). MRSA was independently associated with 1-year readmission for infection (aHR, 1.5 [95% CI: 1.1-2.2]).

CONCLUSIONS

Compared to non-PWUD, PWUD with invasive S. aureus infections had lower rates of antibiotic completion and twice the risk of infection persistence/recurrence at 1 year. Among PWUD, both opioid and stimulant use were common. Models for combined treatment of substance use disorders and infections, particularly MRSA, are needed.

Efficacy and Safety of Omadacycline Versus Linezolid in Acute Bacterial Skin and Skin Structure Infections in Persons Who Inject Drugs

Introduction

Acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections (ABSSSI) represent one of the most common reasons for emergency department visits, and are frequent complications of intravenous drug use in persons who inject drugs (PWID). This study examined the efficacy and safety of omadacycline, versus linezolid, in PWID and persons who do not inject drugs, in the Phase 3 Omadacycline in Acute Skin and Skin Structure Infection (OASIS-1, OASIS-2) studies.

Methods

Eligible participants were aged ≥ 18 years with qualifying skin infections: wound infection, cellulitis, erysipelas, or major abscess. The primary efficacy endpoint was early clinical response (ECR) in the modified intent-to-treat (mITT) population, defined as survival with ≥ 20% reduction in lesion size at 48–72 h after the first dose of omadacycline or linezolid. Key secondary endpoints included investigator-assessed clinical response at the post-treatment evaluation (PTE) in the mITT and clinical per-protocol populations, and clinical response at PTE in the micro-mITT population. Safety was assessed based on adverse events (AEs) and standard clinical laboratory tests. Efficacy endpoints of clinical response at ECR and PTE were analyzed for the mITT and clinically evaluable (CE) PTE populations.

Results

In total, 1380 patients (822 PWID, 558 non-PWID) were included in this secondary analysis. Wound infections were reported more frequently in the PWID subgroup (72.8%) at baseline; cellulitis or erysipelas (43.9%) and major abscess (37.4%) were the most frequently reported baseline infections in the non-PWID subgroup. Clinical success rates at ECR and PTE in the mITT population, and at PTE in the CE population, were high for patients receiving omadacycline or linezolid. Severe or serious treatment-emergent AEs (TEAEs), and TEAEs leading to discontinuation, were infrequent.

Conclusion

This subgroup analysis showed that omadacycline was effective and well tolerated, regardless of PWID status.

Infectious Complications of Injection Drug Use

The opioid overdose epidemic is one of the leading causes of death in adults. Its devastating effects have included not only a burgeoning overdose crisis but also multiple converging infectious diseases epidemics. The use of both opioids and other substances through intravenous (IV) administration places individuals at increased risks of infectious diseases ranging from invasive bacterial and fungal infections to human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) and viral hepatitis. In 2012, there were 530,000 opioid use disorder (OUD)-related hospitalizations in the United States (US), with $700 million in costs associated with OUD-related infections. The scale of the crisis has continued to increase since that time, with hospitalizations for injection drug use-related infective endocarditis (IDU-IE) increasing by as much as 12-fold from 2010 to 2015. Deaths from IDU-IE alone are estimated to result in over 7,260,000 years of potential life lost over the next 10 years. There have been high-profile injection-related HIV outbreaks, and injection drug use (IDU) is now the most common risk factor for hepatitis C virus (HCV). As this epidemic continues to grow, clinicians in all aspects of medical care are increasingly confronted with infectious complications of IDU. This review will describe the pathogenesis, clinical syndromes, epidemiology, and models of treatment for common infectious complications among persons who inject drugs (PWIDs).

Description and outcomes of patients with substance use disorder with serious bacterial infections who had a multidisciplinary care conference

Background

Patients with substance use disorders (SUDs) and severe bacterial infections requiring prolonged antibiotic therapy represent a significant challenge to providers due to complexity of care coordination required to ensure safe and effective treatment. Our institution developed a patient-centered multidisciplinary discharge planning conference, OPTIONS-DC, to address this challenge.

Methods

We conducted a retrospective review to evaluates parameters between patients who received an OPTIONS-DC and those who did not.

Results

We identified 73 patients receiving an OPTIONS-DC and 100 who did not. More patients with an OPTIONS-DC were < 40 years of age (76.7% versus 61.0%, OR = 2.3, 95% CI = 1.1-4.7, p = 0.02), had positive HCV antibody testing (58.9% versus 41.0%, OR = 2.1, 95% CI = 1.1-3.8, p = 0.02), injection drug use (93.2% versus 79.0%, OR = 3.6 95% CI = 1.3-10.1, p = 0.01), used methamphetamines (84.9% versus 72.0%, OR = 2.2, 95% CI = 1.0-4.8, p = 0.04), and started inpatient SUD treatment (80.8% versus 63%, OR = 2.5, 95% CI = 1.2-5.0, p = 0.04) compared with those without a conference. The OPTIONS-DC group was more likely to be diagnosed with bacteremia (74.0% versus 57.0%, OR = 2.1, 95% CI = 1.1-4.1, p = 0.02), endocarditis (39.7% versus21.0%, OR = 2.5, 95% CI = 1.3-4.9, p = 0.03), vertebral osteomyelitis (45.2% versus 15.0%, OR = 4.7, 95% CI = 2.3-9.6, p < 0.01), and epidural abscess (35.6% versus 10.0%, OR = 5.0, 95% CI = 2.2-11.2, p < 0.01) and require 4 weeks or more of antibiotic treatment (97.3% versus 51.1%, OR = 34.1, 95% CI = 7.9-146.7, p = 0.01). Patients with an OPTIONS-DC were also more likely to be admitted between 2019 and 2020 than between 2018 and 2019 (OR = 4.1, 95% CI = 2.1-7.9, p < 0.01).

Conclusion

Patients with an OPTIONS-DC tended to have more complicated infections and longer courses of antibiotic treatment. While further research on outcomes is needed, patients receiving an OPTIONS-DC were able to successfully complete antibiotic courses across a variety of settings.

Design and protocol of the Buprenorphine plus Outpatient Parenteral Antimicrobial Therapy (B-OPAT) study: a randomized clinical trial of integrated outpatient treatment of opioid use disorder and severe, injection-related infections

Introduction

A marked increase in hospitalizations for severe, injection-related infections (SIRI) has been associated with the opioid epidemic. Outpatient parenteral antibiotic therapy (OPAT) is typically not offered to persons with opioid use disorder (OUD) and SIRI, though increasing evidence suggests it may be feasible and safe. This study evaluates the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of an integrated care model combining Buprenorphine treatment of OUD with OPAT for SIRI (B-OPAT) compared with treatment as usual on key OUD, infectious disease, and health economic outcomes. B-OPAT expands and incorporates key elements of established clinical models, including inpatient initiation of buprenorphine for OUD, inpatient infectious disease consultation for SIRI, office-based treatment of OUD, and OPAT, and includes more frequent clinical outpatient visits than standard OPAT. A qualitative evaluation is included to contextualize effectiveness outcomes and identify barriers and facilitators to intervention adoption and implementation.

Methods

B-OPAT is a single-site, randomized, parallel-group, superiority trial recruiting 90 adult inpatients hospitalized with OUD and SIRI who require at least 2 weeks of intravenous (IV) antibiotic therapy. After screening, eligible participants are randomized 1:1 to either discharge once medically stable to an integrated outpatient treatment care model combining Buprenorphine and OPAT (B-OPAT) or to Treatment As Usual (TAU). The primary outcome measure is the proportion of urine samples negative for illicit opioids in the 12 weeks after discharge from the hospital. Key secondary OUD outcomes include self-reported number of days of illicit opioid abstinence and 12-week retention in buprenorphine treatment. The infection outcomes are completion of recommended IV antibiotic therapy, peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC) complications, and readmission related to primary SIRI.

Conclusions

The B-OPAT study will help address the important question of whether it is clinically effective and cost-effective to discharge persons with OUD and SIRI to an integrated outpatient care model combining OUD treatment with OPAT relative to TAU (Clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT04677114).

Medication for opioid use disorder at hospital discharge is not associated with intravenous antibiotic completion in post-acute care facilities

Background:

People with opioid use disorder and severe infections may complete their prolonged courses of outpatient parenteral antimicrobial therapy at a post-acute care facility due to adherence and safety concerns. We hypothesized that treatment with medications for opioid use disorder, such as methadone and buprenorphine, would increase antibiotic completion in these facilities.

Methods:

We performed a retrospective cohort study of people with opioid use disorder and severe infections who were discharged from the University of Maryland Medical Center to a post-acute care facility to complete intravenous antibiotic therapy. The primary outcome was completion of outpatient parenteral antimicrobial therapy. We compared the rate of antibiotic completion between patients prescribed and not prescribed medication for opioid use disorder at discharge from the acute care hospital.

Results:

A total of 161 patient encounters were included; the mean age was 43.4 years and 56% of patients were male. In 48% of the encounters, the patient was homeless and in 68% they recently injected drugs. The most common infectious syndrome was osteoarticular (44.1%). Medication for opioid use disorder was prescribed at discharge in 103 of 161 encounters and was newly started in 27 encounters. Similar rates of outpatient parenteral antimicrobial therapy completion were found in those who received (65/103) and did not receive (33/58) medication for opioid use disorder at discharge (odds ratio: 1.29; 95% confidence interval: 0.68–2.54; p = 0.44).

Conclusion:

Medication for opioid use disorder prescription at discharge was not associated with completion of outpatient parenteral antimicrobial therapy in a post-acute care facility. Our study is limited by possible selection bias and infrequent initiation of medication for opioid use disorder, which may have minimized the effect on antibiotic completion.

Assessment of risk factors associated with outpatient parenteral antimicrobial therapy (OPAT) complications: A retrospective cohort study

Objective:

To characterize factors associated with increased risk of outpatient parenteral antimicrobial therapy (OPAT) complication.

Design:

Retrospective cohort study.

Setting:

Four hospitals within NYU Langone Health (NYULH).

Patients:

All patients aged ≥18 years with OPAT episodes who were admitted to an acute-care facility at NYULH between January 1, 2017, and December 31, 2020, who had an infectious diseases consultation during admission.

Results:

Overall, 8.45% of OPAT patients suffered a vascular complication and 6.04% suffered an antimicrobial complication. Among these patients, 19.95% had a 30-day readmission and 3.35% had OPAT-related readmission. Also, 1.58% of patients developed a catheter-related bloodstream infection (CRBSI). After adjusting for key confounders, we found that patients discharged to a subacute rehabilitation center (SARC) were more likely to develop a CRBSI (odds ratio [OR], 4.75; P = .005) and to be readmitted for OPAT complications (OR, 2.89; P = .002). Loss to follow-up with the infectious diseases service was associated with increased risks of CRBSI (OR, 3.78; P = .007) and 30-day readmission (OR, 2.59; P < .001).

Conclusions:

Discharge to an SARC is strongly associated with increased risks of readmission for OPAT-related complications and CRBSI. Loss to follow-up with the infectious diseases service is strongly associated with increased risk of readmission and CRBSI. CRBSI prevention during SARC admission is a critically needed public health intervention. Further work must be done for patients undergoing OPAT to improve their follow-up retention with the infectious diseases service.

An observational study on the use of long acting buprenorphine (ublocade) and a amper resistant PICC for utpatient IV antibiotic administration in atients with serious infections and pioid se isorder; The project

What is STOP OUD?

The STOP OUD project is an observational study on the use of long-acting buprenorphine (Sublocade) and a Tamper resistant PICC clamp for Outpatient IV antibiotic administration in Patients with serious infections and Opioid Use Disorder (STOP OUD).

Background

The US opioid crisis is driving up serious infections related to intravenous drug use. These infections require prolonged courses of antibiotics, often resulting in lengthy hospital stays. Extended hospitalizations for monitored parenteral antibiotics for patients with opioid use disorder are challenging for patients, reduce bed capacity, and are associated with significant cost. This observational study reviews the administration of intravenous (IV) antibiotics in a monitored outpatient setting using long-acting injectable buprenorphine (Sublocade, Indivior Inc., North Chesterfield, VA) and a tamper resistant clamp in patients with opioid use disorder .

Methods

Long-acting buprenorphine and a tamper resistant clamp were used to treat patients with serious infections and opioid use disorder as outpatients.

Results

Hospital days avoided were 30-days per STOP OUD project participant. Eleven of thirteen STOP OUD project participants completed their antibiotic courses as prescribed, there was no evidence of peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC) tampering, and they rated their care as a mean of 4.9/5 (SD 0.4). Institutional savings per STOP OUD patient was $33,000. Outpatient infusion costs were $9,300 for a net savings of $23,700 per STOP OUD project participant. Infections resolved in all participants.

Conclusions

The STOP OUD project reduced hospital length of stay for patients with opioid use disorder and serious infections, and had a favorable financial impact.