Outcomes of patients with a history of injecting drug use and receipt of outpatient antimicrobial therapy

Management of People Who Inject Drugs With Serious Injection-Related Infections in an Outpatient Setting: A Scoping Review

Background

People who inject drugs (PWID) are at risk of severe injection-related infection (SIRI), which is challenging to manage. We conducted a scoping review to map the existing evidence on management of PWID with SIRI in an outpatient setting.

Methods

We conducted a literature search in MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Central, and CINAHL from their inception until 6 December 2023. Studies were included if they focused on PWID with SIRI requiring ≥2 weeks of antibiotic therapy, with a proportion of management occurring outside hospitals. Studies were categorized inductively and described.

Results

The review included 68 articles with the following themes. PWID generally prefer outpatient management if deemed safe and effective. Most studies support outpatient management, finding it to be as effective and safe as inpatient care, as well as less costly. Successful transition to outpatient management requires multidisciplinary discharge planning with careful consideration of patient-specific factors. Emerging evidence supports the effectiveness and safety of outpatient parenteral antibiotic therapy, long-acting lipoglycopeptides, and oral antibiotic therapy, each having unique advantages and disadvantages. Various specialized outpatient settings, such as skilled nursing facilities and residential treatment centers, are available for management of these infections. Finally, all patients are likely to benefit from adjunctive addiction care.

Conclusions

Emerging evidence indicates that outpatient management is effective and safe for SIRI, which is preferred by most PWID. Key components of outpatient management include multidisciplinary discharge planning, appropriate antibiotic modality, suitable care settings, and adjunctive addiction care. These elements should be carefully tailored to patient needs and circumstances.

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.

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.

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.

Risk of venous thromboembolism in outpatient parenteral antimicrobial therapy (OPAT): A systematic review and meta-analysis

The risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in outpatient parenteral antimicrobial therapy (OPAT) is not fully understood and the optimal strategy for thromboprophylaxis remains unclear. This systematic review investigated the incidence of VTE in OPAT settings (PROSPERO CRD42022381523). MEDLINE, CINAHL, Emcare, Embase, Cochrane Library and grey literature were searched from earliest records to 18 January 2023. Primary studies reporting non-catheter-related VTE or catheter-related thromboembolism (CRT) events in adults who received parenteral antibiotics in home or outpatient settings were eligible. In total, 43 studies involving 23 432 patient episodes were reviewed, of which 4 studies reported non-catheter-related VTE and 39 included CRT. Based on generalised linear mixed-effects models, pooled risk estimates of non-catheter-related VTE and CRT were 0.2% [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.0-0.7%] and 1.1% [95% CI 0.8-1.5%; prediction interval (PI) 0.2-5.4%]. Heterogeneity was largely attributed to risk of bias by meta-regression (R2 = 21%). Excluding high-risk-of-bias studies, CRT risk was 0.8% (95% CI 0.5-1.2%; PI 0.1-4.5%). From 25 studies, the pooled CRT rate per 1000 catheter-days was 0.37 (95% CI 0.25-0.55; PI 0.08-1.64). These findings do not support universal thromboprophylaxis or routine use of an inpatient VTE risk assessment model in the OPAT setting. However, a high index of suspicion should be maintained, especially for patients with known risk factors for VTE. An optimised protocol of OPAT-specific VTE risk assessment should be sought.

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.

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.

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.

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.

"With a PICC line, you never miss": The role of peripherally inserted central catheters in hospital care for people living with HIV/HCV who use drugs

BACKGROUND

People who use drugs (PWUD), and especially those who inject drugs, are at increased risk of acquiring bloodborne infections (e.g., HIV and HCV), experiencing drug-related harms (e.g., abscesses and overdose), and being hospitalized and requiring inpatient parenteral antibiotic therapy delivered through a peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC). The use of PICC lines with PWUD is understood to be a source of tension in hospital settings but has not been well researched. Drawing on theoretical and analytic insights from "new materialism," we consider the assemblage of sociomaterial elements that inform the use of PICCs.

METHODS

This paper draws on n = 50 interviews conducted across two related qualitative research projects within a program of research about the impact of substance use on hospital admissions from the perspective of healthcare providers (HCPs) and people living with HIV/HCV who use drugs. This paper focuses on data about PICC lines collected in both studies.

RESULTS

The decision to provide, maintain, or remove a PICC is based on a complex assemblage of factors (e.g., infections, bodies, drugs, memories, relations, spaces, temporalities, and contingencies) beyond whether parenteral intravenous antibiotic therapy is clinically indicated. HCPs expressed concerns about the risk posed by past, current, and future drug use, and contact with non-clinical spaces (e.g., patient's homes and the surrounding community), with some opting for second-line treatments and removing PICCs. The majority of PWUD described being subjected to threats of discharge and increased monitoring despite being too ill to use their PICC lines during past hospital admissions. A subset of PWUD reported using their PICC lines to inject drugs as a harm reduction strategy, and a subset of HCPs reported providing harm reduction-centred care.

CONCLUSION

Our analysis has implications for theorizing the role of PICC lines in the care of PWUD and identifies practical guidance for engaging them in productive and non-judgemental discussions about the risks of injecting into a PICC line, how to do it safely, and about medically supported alternatives.

Outpatient Antimicrobial Treatment for People Who Inject Drugs

This article reviews the changing epidemiology of infections associated with injection drug use, perceived barriers to care, features of successful programs for outpatient antimicrobial treatment, models of shared decision making at the time of discharge, and linkage to preventative care after antimicrobial completion. In the search for patient-centered care associated with a rising substance use epidemic, one must continue to strive for novel collaborative approaches to ensure that each person is treated in the best way possible to successfully complete antimicrobial therapy, and then linked to a path of lifelong health care.

Low Use of Outpatient Parenteral Antimicrobial Therapy for Drug Use-Associated Infective Endocarditis in an Urban Hospital System

Background

The opioid crisis in the United States has led to increasing hospitalizations for drug use-associated infective endocarditis (DUA-IE). Outpatient parenteral antimicrobial therapy (OPAT), the preferred modality for intravenous antibiotics for infective endocarditis, has demonstrated similar outcomes among patients with DUA-IE versus non-DUA-IE, but current studies suffer selection bias. The utilization of OPAT for DUA-IE more generally is not well studied.

Methods

This retrospective cohort study compared OPAT use for DUA-IE versus non-DUA-IE in adults hospitalized between January 1, 2015 and September 1, 2019 at 3 urban hospitals. We used multivariable regression analysis to assess the association between DUA-IE and discharge with OPAT, adjusting for clinically significant covariables.

Results

The cohort included 518 patients (126 DUA-IE, 392 non-DUA-IE). Compared to those with non-DUA-IE, DUA-IE patients were younger (53.0 vs 68.2 years, P < .001) and more commonly undomiciled (9.5% vs 0.3%, P < .01). Patients with DUA-IE had a significantly lower odds of discharge with OPAT than non-DUA-IE patients (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 0.20; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.10–0.39). Odds of discharge with OPAT remained lower for patients with DUA-IE after excluding undomiciled patients (aOR = 0.22; 95% CI, 0.11–0.43) and those with patient-directed discharges (aOR = 0.27; 95% CI, 0.14–0.52).

Conclusions

Significantly fewer patients with DUA-IE were discharged with OPAT compared to those with non-DUA-IE, and undomiciled patients or patient-directed discharges did not fully account for this difference. Efforts to increase OPAT utilization among patients with DUA-IE could have important benefits for patients and the healthcare system.

Recent innovations and new applications of outpatient parenteral antimicrobial therapy

INTRODUCTION

Outpatient parenteral antimicrobial therapy (OPAT) is safe and effective for selected patients managed within an organized clinical service. Service configurations however are evolving, patient populations are changing and new evidence is emerging which challenges traditional OPAT practice.

AREAS COVERED

This review will discuss evolving OPAT service delivery from the traditional model of infusion center toward nonspecialist, community and remotely delivered OPAT and the challenges this represents. We consider new patient populations including those with incurable infection or infections at the end of life and difficult to reach populations including people who inject drugs. The evidence base that underpins the multi-disciplinary approach to OPAT delivery will be examined and particularly the role of the antimicrobial pharmacist and specialist nurse. Evidence for new treatment options which challenge established OPAT practice including complex oral antibiotic regimens, long acting parenteral agents and drug stability in continuous infusion antibiotics will be considered. Finally we emphasize the central importance of antimicrobial stewardship and good clinical governance which should underpin OPAT practice.

EXPERT OPINION

Changing patient populations, service structures and team roles coupled with a growing infection management evidence base means that OPAT services and practice must evolve. Challenging traditional practice is essential to ensure best patient outcomes and cost-efficiency.