Publication:
Infectious Diseases Physicians’ Perspectives Regarding Injection Drug Use and Related Infections, United States, 2017

Thumbnail Image

Open/View Files

Date

2018-06-08

Published Version

Journal Title

Journal ISSN

Volume Title

Publisher

Oxford University Press (OUP)
The Harvard community has made this article openly available. Please share how this access benefits you.

Research Projects

Organizational Units

Journal Issue

Citation

Rapoport, Alison B, Leah S Fischer, Scott Santibanez, Susan E Beekmann, Philip M Polgreen, Christopher F Rowley. 2018. Infectious Diseases Physicians’ Perspectives Regarding Injection Drug Use and Related Infections, United States, 2017. Open Forum Infectious Diseases 5 (7): ofy132.

Research Data

Abstract

Background In the context of the opioid epidemic, injection drug use (IDU)–related infections are an escalating health issue for infectious diseases (ID) physicians in the United States. Methods We conducted a mixed methods survey of the Infectious Diseases Society of America’s Emerging Infections Network between February and April 2017 to evaluate perspectives relating to care of persons who inject drugs (PWID). Topics included the frequency of and management strategies for IDU-related infection, the availability of addiction services, and the evolving role of ID physicians in substance use disorder (SUD) management. Results More than half (53%, n = 672) of 1273 network members participated. Of these, 78% (n = 526) reported treating PWID. Infections frequently encountered included skin and soft tissue (62%, n = 324), bacteremia/fungemia (54%, n = 281), and endocarditis (50%, n = 263). In the past year, 79% (n = 416) reported that most IDU-related infections required ≥2 weeks of parenteral antibiotics; strategies frequently employed for prolonged treatment included completion of the entire course in the inpatient unit (41%, n = 218) or at another supervised facility (35%, n = 182). Only 35% (n = 184) of respondents agreed/strongly agreed that their health system offered comprehensive SUD management; 46% (n = 242) felt that ID providers should actively manage SUD. Conclusions The majority of physicians surveyed treated PWID and reported myriad obstacles to providing care. Public health and health care systems should consider ways to support ID physicians caring for PWID, including (1) guidelines for providing complex care, including safe provision of multiweek parenteral antibiotics; (2) improved access to SUD management; and (3) strategies to assist those interested in roles in SUD management.

Description

Other Available Sources

Keywords

Oncology, Clinical Neurology

Terms of Use

This article is made available under the terms and conditions applicable to Other Posted Material (LAA), as set forth at Terms of Service

Endorsement

Review

Supplemented By

Referenced By

Related Stories