English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Background While there is a growing body of evidence that suggests outpatient parental antibiotic treatment (OPAT) for people who inject drugs (PWID) may be safe, research on integrating OPAT with addiction treatment for PWID has been limited. Methods Adults hospitalized for infectious complications of injection drug use (IDU) requiring prolonged IV antibiotics were included in this study. The suitability for OPAT was determined by the infectious disease and addiction consultation services. Eligibility criteria included safe housing, attendance at infectious disease (ID) clinic visits, and engagement with addiction treatment. Demographic and clinical outcomes were summarized, and compared with patients without any IDU history enrolled in OPAT during the same time at the same institution. Results Eighteen OPAT episodes among 17 individuals were included, with 9 (50.0%) males. Mean age was 38.4 (SD 9.5). Types of infection included endocarditis (38.9%), epidural abscess (38.9%), and bone/joint infections (33.3%). Opioid use disorders (OUD) were most common (94.4%), followed by cocaine (33.3%) and benzodiazepines (16.7%). All individuals completed the recommended course of IV antibiotics. All OUD patients received buprenorphine (52.9%) or methadone (47.1%). Two (11.1%) relapsed to drug use during OPAT, but no instances of line tampering, thrombosis, line infection or line dislodgement were identified. No deaths or overdoses were reported. Collectively, 504 inpatient days were avoided. Compared with 390 individuals without any history of IDU, those with IDU history were significantly younger (38.4 vs. 59.0, P < 0.0001), had fewer episodes of endocarditis (38.9% vs. 43.6%) and bone/joint infections (33.3% vs. 41.8%), but more epidural abscesses (38.9% vs. 3.1%). There were no statistical differences in rates of readmission (22.2% vs. 11.3%), line complications (0% vs. 3.5%), mortality (0% vs. 1.0%), ID clinic visit attendance (100.0% vs. 82.0%), or number of days on OPAT (28.0 vs. 30.1). Conclusion Results add further evidence of OPAT’s safety among PWID and that integration of addiction treatment may be feasible. OPAT outcomes were similar to those without any IDU history. More research is needed to study the impact of integrating addiction treatment with OPAT for PWID. Disclosures All authors: No reported disclosures.

767. Can Integration of Addiction Treatment Facilitate Safe Discharge on OPAT for Patients with Infectious Complications of Injection Drug Use?