Infective endocarditis in people who inject drugs: A scoping review of clinical guidelines. Issue 2 (9th November 2022)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Selitsky, Lea; Racha, Savitha; Rastegar, Darius; Olsen, Yngvild
• Is Part Of: Journal of hospital medicine. Volume 18:Issue 2(2023)
• Page Start: 169
• Page End: 176
• Publication Date: 2022-11-09
• Subjects: Hospital care -- Periodicals; Clinical medicine -- Periodicals; 610
• DOI: 10.1002/jhm.12996
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1553-5592

Abstract

Abstract: Background: The incidence of infective endocarditis (IE) among people who inject drugs (PWID) is rising worldwide. Multiple clinical guidelines differ on the management of this condition, and few guidelines comment on treatment for primary substance use disorder (SUD). A comprehensive comparison of these guidelines is lacking. Objectives: To perform a critical review identifying key differences in clinical guideline recommendations for treating IE among PWID, focusing on the inclusion of recommendations for SUD treatment and the presence of stigmatizing language. Eligibility Criteria: Recently published, English‐language, society‐developed clinical guidelines for the treatment of IE among PWID. Sources of Evidence: PubMed, Google Scholar, and CINAHL Plus databases. Charting Methods: In line with Arksey and O'Malley's framework, a scoping review was adapted using Joanna Briggs Institute and PRISMA‐ScR guidelines. Two reviewers independently performed database searches for clinical guidelines published between 2007 and 2020 that commented on the management of IE among PWID. Results: Ten clinical guidelines were included in the final analysis. Treatment recommendations varied with some societies proposing nonstandard care due to concern for return to drug use. Three guidelines include reference to addiction treatment. Only one guideline specifies the use of opioid agonist therapy for treating opioid use disorder and identifies the benefits of an addiction specialist consultation. Acute withdrawal management is not mentioned in any guideline. All guidelines utilized stigmatizing language to describe PWID. Conclusions: Most guidelines do not address SUD treatment, despite its effectiveness in reducing adverse health outcomes. Future guidelines should address SUD treatment using patient‐first language.