In this large, prospective, multinational cohort, more than one half of all cases of non-HACEK gram-negative bacillus endocarditis were associated with health care contact. Non-HACEK gram-negative bacillus endocarditis is not primarily a disease of injection drug users.

No abstract

Background The clinical profile and outcome of nosocomial and non-nosocomial health care–associated native valve endocarditis are not well defined. Objective To describe the prevalence, clinical characteristics, and outcomes of nosocomial and non-nosocomial health care–associated native valve endocarditis. Design Prospective observational study. Setting 61 hospitals in 28 countries. Patients Patients with definite native valve endocarditis and no history of injection drug use who were enrolled in the International Collaboration on Endocarditis–Prospective Cohort Study from June 2000 to August 2005. Measurements Characteristics of nosocomial and non-nosocomial health care–associated native valve endocarditis cases were described and compared with those cases acquired in the community. Results Health care–associated native valve endocarditis was present in 557 (34%) of 1622 patients with native valve endocarditis and no history of injection drug use (nosocomial native valve endocarditis 303 patients [54%]; non-nosocomial health care–associated native valve endocarditis 254 patients [46%]). Staphylococcus aureus was the most common cause of health care-associated native valve endocarditis (nosocomial native valve endocarditis, 47%; non-nosocomial health care–associated native valve endocarditis, 42%; p=0.3), with a notable proportion of methicillin-resistant S. aureus (nosocomial native valve endocarditis, 57%; non-nosocomial health care–associated native valve endocarditis, 41%; p=0.014). Patients with health care–associated native valve endocarditis had lower rates of cardiac surgery (41% health care–associated native valve endocarditis vs 51% community-acquired native valve endocarditis, p<0.001) and higher in-hospital mortality rates than patients with community-acquired native valve endocarditis (25% health care–associated native valve endocarditis vs. 13% community-acquired native valve endocarditis vs., p<0.001). Multivariable analysis confirmed a higher mortality associated with health care–associated native valve endocarditis (incidence risk ratio=1.20 (CI 95%, 1.03–1.61). Limitations This study involves tertiary hospitals with cardiac surgery programs. The results may not be generalized to patient populations receiving care in other types of facility. Conclusions More than one-third of all cases of native valve endocarditis in non-drug users involve contact with health care. S. aureus is the leading cause of health care–associated native valve endocarditis. Non-nosocomial health care–associated native valve endocarditis is common, especially in the US. Patients with health care-associated and community-acquired native valve endocarditis differ in their presentation, microbiology, and outcome. By contrast, patients with nosocomial and non-nosocomial healthcare-associated endocarditis are similar.

No abstract

Background Despite widespread implementation of compulsory treatment modalities for drug dependence, there has been no systematic evaluation of the scientific evidence on the effectiveness of compulsory drug treatment. Methods We conducted a systematic review of studies assessing the outcomes of compulsory treatment. We conducted a search in duplicate of all relevant peer-reviewed scientific literature evaluating compulsory treatment modalities. The following academic databases were searched: PubMed, PAIS International, Proquest, PsycINFO, Web of Science, Soc Abstracts, JSTOR, EBSCO/Academic Search Complete, REDALYC, SciELO Brazil. We also searched the Internet, and article reference lists, from database inception to July 15th, 2015. Eligibility criteria are as follows: peer-reviewed scientific studies presenting original data. Primary outcome of interest was post-treatment drug use. Secondary outcome of interest was post-treatment criminal recidivism. Results Of an initial 430 potential studies identified, nine quantitative studies met the inclusion criteria. Studies evaluated compulsory treatment options including drug detention facilities, short (i.e. 21-day) and long-term (i.e., 6 months) inpatient treatment, community-based treatment, group-based outpatient treatment, and prison-based treatment. Three studies (33%) reported no significant impacts of compulsory treatment compared with control interventions. Two studies (22%) found equivocal results but did not compare against a control condition. Two studies (22%) observed negative impacts of compulsory treatment on criminal recidivism. Two studies (22%) observed positive impacts of compulsory inpatient treatment on criminal recidivism and drug use. Conclusion There is limited scientific literature evaluating compulsory drug treatment. Evidence does not, on the whole, suggest improved outcomes related to compulsory treatment approaches, with some studies suggesting potential harms. Given the potential for human rights abuses within compulsory treatment settings, non-compulsory treatment modalities should be prioritized by policymakers seeking to reduce drug-related harms.