Author
David A. Stevens
Other affiliations: National Institutes of Health, University of California, San Francisco, University of Colorado Boulder ...read more
Bio: David A. Stevens is an academic researcher from Stanford University. The author has contributed to research in topics: Aspergillosis & Aspergillus fumigatus. The author has an hindex of 94, co-authored 607 publications receiving 42566 citations. Previous affiliations of David A. Stevens include National Institutes of Health & University of California, San Francisco.
Papers published on a yearly basis
Papers
More filters
Radboud University Nijmegen1, National Institutes of Health2, Stanford University3, University of California, Los Angeles4, University of Lausanne5, University of Alabama6, University of Paris7, University of Michigan8, University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio9, University of Strasbourg10, University of Manchester11, University College London12, Oregon Health & Science University13, Complutense University of Madrid14, University of Aberdeen15, Duke University16, Charité17, University at Buffalo18, Wayne State University19, University of Sydney20, University of Genoa21, University of Florida22, University of Pennsylvania23
TL;DR: These revised definitions of invasive fungal disease are intended to advance clinical and epidemiological research and may serve as a useful model for defining other infections in high-risk patients.
Abstract: BACKGROUND: Invasive fungal diseases are important causes of morbidity and mortality. Clarity and uniformity in defining these infections are important factors in improving the quality of clinical studies. A standard set of definitions strengthens the consistency and reproducibility of such studies. METHODS: After the introduction of the original European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer/Invasive Fungal Infections Cooperative Group and the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Mycoses Study Group (EORTC/MSG) Consensus Group definitions, advances in diagnostic technology and the recognition of areas in need of improvement led to a revision of this document. The revision process started with a meeting of participants in 2003, to decide on the process and to draft the proposal. This was followed by several rounds of consultation until a final draft was approved in 2005. This was made available for 6 months to allow public comment, and then the manuscript was prepared and approved. RESULTS: The revised definitions retain the original classifications of "proven," "probable," and "possible" invasive fungal disease, but the definition of "probable" has been expanded, whereas the scope of the category "possible" has been diminished. The category of proven invasive fungal disease can apply to any patient, regardless of whether the patient is immunocompromised, whereas the probable and possible categories are proposed for immunocompromised patients only. CONCLUSIONS: These revised definitions of invasive fungal disease are intended to advance clinical and epidemiological research and may serve as a useful model for defining other infections in high-risk patients.
4,389 citations
National Institutes of Health1, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences2, University of Manchester3, University of Strasbourg4, Oregon Health & Science University5, University of Minnesota6, Veterans Health Administration7, Roswell Park Cancer Institute8, Duke University9, Santa Clara Valley Medical Center10, Stanford University11, University of Florida12, University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio13
TL;DR: This research presents a novel, scalable, scalable and scalable approach that allows for real-time evaluation of the impact of Epstein-Barr virus on the development and management of childhood cancer in rats.
Abstract: Aspergillus species have emerged as an important cause of life-threatening infections in immunocompromised patients. This expanding population is composed of patients with prolonged neutropenia, advanced HIV infection, and inherited immunodeficiency and patients who have undergone allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) and/or lung transplantation. This document constitutes the guidelines of the Infectious Diseases Society of America for treatment of aspergillosis and replaces the practice guidelines for Aspergillus published in 2000 [1]. The objective of these guidelines is to summarize the current evidence for treatment of different forms of aspergillosis. The quality of evidence for treatment is scored according to a standard system used in other Infectious Diseases Society of America guidelines. This document reviews guidelines for management of the 3 major forms of aspergillosis: invasive aspergillosis, chronic (and saprophytic) forms of aspergillosis, and allergic forms of aspergillosis. Given the public health importance of invasive aspergillosis, emphasis is placed on the diagnosis, treatment, and prevention of the different forms of invasive aspergillosis, including invasive pulmonary aspergillosis, sinus aspergillosis, disseminated aspergillosis, and several types of single-organ invasive aspergillosis. There are few randomized trials on the treatment of invasive aspergillosis. The largest randomized controlled trial demonstrates that voriconazole is superior to deoxycholate amphotericin B (D-AMB) as primary treatment for invasive aspergillosis. Voriconazole is recommended for the primary treatment of invasive aspergillosis in most patients (A-I). Although invasive pulmonary aspergillosis accounts for the preponderance of cases treated with voriconazole, voriconazole has been used in enough cases of extrapulmonary and disseminated infection to allow one to infer that voriconazole is effective in these cases. A randomized trial comparing 2 doses of liposomal amphotericin B (L-AMB) showed similar efficacy in both arms, suggesting that liposomal therapy could be considered as alternative primary therapy in some patients (A-I). For salvage therapy, agents include lipid formulations of amphotericin (LFAB; A-II), posaconazole (B-II), itraconazole (B-II), caspofungin (B-II), or micafungin (B-II). Salvage therapy for invasive aspergillosis poses important challenges with significant gaps in knowledge. In patients whose aspergillosis is refractory to voriconazole, a paucity of data exist to guide management. Therapeutic options include a change of class using an amphotericin B (AMB) formulation or an echinocandin, such as caspofungin (B-II); further use of azoles should take into account host factors and pharmacokinetic considerations. Refractory infection may respond to a change to another drug class (B-II) or to a combination of agents (B-II). The role of combination therapy in the treatment of invasive aspergillosis as primary or salvage therapy is uncertain and warrants a prospective, controlled clinical trial. Assessment of patients with refractory aspergillosis may be difficult. In evaluating such patients, the diagnosis of invasive aspergillosis should be established if it was previously uncertain and should be confirmed if it was previously known. The drug dosage should be considered. Management options include a change to intravenous (IV) therapy, therapeutic monitoring of drug levels, change of drug class, and/or combination therapy. Antifungal prophylaxis with posaconazole can be recommended in the subgroup of HSCT recipients with graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) who are at high risk for invasive aspergillosis and in neutropenic patients with acute myelogenous leukemia or myelodysplastic syndrome who are at high risk for invasive aspergillosis (A-I). Management of breakthrough invasive aspergillosis in the context of mould-active azole prophylaxis is not defined by clinical trial data. The approach to such patients should be individualized on the basis of clinical criteria, including host immunosuppression, underlying disease, and site of infection, as well as consideration of antifungal dosing, therapeutic monitoring of drug levels, a switch to IV therapy, and/or a switch to another drug class (B-III). Certain conditions of invasive aspergillosis warrant consideration for surgical resection of the infected focus. These include but are not limited to pulmonary lesions contiguous with the heart or great vessels, invasion of the chest wall, osteomyelitis, pericardial infection, and endocarditis (B-III). Restoration of impaired host defenses is critical for improved outcome of invasive aspergillosis (A-III). Recovery from neutropenia in a persistently neutropenic host or reduction of corticosteroids in a patient receiving high-dose glucocorticosteroids is paramount for improved outcome in invasive aspergillosis. A special consideration is made concerning recommendations for therapy of aspergillosis in uncommon sites, such as osteomyelitis and endocarditis. There are very limited data on these infections, and most involve D-AMB as primary therapy simply because of its long-standing availability. Based on the strength of the randomized study, the panel recommends voriconazole for primary treatment of these very uncommon manifestations of invasive aspergillosis (B-III). Management of the chronic or saprophytic forms of aspergillosis varies depending on the condition. Single pulmonary aspergillomas may be best managed by surgical resection (B-III), whereas chronic cavitary and chronic necrotizing pulmonary aspergillosis require long-term medical therapy (B-III). The management of allergic forms of aspergillosis involves a combination of medical and anti-inflammatory therapy. For example, management of allergic bronchopulmonary aspergillosis (ABPA) involves the administration of itraconazole and corticosteroids (A-I). © 2008 by the Infectious Diseases Society of America. All rights reserved.
2,463 citations
TL;DR: A set of research-oriented definitions for the IFIs most often seen and studied in immunocompromised patients with cancer is proposed and three levels of probability are proposed: "proven," "probable," and "possible."
Abstract: During the past several decades, there has been a steady increase in the frequency of opportunistic invasive fungal infections (IFIs) in immunocompromised patients. However, there is substantial controversy concerning optimal diagnostic criteria for these IFIs. Therefore, members of the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer/Invasive Fungal Infections Cooperative Group and the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Mycoses Study Group formed a consensus committee to develop standard definitions for IFIs for clinical research. On the basis of a review of literature and an international consensus, a set of research-oriented definitions for the IFIs most often seen and studied in immunocompromised patients with cancer is proposed. Three levels of probability are proposed: "proven," "probable," and "possible." The definitions are intended for use in the context of clinical and/or epidemiological research, not for clinical decision making.
2,314 citations
University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio1, University of California, Davis2, University Hospital of South Manchester NHS Foundation Trust3, Harvard University4, Tufts University5, University of Strasbourg6, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center7, Johns Hopkins University8, University of Minnesota9, University of Pittsburgh10, Roswell Park Cancer Institute11, Duke University12, Cornell University13, University of Florida14, National Institutes of Health15
TL;DR: IDSA considers adherence to these guidelines to be voluntary, with the ultimate determination regarding their application to be made by the physician in the light of each patient's individual circumstances.
Abstract: It is important to realize that guidelines cannot always account for individual variation among patients. They are not intended to supplant physician judgment with respect to particular patients or special clinical situations. IDSA considers adherence to these guidelines to be voluntary, with the ultimate determination regarding their application to be made by the physician in the light of each patient's individual circumstances.
1,745 citations
University of Sydney1, University of Michigan2, Duke University3, University of Alabama at Birmingham4, University of Pittsburgh5, University of Florida6, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention7, University of Münster8, University of Udine9, Ankara University10, University of Wisconsin-Madison11, Paris Diderot University12, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences13, University of Paris14, University of Lausanne15, Brown University16, Istituto Giannina Gaslini17, Carlos III Health Institute18, Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences19, National Institutes of Health20, University of Pennsylvania21, St George's, University of London22, Heidelberg University23, University of Copenhagen24, University College London25, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center26, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven27, Goethe University Frankfurt28, University of Würzburg29, Johns Hopkins University30, Monash University31, Federal University of Rio de Janeiro32, Catholic University of the Sacred Heart33, University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio34, Masaryk University35, RMIT University36, Radboud University Nijmegen37, University of Melbourne38, Stanford University39, University of California, Davis40, Georgia Regents University41, Cornell University42, University of Aberdeen43, University Hospital of Wales44
TL;DR: These updated definitions of IFDs should prove applicable in clinical, diagnostic, and epidemiologic research of a broader range of patients at high-risk.
Abstract: BACKGROUND: Invasive fungal diseases (IFDs) remain important causes of morbidity and mortality. The consensus definitions of the Infectious Diseases Group of the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer and the Mycoses Study Group have been of immense value to researchers who conduct clinical trials of antifungals, assess diagnostic tests, and undertake epidemiologic studies. However, their utility has not extended beyond patients with cancer or recipients of stem cell or solid organ transplants. With newer diagnostic techniques available, it was clear that an update of these definitions was essential. METHODS: To achieve this, 10 working groups looked closely at imaging, laboratory diagnosis, and special populations at risk of IFD. A final version of the manuscript was agreed upon after the groups' findings were presented at a scientific symposium and after a 3-month period for public comment. There were several rounds of discussion before a final version of the manuscript was approved. RESULTS: There is no change in the classifications of "proven," "probable," and "possible" IFD, although the definition of "probable" has been expanded and the scope of the category "possible" has been diminished. The category of proven IFD can apply to any patient, regardless of whether the patient is immunocompromised. The probable and possible categories are proposed for immunocompromised patients only, except for endemic mycoses. CONCLUSIONS: These updated definitions of IFDs should prove applicable in clinical, diagnostic, and epidemiologic research of a broader range of patients at high-risk.
1,211 citations
Cited by
More filters
TL;DR: This update of the CONSORT statement improves the wording and clarity of the previous checklist and incorporates recommendations related to topics that have only recently received recognition, such as selective outcome reporting bias.
Abstract: Overwhelming evidence shows the quality of reporting of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) is not optimal. Without transparent reporting, readers cannot judge the reliability and validity of trial findings nor extract information for systematic reviews. Recent methodological analyses indicate that inadequate reporting and design are associated with biased estimates of treatment effects. Such systematic error is seriously damaging to RCTs, which are considered the gold standard for evaluating interventions because of their ability to minimise or avoid bias. A group of scientists and editors developed the CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) statement to improve the quality of reporting of RCTs. It was first published in 1996 and updated in 2001. The statement consists of a checklist and flow diagram that authors can use for reporting an RCT. Many leading medical journals and major international editorial groups have endorsed the CONSORT statement. The statement facilitates critical appraisal and interpretation of RCTs. During the 2001 CONSORT revision, it became clear that explanation and elaboration of the principles underlying the CONSORT statement would help investigators and others to write or appraise trial reports. A CONSORT explanation and elaboration article was published in 2001 alongside the 2001 version of the CONSORT statement. After an expert meeting in January 2007, the CONSORT statement has been further revised and is published as the CONSORT 2010 Statement. This update improves the wording and clarity of the previous checklist and incorporates recommendations related to topics that have only recently received recognition, such as selective outcome reporting bias. This explanatory and elaboration document-intended to enhance the use, understanding, and dissemination of the CONSORT statement-has also been extensively revised. It presents the meaning and rationale for each new and updated checklist item providing examples of good reporting and, where possible, references to relevant empirical studies. Several examples of flow diagrams are included. The CONSORT 2010 Statement, this revised explanatory and elaboration document, and the associated website (www.consort-statement.org) should be helpful resources to improve reporting of randomised trials.
5,957 citations
Book•
[...]
01 May 1988
TL;DR: A comprehensive review of mechanisms of subcellular and tumor localization of photosensitizing agents, as well as of molecular, cellular, and tumor responses associated with photodynamic therapy, are discussed.
Abstract: Photodynamic therapy involves administration of a tumor-localizing photosensitizing agent, which may require metabolic synthesis (i.e., a prodrug), followed by activation of the agent by light of a specific wavelength. This therapy results in a sequence of photochemical and photobiologic processes that cause irreversible photodamage to tumor tissues. Results from preclinical and clinical studies conducted worldwide over a 25-year period have established photodynamic therapy as a useful treatment approach for some cancers. Since 1993, regulatory approval for photodynamic therapy involving use of a partially purified, commercially available hematoporphyrin derivative compound (Photofrin) in patients with early and advanced stage cancer of the lung, digestive tract, and genitourinary tract has been obtained in Canada, The Netherlands, France, Germany, Japan, and the United States. We have attempted to conduct and present a comprehensive review of this rapidly expanding field. Mechanisms of subcellular and tumor localization of photosensitizing agents, as well as of molecular, cellular, and tumor responses associated with photodynamic therapy, are discussed. Technical issues regarding light dosimetry are also considered.
4,580 citations
Radboud University Nijmegen1, National Institutes of Health2, Stanford University3, University of California, Los Angeles4, University of Lausanne5, University of Alabama6, University of Paris7, University of Michigan8, University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio9, University of Strasbourg10, University of Manchester11, University College London12, Oregon Health & Science University13, Complutense University of Madrid14, University of Aberdeen15, Duke University16, Charité17, University at Buffalo18, Wayne State University19, University of Sydney20, University of Genoa21, University of Florida22, University of Pennsylvania23
TL;DR: These revised definitions of invasive fungal disease are intended to advance clinical and epidemiological research and may serve as a useful model for defining other infections in high-risk patients.
Abstract: BACKGROUND: Invasive fungal diseases are important causes of morbidity and mortality. Clarity and uniformity in defining these infections are important factors in improving the quality of clinical studies. A standard set of definitions strengthens the consistency and reproducibility of such studies. METHODS: After the introduction of the original European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer/Invasive Fungal Infections Cooperative Group and the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Mycoses Study Group (EORTC/MSG) Consensus Group definitions, advances in diagnostic technology and the recognition of areas in need of improvement led to a revision of this document. The revision process started with a meeting of participants in 2003, to decide on the process and to draft the proposal. This was followed by several rounds of consultation until a final draft was approved in 2005. This was made available for 6 months to allow public comment, and then the manuscript was prepared and approved. RESULTS: The revised definitions retain the original classifications of "proven," "probable," and "possible" invasive fungal disease, but the definition of "probable" has been expanded, whereas the scope of the category "possible" has been diminished. The category of proven invasive fungal disease can apply to any patient, regardless of whether the patient is immunocompromised, whereas the probable and possible categories are proposed for immunocompromised patients only. CONCLUSIONS: These revised definitions of invasive fungal disease are intended to advance clinical and epidemiological research and may serve as a useful model for defining other infections in high-risk patients.
4,389 citations
TL;DR: Improved non-culture-based diagnostics are needed to expand the potential for preemptive (or early directed) therapy and improve diagnostic, preventive, and therapeutic strategies is necessary to reduce the considerable morbidity and mortality associated with IC.
Abstract: Invasive candidiasis (IC) is a leading cause of mycosis-associated mortality in the United States. We examined data from the National Center for Health Statistics and reviewed recent literature in order to update the epidemiology of IC. IC-associated mortality has remained stable, at approximately 0.4 deaths per 100,000 population, since 1997, while mortality associated with invasive aspergillosis has continued to decline. Candida albicans remains the predominant cause of IC, accounting for over half of all cases, but Candida glabrata has emerged as the second most common cause of IC in the United States, and several less common Candida species may be emerging, some of which can exhibit resistance to triazoles and/or amphotericin B. Crude and attributable rates of mortality due to IC remain unacceptably high and unchanged for the past 2 decades. Nonpharmacologic preventive strategies should be emphasized, including hand hygiene; appropriate use, placement, and care of central venous catheters; and prudent use of antimicrobial therapy. Given that delays in appropriate antifungal therapy are associated with increased mortality, improved use of early empirical, preemptive, and prophylactic therapies should also help reduce IC-associated mortality. Several studies have now identified important variables that can be used to predict risk of IC and to help guide preventive strategies such as antifungal prophylaxis and early empirical therapy. However, improved non-culture-based diagnostics are needed to expand the potential for preemptive (or early directed) therapy. Further research to improve diagnostic, preventive, and therapeutic strategies is necessary to reduce the considerable morbidity and mortality associated with IC.
3,723 citations
TL;DR: The Consort Statement as mentioned in this paper is a group of scientists and editors developed to improve the quality of reporting of randomized, controlled trials (RCTs) by providing guidance to authors about how to improve their reporting of their trials.
Abstract: Overwhelming evidence now indicates that the quality of reporting of randomized, controlled trials (RCTs) is less than optimal. Recent methodologic analyses indicate that inadequate reporting and design are associated with biased estimates of treatment effects. Such systematic error is seriously damaging to RCTs, which boast the elimination of systematic error as their primary hallmark. Systematic error in RCTs reflects poor science, and poor science threatens proper ethical standards. A group of scientists and editors developed the CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) statement to improve the quality of reporting of RCTs. The statement consists of a checklist and flow diagram that authors can use for reporting an RCT. Many leading medical journals and major international editorial groups have adopted the CONSORT statement. The CONSORT statement facilitates critical appraisal and interpretation of RCTs by providing guidance to authors about how to improve the reporting of their trials. This explanatory and elaboration document is intended to enhance the use, understanding, and dissemination of the CONSORT statement. The meaning and rationale for each checklist item are presented. For most items, at least one published example of good reporting and, where possible, references to relevant empirical studies are provided. Several examples of flow diagrams are included. The CONSORT statement, this explanatory and elaboration document, and the associated Web site (http://www.consort -statement.org) should be helpful resources to improve reporting of randomized trials.
3,647 citations