Author
J.P. Donnelly
Other affiliations: Hammersmith Hospital, National Institutes of Health, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre
Bio: J.P. Donnelly is an academic researcher from Radboud University Nijmegen. The author has contributed to research in topics: Mucositis & Transplantation. The author has an hindex of 46, co-authored 110 publications receiving 9865 citations. Previous affiliations of J.P. Donnelly include Hammersmith Hospital & National Institutes of Health.
Topics: Mucositis, Transplantation, Aspergillosis, Neutropenia, Fluconazole
Papers published on a yearly basis
Papers
More filters
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 Cologne1, Misericordia University2, University Hospital of Lausanne3, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre4, Necker-Enfants Malades Hospital5, Pasteur Institute6, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven7, Hacettepe University8, Statens Serum Institut9, Boston Children's Hospital10, Carlos III Health Institute11, University of Strasbourg12, University of Liverpool13, University of Copenhagen14, Innsbruck Medical University15, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens16, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre17, University of Genoa18, University of Würzburg19
TL;DR: This part of the EFISG guidelines focuses on non-neutropenic adult patients, and liposomal amphotericin B and voriconazole are supported with moderate, and fluconazole with marginal strength for the targeted initial treatment of candidaemia.
1,011 citations
TL;DR: A Reference Laboratory for Mycology and Parasitology, National Center for Microbiology, Instituto de Salud Carlos III, Majadahonda, Spain.
676 citations
Carlos III Health Institute1, Radboud University Nijmegen2, Statens Serum Institut3, Hacettepe University4, University of Lausanne5, University of Copenhagen6, Innsbruck Medical University7, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre8, Misericordia University9, University Hospital of Lausanne10, Boston Children's Hospital11, University of Cologne12, University of Strasbourg13, University of Liverpool14, Pasteur Institute15, Necker-Enfants Malades Hospital16, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven17, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens18, University of Genoa19, University of Würzburg20
TL;DR: In this paper, a panel of experts of the European Fungal Infection Study Group (EFISG) undertook a data review and compiled guidelines for the clinical utility and accuracy of different diagnostic tests and procedures for detection of Candida infections.
354 citations
University of Würzburg1, Hacettepe University2, University of Strasbourg3, University of Genoa4, Statens Serum Institut5, Misericordia University6, University Hospital of Lausanne7, Boston Children's Hospital8, University of Cologne9, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre10, University of Liverpool11, University of Copenhagen12, Innsbruck Medical University13, Necker-Enfants Malades Hospital14, Pasteur Institute15, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven16, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens17, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre18, Carlos III Health Institute19
TL;DR: This part of the ESCMID guidelines focuses on this patient population and reviews pertaining to prophylaxis, empirical/pre-emptive and targeted therapy of Candida diseases, although a warning for resistance is expressed.
280 citations
Cited by
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
St George's Hospital1, New York University2, McMaster University3, Brown University4, Catholic University of the Sacred Heart5, Hebron University6, University of Manitoba7, Emory University Hospital8, Hebrew University of Jerusalem9, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre10, University of Pittsburgh11, Saint Thomas - West Hospital12, University College London13, Vanderbilt University Medical Center14, Keio University15, Memorial Hospital of South Bend16, Cooper University Hospital17, University of Mississippi Medical Center18, Rush University Medical Center19, University of Ulsan20, Federal University of São Paulo21, Regions Hospital22, St. Michael's Hospital23, Washington University in St. Louis24, Ottawa Hospital25, University of Sydney26, Mount Sinai Hospital27, University of New South Wales28, Fujita Health University29, Christiana Care Health System30, Stanford University31, King Abdullah University of Science and Technology32, University of Kansas33, Harvard University34, California Pacific Medical Center35, University of Amsterdam36, Houston Methodist Hospital37
TL;DR: Although a significant number of aspects of care have relatively weak support, evidence-based recommendations regarding the acute management of sepsis and septic shock are the foundation of improved outcomes for these critically ill patients with high mortality.
Abstract: To provide an update to “Surviving Sepsis Campaign Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock: 2012”. A consensus committee of 55 international experts representing 25 international organizations was convened. Nominal groups were assembled at key international meetings (for those committee members attending the conference). A formal conflict-of-interest (COI) policy was developed at the onset of the process and enforced throughout. A stand-alone meeting was held for all panel members in December 2015. Teleconferences and electronic-based discussion among subgroups and among the entire committee served as an integral part of the development. The panel consisted of five sections: hemodynamics, infection, adjunctive therapies, metabolic, and ventilation. Population, intervention, comparison, and outcomes (PICO) questions were reviewed and updated as needed, and evidence profiles were generated. Each subgroup generated a list of questions, searched for best available evidence, and then followed the principles of the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) system to assess the quality of evidence from high to very low, and to formulate recommendations as strong or weak, or best practice statement when applicable. The Surviving Sepsis Guideline panel provided 93 statements on early management and resuscitation of patients with sepsis or septic shock. Overall, 32 were strong recommendations, 39 were weak recommendations, and 18 were best-practice statements. No recommendation was provided for four questions. Substantial agreement exists among a large cohort of international experts regarding many strong recommendations for the best care of patients with sepsis. Although a significant number of aspects of care have relatively weak support, evidence-based recommendations regarding the acute management of sepsis and septic shock are the foundation of improved outcomes for these critically ill patients with high mortality.
4,303 citations
TL;DR: The aim of broth and agar dilution methods is to determine the lowest concentration of the assayed antimicrobial agent (minimal inhibitory concentration, MIC) that, under defined test conditions, inhibits the visible growth of the bacterium being investigated.
Abstract: The aim of broth and agar dilution methods is to determine the lowest concentration of the assayed antimicrobial agent (minimal inhibitory concentration, MIC) that, under defined test conditions, inhibits the visible growth of the bacterium being investigated. MIC values are used to determine susceptibilities of bacteria to drugs and also to evaluate the activity of new antimicrobial agents. Agar dilution involves the incorporation of different concentrations of the antimicrobial substance into a nutrient agar medium followed by the application of a standardized number of cells to the surface of the agar plate. For broth dilution, often determined in 96-well microtiter plate format, bacteria are inoculated into a liquid growth medium in the presence of different concentrations of an antimicrobial agent. Growth is assessed after incubation for a defined period of time (16-20 h) and the MIC value is read. This protocol applies only to aerobic bacteria and can be completed in 3 d.
4,223 citations
Journal Article•
3,097 citations
University of Nebraska Medical Center1, University of Manitoba2, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center3, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center4, City of Hope National Medical Center5, University of Rochester6, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center7, University of Minnesota8, University of Florida9
TL;DR: This document updates and expands the initial Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) Fever and Neutropenia Guideline that was published in 1997 and first updated in 2002 and developed a clearer definition of which populations of patients with cancer may benefit most from antibiotic, antifungal, and antiviral prophylaxis.
Abstract: This document updates and expands the initial Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) Fever and Neutropenia Guideline that was published in 1997 and first updated in 2002. It is intended as a guide for the use of antimicrobial agents in managing patients with cancer who experience chemotherapy-induced fever and neutropenia. Recent advances in antimicrobial drug development and technology, clinical trial results, and extensive clinical experience have informed the approaches and recommendations herein. Because the previous iteration of this guideline in 2002, we have a developed a clearer definition of which populations of patients with cancer may benefit most from antibiotic, antifungal, and antiviral prophylaxis. Furthermore, categorizing neutropenic patients as being at high risk or low risk for infection according to presenting signs and symptoms, underlying cancer, type of therapy, and medical comorbidities has become essential to the treatment algorithm. Risk stratification is a recommended starting point for managing patients with fever and neutropenia. In addition, earlier detection of invasive fungal infections has led to debate regarding optimal use of empirical or preemptive antifungal therapy, although algorithms are still evolving. What has not changed is the indication for immediate empirical antibiotic therapy. It remains true that all patients who present with fever and neutropenia should be treated swiftly and broadly with antibiotics to treat both gram-positive and gram-negative pathogens. Finally, we note that all Panel members are from institutions in the United States or Canada; thus, these guidelines were developed in the context of North American practices. Some recommendations may not be as applicable outside of North America, in areas where differences in available antibiotics, in the predominant pathogens, and/or in health care-associated economic conditions exist. Regardless of venue, clinical vigilance and immediate treatment are the universal keys to managing neutropenic patients with fever and/or infection.
2,664 citations