scispace - formally typeset
Search or ask a question
Author

Timothy M. Uyeki

Bio: Timothy M. Uyeki is an academic researcher from Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The author has contributed to research in topics: Influenza A virus subtype H5N1 & Influenza A virus. The author has an hindex of 86, co-authored 309 publications receiving 42818 citations. Previous affiliations of Timothy M. Uyeki include National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases & University of California, San Francisco.


Papers
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: Data suggest that the use of antiviral drugs was beneficial in hospitalized patients, especially when such therapy was initiated early, and patients seemed to benefit from antiviral therapy.
Abstract: BACKGROUND During the spring of 2009, a pandemic influenza A (H1N1) virus emerged and spread globally. We describe the clinical characteristics of patients who were hospitalized with 2009 H1N1 influenza in the United States from April 2009 to mid-June 2009. METHODS Using medical charts, we collected data on 272 patients who were hospitalized for at least 24 hours for influenza-like illness and who tested positive for the 2009 H1N1 virus with the use of a real-time reverse-transcriptase-polymerase-chain-reaction assay. RESULTS Of the 272 patients we studied, 25% were admitted to an intensive care unit and 7% died. Forty-five percent of the patients were children under the age of 18 years, and 5% were 65 years of age or older. Seventy-three percent of the patients had at least one underlying medical condition; these conditions included asthma; diabetes; heart, lung, and neurologic diseases; and pregnancy. Of the 249 patients who underwent chest radiography on admission, 100 (40%) had findings consistent with pneumonia. Of the 268 patients for whom data were available regarding the use of antiviral drugs, such therapy was initiated in 200 patients (75%) at a median of 3 days after the onset of illness. Data suggest that the use of antiviral drugs was beneficial in hospitalized patients, especially when such therapy was initiated early. CONCLUSIONS During the evaluation period, 2009 H1N1 influenza caused severe illness requiring hospitalization, including pneumonia and death. Nearly three quarters of the patients had one or more underlying medical conditions. Few severe illnesses were reported among persons 65 years of age or older. Patients seemed to benefit from antiviral therapy.

1,586 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: A review of virologic, epidemiologic, and clinical data on 2009 H1N1 virus infections and summarizes key issues for clinicians worldwide can be found in this paper, where a novel influenza A virus of swine origin caused human infection and acute respiratory illness in Mexico.
Abstract: Copyright © 2010 Massachusetts Medical Society. During the spring of 2009, a novel influenza A (H1N1) virus of swine origin caused human infection and acute respiratory illness in Mexico.1,2 After initially spreading among persons in the United States and Canada,3,4 the virus spread globally, resulting in the first influenza pandemic since 1968 with circulation outside the usual influenza season in the Northern Hemisphere (see the Supplementary Appendix, available with the full text of this article at NEJM.org). As of March 2010, almost all countries had reported cases, and more than 17,700 deaths among laboratory-confirmed cases had been reported to the World Health Organization (WHO).5 The number of laboratory-confirmed cases significantly underestimates the pandemic’s impact. In the United States, an estimated 59 million illnesses, 265,000 hospitalizations, and 12,000 deaths had been caused by the 2009 H1N1 virus as of mid-February 2010.6 This article reviews virologic, epidemiologic, and clinical data on 2009 H1N1 virus infections and summarizes key issues for clinicians worldwide.

1,013 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: A minimum set of common outcome measures for studies of COVID-19, which includes a measure of viral burden, patient survival, and patient progression through the health-care system by use of the WHO Clinical Progression Scale are urged.
Abstract: Summary Clinical research is necessary for an effective response to an emerging infectious disease outbreak. However, research efforts are often hastily organised and done using various research tools, with the result that pooling data across studies is challenging. In response to the needs of the rapidly evolving COVID-19 outbreak, the Clinical Characterisation and Management Working Group of the WHO Research and Development Blueprint programme, the International Forum for Acute Care Trialists, and the International Severe Acute Respiratory and Emerging Infections Consortium have developed a minimum set of common outcome measures for studies of COVID-19. This set includes three elements: a measure of viral burden (quantitative PCR or cycle threshold), a measure of patient survival (mortality at hospital discharge or at 60 days), and a measure of patient progression through the health-care system by use of the WHO Clinical Progression Scale, which reflects patient trajectory and resource use over the course of clinical illness. We urge investigators to include these key data elements in ongoing and future studies to expedite the pooling of data during this immediate threat, and to hone a tool for future needs.

882 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: The members of the writing committee (Abdel-Nasser Abdel-Ghafar, M.D., Tawee Chotpitayasunondh,M.D, Ph.D), and Timothy M. Uyeki assume responsibility for the overall content and integrity of the article.

747 citations

21 Jan 2011
TL;DR: This report updates previous recommendations by CDC's Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) regarding the use of antiviral agents for the prevention and treatment of influenza and provides a summary of the effectiveness and safety of antivirus treatment medications.
Abstract: This report updates previous recommendations by CDC's Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) regarding the use of antiviral agents for the prevention and treatment of influenza (CDC. Prevention and control of influenza: recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices [ACIP]. MMWR 2008;57[No. RR-7]).This report contains information on treatment and chemoprophylaxis of influenza virus infection and provides a summary of the effectiveness and safety of antiviral treatment medications. Highlights include recommendations for use of 1) early antiviral treatment of suspected or confirmed influenza among persons with severe influenza (e.g., those who have severe, complicated, or progressive illness or who require hospitalization); 2) early antiviral treatment of suspected or confirmed influenza among persons at higher risk for influenza complications; and 3) either oseltamivir or zanamivir for persons with influenza caused by 2009 H1N1 virus, influenza A (H3N2) virus, or influenza B virus or when the influenza virus type or influenza A virus subtype is unknown; 4) antiviral medications among children aged <1 year; 5) local influenza testing and influenza surveillance data, when available, to help guide treatment decisions; and 6) consideration of antiviral treatment for outpatients with confirmed or suspected influenza who do not have known risk factors for severe illness, if treatment can be initiated within 48 hours of illness onset. Additional information is available from CDC's influenza website at http://www.cdc.gov/flu, including any updates or supplements to these recommendations that might be required during the 2010-11 influenza season. Health-care providers should be alert to announcements of recommendation updates and should check the CDC influenza website periodically for additional information. Recommendations related to the use of vaccines for the prevention of influenza during the 2010-11 influenza season have been published previously (CDC. Prevention and control of influenza with vaccines: recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices [ACIP], 2010. MMWR 2010;59[No. RR-8]).

730 citations


Cited by
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: During the first 2 months of the current outbreak, Covid-19 spread rapidly throughout China and caused varying degrees of illness, and patients often presented without fever, and many did not have abnormal radiologic findings.
Abstract: Background Since December 2019, when coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) emerged in Wuhan city and rapidly spread throughout China, data have been needed on the clinical characteristics of...

22,622 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: Wang et al. as discussed by the authors used univariable and multivariable logistic regression methods to explore the risk factors associated with in-hospital death, including older age, high SOFA score and d-dimer greater than 1 μg/mL.

20,189 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: The Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study 2016 (GBD 2016) provides a comprehensive assessment of prevalence, incidence, and years lived with disability (YLDs) for 328 causes in 195 countries and territories from 1990 to 2016.

10,401 citations

01 Jan 2014
TL;DR: These standards of care are intended to provide clinicians, patients, researchers, payors, and other interested individuals with the components of diabetes care, treatment goals, and tools to evaluate the quality of care.
Abstract: XI. STRATEGIES FOR IMPROVING DIABETES CARE D iabetes is a chronic illness that requires continuing medical care and patient self-management education to prevent acute complications and to reduce the risk of long-term complications. Diabetes care is complex and requires that many issues, beyond glycemic control, be addressed. A large body of evidence exists that supports a range of interventions to improve diabetes outcomes. These standards of care are intended to provide clinicians, patients, researchers, payors, and other interested individuals with the components of diabetes care, treatment goals, and tools to evaluate the quality of care. While individual preferences, comorbidities, and other patient factors may require modification of goals, targets that are desirable for most patients with diabetes are provided. These standards are not intended to preclude more extensive evaluation and management of the patient by other specialists as needed. For more detailed information, refer to Bode (Ed.): Medical Management of Type 1 Diabetes (1), Burant (Ed): Medical Management of Type 2 Diabetes (2), and Klingensmith (Ed): Intensive Diabetes Management (3). The recommendations included are diagnostic and therapeutic actions that are known or believed to favorably affect health outcomes of patients with diabetes. A grading system (Table 1), developed by the American Diabetes Association (ADA) and modeled after existing methods, was utilized to clarify and codify the evidence that forms the basis for the recommendations. The level of evidence that supports each recommendation is listed after each recommendation using the letters A, B, C, or E.

9,618 citations