scispace - formally typeset
Search or ask a question
Institution

University of Alabama at Birmingham

EducationBirmingham, Alabama, United States
About: University of Alabama at Birmingham is a education organization based out in Birmingham, Alabama, United States. It is known for research contribution in the topics: Population & Medicine. The organization has 38523 authors who have published 86775 publications receiving 3930642 citations. The organization is also known as: UAB & The University of Alabama at Birmingham.


Papers
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: This document summarizes current knowledge about treatment of multiple forms of candidiasis and is the guideline of the Infectious Diseases Society of America for the treatment ofCandida, covering 4 major topical areas.
Abstract: Infections due to Candida species are the most common of the fungal infections. Candida species produce a broad range of infections, ranging from nonlife-threatening mucocutaneous illnesses to invasive process that may involve virtually any organ. Such a broad range of infections requires an equally broad range of diagnostic and therapeutic strategies. This document summarizes current knowledge about treatment of multiple forms of candidiasis and is the guideline of the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) for the treatment of candidiasis. Throughout this document, treatment recommendations are scored according to the standard scoring scheme used in other IDSA guidelines to illustrate the strength of the underlying data. The document covers 4 major topical areas. The role of the microbiology laboratory. To a greater extent than for other fungi, treatment of candidiasis can now be guided by in vitro susceptibility testing. The guidelines review the available information supporting current testing procedures and interpretive breakpoints and place these data into clinical context. Susceptibility testing is most helpful in dealing with infection due to non-albicans species of Candida. In this setting, especially if the patient has been treated previously with an azole antifungal agent, the possibility of microbiological resistance must be considered. Treatment of invasive candidiasis. In addition to acute hematogenous candidiasis, the guidelines review strategies for treatment of 15 other forms of invasive candidiasis. Extensive data from randomized trials are really available only for therapy of acute hematogenous candidiasis in the nonneutropenic adult. Choice of therapy for other forms of candidiasis is based on case series and anecdotal reports. In general, both amphotericin B and the azoles have a role to play in treatment. Choice of therapy is guided by weighing the greater activity of amphotericin B for some non-albicans species (e.g., Candida krusei) against the lesser toxicity and ease of administration of the azole antifungal agents. Flucytosine has activity against many isolates of Candida but is not often used. Treatment of mucocutaneous candidiasis. Therapy for mucosal infections is dominated by the azole antifungal agents. These drugs may be used topically or systemically and have been proven safe and efficacious. A significant problem with mucosal disease is the propensity for a small proportion of patients to suffer repeated relapses. In some situations, the explanation for such a relapse is obvious (e.g., relapsing oropharyngeal candidiasis in an individual with advanced and uncontrolled HIV infection), but in other patients the cause is cryptic (e.g., relapsing vaginitis in a healthy woman). Rational strategies for these situations are discussed in the guidelines and must consider the possibility of induction of resistance over time. Prevention of invasive candidiasis. Prophylactic strategies are useful if the risk of a target disease is sharply elevated in a readily identified group of patients. Selected patient groups undergoing therapy that produces prolonged neutropenia (e.g., some bone-marrow transplant recipients) or who receive a solid-organ transplant (e.g., some liver transplant recipients) have a sufficient risk of invasive candidiasis to warrant prophylaxis.

912 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: It is estimated that each year in the United States approximately 340,000 non-Hispanic white persons, 130,000non-Hispanic black persons, and 50,000 Mexican American women of childbearing age experience a primary CMV infection.
Abstract: BACKGROUND Cytomegalovirus (CMV) is a leading cause of congenital illness and disability, including hearing loss and mental retardation. However, there are no nationwide estimates of CMV seroprevalence among pregnant women or the overall population of the United States. METHODS To determine CMV prevalence in a representative sample of the US population, we tested serum samples for CMV-specific immunoglobulin G from participants aged > or =6 years (n=21,639) in the third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (1988-1994). RESULTS The prevalence of CMV infection was 58.9% in individuals > or =6 years old. CMV seroprevalence increased gradually with age, from 36.3% in 6-11-year-olds to 90.8% in those aged > or =80 years. CMV seroprevalence differed by race and/or ethnicity as follows: 51.2% in non-Hispanic white persons, 75.8% in non-Hispanic black persons, and 81.7% in Mexican Americans. Racial and/or ethnic differences in CMV seroprevalence persisted when controlling for household income level, education, marital status, area of residence, census region, family size, country of birth, and type of medical insurance. Among women, racial and/or ethnic differences were especially significant; between ages 10-14 years and 20-24 years, seroprevalence increased 38% for non-Hispanic black persons, 7% for non-Hispanic white persons, and <1% for Mexican Americans. CONCLUSIONS On the basis of these results, we estimate that each year in the United States approximately 340,000 non-Hispanic white persons, 130,000 non-Hispanic black persons, and 50,000 Mexican American women of childbearing age experience a primary CMV infection. Given the number of women at risk and the significance of congenital disease, development of programs for the prevention of CMV infection, such as vaccination or education, is of considerable public health importance.

911 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: Voriconazole is a suitable alternative to amphotericin B preparations for empirical antifungal therapy in patients with neutropenia and persistent fever in a randomized, international, multicenter trial.
Abstract: Background Patients with neutropenia and persistent fever are often treated empirically with amphotericin B or liposomal amphotericin B to prevent invasive fungal infections. Antifungal triazoles offer a potentially safer and effective alternative. Methods In a randomized, international, multicenter trial, we compared voriconazole, a new second-generation triazole, with liposomal amphotericin B for empirical antifungal therapy. Results A total of 837 patients (415 assigned to voriconazole and 422 to liposomal amphotericin B) were evaluated for success of treatment. The overall success rates were 26.0 percent with voriconazole and 30.6 percent with liposomal amphotericin B (95 percent confidence interval for the difference, –10.6 to 1.6 percentage points); these rates were independent of the administration of antifungal prophylaxis or the use of colony-stimulating factors. There were fewer documented breakthrough fungal infections in patients treated with voriconazole than in those treated with liposomal a...

910 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
Gerald B. Appel1, Gabriel Contreras2, Mary Anne Dooley3, Ellen M. Ginzler4, David A. Isenberg5, David Jayne6, Lei Shi Li, Eduardo Mysler, Jorge Sánchez-Guerrero, Neil Solomons, David Wofsy7, Carlos Abud, Sharon G. Adler8, Graciela S. Alarcón9, Elisa N. Albuquerque10, Fernando Almeida, Alejandro Alvarellos, Gerald B. Appel1, Hilario Avila11, Cornelia Blume12, Ioannis Boletis, Alain Bonnardeaux, Alan Braun, Jill P. Buyon13, Ricard Cervera14, Nan Chen15, Shun-Le Chen15, António Gomes Da Costa16, Razeen Davids17, David D'Cruz18, Enrique de Ramón, Atul Deodhar19, Andrea Doria20, Bertrand Dussol, Paul Emery21, Justus Fiechtner, Jürgen Floege, Hilda Fragoso-Loyo, Richard Furie22, Rozina Ghazalli23, Cybele Ghossein23, Gary S. Gilkeson24, EM Ginzler25, Caroline Gordon8, Jennifer M. Grossman8, Jieruo Gu26, Loïc Guillevin, Pierre Yves Hatron27, Gisela Herrera28, Falk Hiepe28, Frédéric Houssiau, Osvaldo Hübscher, Claudia Hura29, Joshua Kaplan30, Gianna Mastroianni Kirsztajn30, Emese Kiss31, Ghazali Ahmad Kutty, Maurice Laville, Maria Lazaro, Oliver Lenz2, Leishi Li32, Liz Lightstone33, Sam Lim34, Michel Malaise35, Susan Manzi35, Juan Carlos Marcos, Olivier Meyer36, Pablo Monge37, Saraladev Naicker37, Nathaniel Neal38, Michael Neuwelt39, Kathy Nicholls40, Nancy J. Olsen40, José Ordi-Ros41, Barbara E. Ostrov42, Manuel Pestana43, Michelle Petri44, G. Pokorny44, Jacques Pourrat15, Jiaqi Qian15, Jai Radhakrishnan1, Brad H. Rovin, Julio Sanchez Roman, Joseph C. Shanahan45, William Shergy, Fotini Skopouli, Alberto Spindler46, Christopher Striebich47, Robert Sundel48, Charles R. Swanepoel48, Yen Tan Si49, Guillermo Tate, Vladimír Tesaŕ37, Mohamed Tikly37, Haiyan Wang, Rosnawati Yahya50, Xueqing Yu26, Fengchun Zhang50, Diana Zoruba 
Columbia University1, University of Miami2, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill3, SUNY Downstate Medical Center4, University College London5, Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust6, University of California, San Francisco7, University of California, Los Angeles8, University of Alabama at Birmingham9, Rio de Janeiro State University10, University of Guadalajara11, University of Düsseldorf12, New York University13, University of Barcelona14, Shanghai Jiao Tong University15, University of Lisbon16, Stellenbosch University17, Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust18, Oregon Health & Science University19, University of Padua20, University of Leeds21, North Shore-LIJ Health System22, Northwestern University23, Medical University of South Carolina24, University of Birmingham25, Sun Yat-sen University26, Lille University of Science and Technology27, Charité28, Rutgers University29, Federal University of São Paulo30, University of Debrecen31, Imperial College London32, Emory University33, University of Liège34, University of Pittsburgh35, University of Paris36, University of the Witwatersrand37, California State University, Long Beach38, Royal Melbourne Hospital39, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center40, Autonomous University of Barcelona41, Pennsylvania State University42, Johns Hopkins University43, University of Szeged44, Duke University45, University of Colorado Denver46, Harvard University47, University of Cape Town48, University of Malaya49, Peking Union Medical College50
TL;DR: Although most patients in both treatment groups experienced clinical improvement, the study did not meet its primary objective of showing that MMF was superior to IVC as induction treatment for lupus nephritis.
Abstract: Recent studies have suggested that mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) may offer advantages over intravenous cyclophosphamide (IVC) for the treatment of lupus nephritis, but these therapies have not been compared in an international randomized, controlled trial. Here, we report the comparison of MMF and IVC as induction treatment for active lupus nephritis in a multinational, two-phase (induction and maintenance) study. We randomly assigned 370 patients with classes III through V lupus nephritis to open-label MMF (target dosage 3 g/d) or IVC (0.5 to 1.0 g/m(2) in monthly pulses) in a 24-wk induction study. Both groups received prednisone, tapered from a maximum starting dosage of 60 mg/d. The primary end point was a prespecified decrease in urine protein/creatinine ratio and stabilization or improvement in serum creatinine. Secondary end points included complete renal remission, systemic disease activity and damage, and safety. Overall, we did not detect a significantly different response rate between the two groups: 104 (56.2%) of 185 patients responded to MMF compared with 98 (53.0%) of 185 to IVC. Secondary end points were also similar between treatment groups. There were nine deaths in the MMF group and five in the IVC group. We did not detect significant differences between the MMF and IVC groups with regard to rates of adverse events, serious adverse events, or infections. Although most patients in both treatment groups experienced clinical improvement, the study did not meet its primary objective of showing that MMF was superior to IVC as induction treatment for lupus nephritis.

909 citations


Authors

Showing all 38940 results

NameH-indexPapersCitations
Rudolf Jaenisch206606178436
Joel Schwartz1831149109985
Tadamitsu Kishimoto1811067130860
Jasvinder A. Singh1762382223370
Gregg L. Semenza168502130316
David R. Jacobs1651262113892
Hua Zhang1631503116769
David R. Holmes1611624114187
David Cella1561258106402
Elaine S. Jaffe156828112412
Michael A. Matthay15199898687
Lawrence Corey14677378105
Barton F. Haynes14491179014
Douglas D. Richman14263382806
Kjell Fuxe142147989846
Network Information
Related Institutions (5)
University of Pittsburgh
201K papers, 9.6M citations

98% related

University of California, San Francisco
186.2K papers, 12M citations

98% related

National Institutes of Health
297.8K papers, 21.3M citations

97% related

Brigham and Women's Hospital
110.5K papers, 6.8M citations

97% related

University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
185.3K papers, 9.9M citations

97% related

Performance
Metrics
No. of papers from the Institution in previous years
YearPapers
2023168
2022530
20215,327
20205,028
20194,402
20184,083