Journal•ISSN: 1058-4838
Clinical Infectious Diseases
Oxford University Press
About: Clinical Infectious Diseases is an academic journal published by Oxford University Press. The journal publishes majorly in the area(s): Population & Medicine. It has an ISSN identifier of 1058-4838. Over the lifetime, 29665 publications have been published receiving 1791116 citations. The journal is also known as: Clin Infect Dis & Clin. Infect. Dis..
Topics: Population, Medicine, Internal medicine, Vaccination, Acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS)
Papers published on a yearly basis
Papers
More filters
McMaster University1, Northwestern University2, University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio3, Johns Hopkins University4, University of Mississippi5, University of Utah6, LDS Hospital7, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention8, Baylor College of Medicine9, United States Department of Veterans Affairs10, Stony Brook University11, Winthrop-University Hospital12, University of Barcelona13
TL;DR: This work presents a meta-analyses of the immune system’s response to chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and shows clear patterns of decline in the immune systems of elderly patients with compromised immune systems.
Abstract: Lionel A. Mandell, Richard G. Wunderink, Antonio Anzueto, John G. Bartlett, G. Douglas Campbell, Nathan C. Dean, Scott F. Dowell, Thomas M. File, Jr. Daniel M. Musher, Michael S. Niederman, Antonio Torres, and Cynthia G. Whitney McMaster University Medical School, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada; Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, Illinois; University of Texas Health Science Center and South Texas Veterans Health Care System, San Antonio, and Michael E. DeBakey Veterans Affairs Medical Center and Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas; Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland; Division of Pulmonary, Critical Care, and Sleep Medicine, University of Mississippi School of Medicine, Jackson; Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, LDS Hospital, and University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah; Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia; Northeastern Ohio Universities College of Medicine, Rootstown, and Summa Health System, Akron, Ohio; State University of New York at Stony Brook, Stony Brook, and Department of Medicine, Winthrop University Hospital, Mineola, New York; and Cap de Servei de Pneumologia i Allergia Respiratoria, Institut Clinic del Torax, Hospital Clinic de Barcelona, Facultat de Medicina, Universitat de Barcelona, Institut d’Investigacions Biomediques August Pi i Sunyer, CIBER CB06/06/0028, Barcelona, Spain.
5,558 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
Tufts Medical Center1, Boston Children's Hospital2, University of California, San Diego3, Los Angeles Biomedical Research Institute4, University of California, Los Angeles5, Providence Portland Medical Center6, Case Western Reserve University7, United States Department of Veterans Affairs8, University of Virginia9, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine10
TL;DR: An update on potentially effective antibacterial drugs in the late-stage development pipeline is provided, in the hope of encouraging collaboration between industry, academia, the National Institutes of Health, the Food and Drug Administration, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention work productively together.
Abstract: The Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) continues to view with concern the lean pipeline for novel therapeutics to treat drug-resistant infections, especially those caused by gram-negative pathogens. Infections now occur that are resistant to all current antibacterial options. Although the IDSA is encouraged by the prospect of success for some agents currently in preclinical development, there is an urgent, immediate need for new agents with activity against these panresistant organisms. There is no evidence that this need will be met in the foreseeable future. Furthermore, we remain concerned that the infrastructure for discovering and developing new antibacterials continues to stagnate, thereby risking the future pipeline of antibacterial drugs. The IDSA proposed solutions in its 2004 policy report, “Bad Bugs, No Drugs: As Antibiotic R&D Stagnates, a Public Health Crisis Brews,” and recently issued a “Call to Action” to provide an update on the scope of the problem and the proposed solutions. A primary objective of these periodic reports is to encourage a community and legislative response to establish greater financial parity between the antimicrobial development and the development of other drugs. Although recent actions of the Food and Drug Administration and the 110th US Congress present a glimmer of hope, significant uncertainly remains. Now, more than ever, it is essential to create a robust and sustainable antibacterial research and development infrastructure—one that can respond to current antibacterial resistance now and anticipate evolving resistance. This challenge requires that industry, academia, the National Institutes of Health, the Food and Drug Administration, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the US Department of Defense, and the new Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority at the Department of Health and Human Services work productively together. This report provides an update on potentially effective antibacterial drugs in the late-stage development pipeline, in the hope of encouraging such collaborative action.
4,256 citations
TL;DR: The classification system for HIV infection is revised to emphasize the clinical importance of the CD4+ T-lymphocyte count in the categorization of HIV-related clinical conditions and the AIDS surveillance case definition is expanded.
Abstract: The following CDC staff members prepared this report: National Center for Infectious Diseases Division of HIV/AIDS Kenneth G. Castro, M.D. John W. Ward, M.D. Laurence Slutsker, M.D., M.P.H. James W. Buehler, M.D. Harold W. Jaffe, M.D. Ruth L. Berkelman, M.D. Office of the Director Associate Director for HIV/AIDS James W. Curran, M.D., M.P.H. 1993 Revised Classification System for HIV Infection and Expanded Surveillance Case Definition for AIDS Among Adolescents and Adults Summary CDC has revised the classification system for HIV infection to emphasize the clinical importance of the CD4+ T-lymphocyte count in the categorization of HIV-related clinical conditions. This classification system replaces the system published by CDC in 1986 (1) and is primarily intended for use in public health practice. Consistent with the 1993 revised classification system, CDC has also expanded the AIDS surveillance case definition to include all HIV-infected persons who have less than 200 CD4+ T-lymphocytes/uL, or a CD4+ T-lymphocyte percentage of total lymphocytes of less than 14. This expansion includes the addition of three clinical conditions
4,203 citations
TL;DR: The proportion of nosocomial BSIs due to antibiotic-resistant organisms is increasing in US hospitals, and in neutropenic patients, infections with Candida species, enterococci, and viridans group streptococci were significantly more common.
Abstract: Background. Nosocomial bloodstream infections (BSIs) are important causes of morbidity and mortality in the United States. Methods. Data from a nationwide, concurrent surveillance study (Surveillance and Control of Pathogens of Epidemiological Importance [SCOPE]) were used to examine the secular trends in the epidemiology and microbiology of nosocomial BSIs. Results. Our study detected 24,179 cases of nosocomial BSI in 49 US hospitals over a 7-year period from March 1995 through September 2002 (60 cases per 10,000 hospital admissions). Eighty-seven percent of BSIs were monomicrobial. Gram-positive organisms caused 65% of these BSIs, gram-negative organisms caused 25%, and fungi caused 9.5%. The crude mortality rate was 27%. The most-common organisms causing BSIs were coagulasenegative staphylococci (CoNS) (31% of isolates), Staphylococcus aureus (20%), enterococci (9%), and Candida species (9%). The mean interval between admission and infection was 13 days for infection with Escherichia coli, 16 days for S. aureus, 22 days for Candida species and Klebsiella species, 23 days for enterococci, and 26 days for Acinetobacter species. CoNS, Pseudomonas species, Enterobacter species, Serratia species, and Acinetobacter species were more likely to cause infections in patients in intensive care units ( ). In neutropenic patients, infections P ! .001 with Candida species, enterococci, and viridans group streptococci were significantly more common. The proportion of S. aureus isolates with methicillin resistance increased from 22% in 1995 to 57% in 2001 ( , trend P ! .001 analysis). Vancomycin resistance was seen in 2% of Enterococcus faecalis isolates and in 60% of Enterococcus faecium isolates. Conclusion. In this study, one of the largest multicenter studies performed to date, we found that the proportion of nosocomial BSIs due to antibiotic-resistant organisms is increasing in US hospitals.
4,084 citations