Search

Background: Antibody responses to the inactivated seasonal influenza vaccine in patients with atopic dermatitis (AD) have not been carefully characterized., Objective: The primary objective of this study was to compare antibody responses to intradermal vaccination in participants with moderate/severe AD with those in nonatopic participants. Secondary objectives were to evaluate the effect of route of administration, Staphylococcus aureus skin colonization, and disease severity on vaccine response., Methods: This was an open-label study conducted in the 2012-2013 influenza season at 5 US clinical sites. A total of 360 participants with moderate/severe AD or nonatopic subjects were assessed for eligibility, 347 of whom received intradermal or intramuscular vaccination per label and were followed for 28 days after vaccination. The primary outcome was the difference in the proportion of participants achieving seroprotection (hemagglutination-inhibition antibody titer ≥1:40 on day 28 after vaccination)., Results: Seroprotection rates for influenza B, H1N1, and H3N2 were not different (1) between participants with AD and nonatopic participants receiving intradermal vaccination and (2) between AD participants receiving intradermal and intramuscular vaccination. After intradermal, but not intramuscular, vaccination, participants with AD with S aureus colonization experienced (1) lower seroprotection and seroconversion rates and lower hemagglutination-inhibition antibody titer geometric mean fold increase against influenza B and (2) lower seroconversion rates against influenza H1N1 than noncolonized participants with AD., Conclusion: Participants with AD colonized with S aureus exhibited a reduced immune response to influenza vaccination compared with noncolonized participants after intradermal but not intramuscular vaccination. Because most patients with AD are colonized with S aureus, intramuscular influenza vaccination should be given preference in these patients., (Copyright © 2017 American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology. All rights reserved.)

Background: B-lymphocyte depletion with rituximab has been shown to benefit patients with various autoimmune diseases. We have previously demonstrated that this benefit is also apparent in patients with newly diagnosed type 1 diabetes., Objectives: The effect of rituximab on in vivo antibody responses, particularly during the period of B-lymphocyte depletion, is incompletely determined. This study was designed to assess this knowledge void., Methods: In patients with recent-onset type 1 diabetes treated with rituximab (n = 46) or placebo (n = 29), antibody responses to neoantigen phiX174 during B-lymphocyte depletion and with hepatitis A (as a second neoantigen) and tetanus/diphtheria (as recall antigens) after B-lymphocyte recovery were studied. Anti- tetanus, diphtheria, mumps, measles, and rubella titers were measured before and after treatment by means of ELISA. Antibody titers and percentage IgM versus percentage IgG to phiX174 were measured by means of phage neutralization. B-lymphocyte subsets were determined by means of flow cytometry., Results: No change occurred in preexisting antibody titers. Tetanus/diphtheria and hepatitis A immunization responses were protective in the rituximab-treated subjects, although significantly blunted compared with those seen in the controls subjects, when immunized at the time of B-lymphocyte recovery. Anti-phiX174 responses were severely reduced during the period of B-lymphocyte depletion, but with B-lymphocyte recovery, anti-phiX174 responses were within the normal range., Conclusions: During the time of B-lymphocyte depletion, rituximab recipients had a decreased antibody response to neoantigens and significantly lower titers after recall immunization with diphtheria and tetanus toxoid. With recovery, immune responses return toward normal. Immunization during the time of B-lymphocyte depletion, although ineffective, does not preclude a subsequent response to the antigen., (Copyright © 2011 American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology. Published by Mosby, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: The basis for increased susceptibility of patients with atopic dermatitis (AD) to develop disseminated viral skin infections such as eczema herpeticum (AD with a history of eczema herpeticum, ADEH(+)) is poorly understood., Objective: We sought to determine whether subjects with AD prone to disseminated viral skin infections have defects in their IFN responses., Methods: GeneChip profiling was used to identify differences in gene expression of PBMCs from patients with ADEH(+) compared with patients with AD without a history of eczema herpeticum (ADEH(-)) and nonatopic controls. Key differences in protein expression were verified by enzyme-linked immunosorbent spot assay and/or ELISA. Clinical relevance was further demonstrated by a mouse model of disseminated viral skin infection and genetic association analysis for genetic variants in IFNG and IFNGR1 and ADEH among 435 cases and controls., Results: We demonstrate by global gene expression analysis selective transcriptomic changes within the IFN superfamily of PBMCs from subjects with ADEH(+) reflecting low IFN-γ and IFN-γ receptor gene expression. IFN-γ protein production was also significantly lower in patients with ADEH(+) (n = 24) compared with patients with ADEH(-) (n = 20) and nonatopic controls (n = 20). IFN-γ receptor knockout mice developed disseminated viral skin infection after epicutaneous challenge with vaccinia virus. Genetic variants in IFNG and IFNGR1 single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) were significantly associated with ADEH (112 cases, 166 controls) and IFN-γ production: a 2-SNP (A-G) IFNGR1 haplotype (rs10457655 and rs7749390) showed the strongest association with a reduced risk of ADEH+ (13.2% ADEH(+) vs 25.5% ADEH(-); P = .00057)., Conclusion: Patients with ADEH(+) have reduced IFN-γ production, and IFNG and IFNGR1 SNPs are significantly associated with ADEH(+) and may contribute to an impaired immune response to herpes simplex virus., (Copyright © 2011 American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology. Published by Mosby, Inc. All rights reserved.)