Transcutaneous yellow fever vaccination of subjects with or without atopic dermatitis

The Journal of allergy and clinical immunology (Impact Factor: 12.05). 12/2013; 133(2). DOI: 10.1016/j.jaci.2013.10.037
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Atopic dermatitis (AD) is a common inflammatory skin disease with a global prevalence ranging from 3% to 20%. Patients with AD have an increased risk for complications after viral infection (eg, herpes simplex virus), and vaccination of patients with AD with live vaccinia virus is contraindicated because of a heightened risk of eczema vaccinatum, a rare but potentially lethal complication associated with smallpox vaccination.
We sought to develop a better understanding of immunity to cutaneous viral infection in patients with AD.
In a double-blind randomized study we investigated the safety and immunogenicity of live attenuated yellow fever virus (YFV) vaccination of nonatopic subjects and patients with AD after standard subcutaneous inoculation or transcutaneous vaccination administered with a bifurcated needle. Viremia, neutralizing antibody, and antiviral T-cell responses were analyzed for up to 30 days after vaccination.
YFV vaccination administered through either route was well tolerated. Subcutaneous vaccination resulted in higher seroconversion rates than transcutaneous vaccination but elicited similar antiviral antibody levels and T-cell responses in both the nonatopic and AD groups. After transcutaneous vaccination, both groups mounted similar neutralizing antibody responses, but patients with AD demonstrated lower antiviral T-cell responses by 30 days after vaccination. Among transcutaneously vaccinated subjects, a significant inverse correlation between baseline IgE levels and the magnitude of antiviral antibody and CD4(+) T-cell responses was observed.
YFV vaccination of patients with AD through the transcutaneous route revealed that high baseline IgE levels provide a potential biomarker for predicting reduced virus-specific immune memory after transcutaneous infection with a live virus.

  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Atopic dermatitis/eczema (AD/E) is a common disease. Few studies have attempted to quantify the cost to third-party payers. Our purpose was to identify the annual cost of medical services and prescription drugs for the treatment of AD/E to private insurance and Medicaid payers in the United States. We used a retrospective study design employing claims data from 1997 and 1998 from a private insurer and a state Medicaid program to analyze costs incurred. Beneficiaries were considered to have AD/E if they had at least one claim in 1997 with a primary or secondary listing of 1 of 3 diagnosis codes: 691.8, other atopic dermatitis and related conditions; 692.9, contact dermatitis and other eczema when no cause is specified; or 373.3, noninfectious dermatoses of eyelid. Patients who did not meet the diagnosis criteria served as a control group in each payer for comparisons of expenditures with the AD/E group. Disease prevalence was 2.4% (private insurer) to 2.6% (Medicaid) of all eligible beneficiaries, and 3.5% to 4.1% of patients submitted at least one health care claim during the study period. Medicaid-insured patients used outpatient hospital visits and hospitalizations at a greater rate than did privately insured patients; neither used emergency departments extensively. The third-party payer cost of illness for AD/E ranged from $0.9 billion to $3.8 billion when projected across the total number of persons younger than 65 years insured by private insurers and Medicaid in the United States. More than one fourth of all health care costs for patients with AD/E may be attributed to AD/E and co-morbid conditions. Annual costs of AD/E are similar to those of other diseases such as emphysema, psoriasis, and epilepsy. Patients incur significant costs associated with AD/E and co-morbid conditions.
    Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology 04/2002; 46(3):361-70. DOI:10.1067/mjd.2002.120528 · 5.00 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Yellow fever (YF) is a significant health problem in South America and Africa. Travelers to these areas require immunization. The United States, infested with Aedes aegypti mosquitoes, is at risk of introduction of this disease. There is only a single U.S. manufacturer of YF 17D vaccine, and supplies may be insufficient in an emergency. A randomized, double-blind outpatient study was conducted in 1,440 healthy individuals, half of whom received the U.S. vaccine (YF-VAX) and half the vaccine manufactured in the United Kingdom (ARILVAX). A randomly selected subset of approximately 310 individuals in each treatment group was tested for YF neutralizing antibodies 30 days after vaccination. The primary efficacy endpoint was the proportion of individuals who developed a log neutralization index (LNI) of 0.7 or higher. Seroconversion occurred in 98.6% of individuals in the ARILVAX group and 99.3% of those in the YF-VAX group. Statistically, ARILVAX was equivalent to YF-VAX (P = .001). Both vaccines elicited mean antibody responses well above the minimal level (LNI 0.7) protective against wild-type YF virus. The mean LNI in the YF-VAX group was higher (2.21) than in the ARILVAX group (2.06; P = .010) possibly because of the higher dose contained in YF-VAX. Male gender, Caucasian race, and smoking were associated with higher antibody responses. Both vaccines were well tolerated. Overall, the treatment groups were comparable with respect to safety except that individuals in the ARILVAX group experienced significantly less edema, inflammation, and pain at the injection site than those in the YF-VAX group. No serious adverse events were attributable to either vaccine. YF-VAX participants (71.9%) experienced one or more nonserious adverse events than ARILVAX individuals (65.3%; P = .008). The difference was due to a higher rate of injection site reactions in the YF-VAX group. Mild systemic reactions (headache, myalgia, malaise, asthenia) occurred in roughly 10% to 30% of participants during the first few days after vaccination, with no significant difference across treatment groups. Adverse events were less frequent in individuals with preexisting immunity to YF, indicating a relationship to virus replication.
    The American journal of tropical medicine and hygiene 06/2002; 66(5):533-41. · 2.74 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Although naturally occurring smallpox was eliminated through the efforts of the World Health Organization Global Eradication Program, it remains possible that smallpox could be intentionally released. Here we examine the magnitude and duration of antiviral immunity induced by one or more smallpox vaccinations. We found that more than 90% of volunteers vaccinated 25-75 years ago still maintain substantial humoral or cellular immunity (or both) against vaccinia, the virus used to vaccinate against smallpox. Antiviral antibody responses remained stable between 1-75 years after vaccination, whereas antiviral T-cell responses declined slowly, with a half-life of 8-15 years. If these levels of immunity are considered to be at least partially protective, then the morbidity and mortality associated with an intentional smallpox outbreak would be substantially reduced because of pre-existing immunity in a large number of previously vaccinated individuals.
    Nature Medicine 10/2003; 9(9):1131-7. DOI:10.1038/nm917 · 28.05 Impact Factor