4.5 Article

The clinical syndrome of specific antibody deficiency in children

期刊

CLINICAL AND EXPERIMENTAL IMMUNOLOGY
卷 146, 期 3, 页码 486-492

出版社

BLACKWELL PUBLISHING
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2249.2006.03242.x

关键词

allergic rhinitis; immunodeficiency - primary; paediatric; pneumococcus

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Specific antibody deficiency (SAD) is an immune deficiency which has been reported in adults and children with recurrent respiratory tract infections; however, the clinical features of SAD are not well described. This study evaluated formally the clinical syndrome of SAD, by comparing the clinical features of children with SAD and those of children with recurrent infection but normal immune function tests. SAD was defined as an adequate IgG antibody response to less than 50% of 12 pneumococcal serotypes tested following 23-valent unconjugated pneumococcal immunization. An adequate IgG antibody response was defined as a post-immunization titre of >= 1.3 mu g/ml or >= four times the preimmunization value. Seventy-four children with recurrent infection were evaluated where immune deficiencies other than SAD had been excluded. Eleven (14.9%) of these children had SAD. Clinical features differed between the group with SAD and the group with normal antibody responses. A history of otitis media, particularly in association with chronic otorrhoea was associated with SAD [relative risk (RR) of SAD in those with chronic otorrhoea 4.64 (P = 0.02)]. SAD was associated with allergic disease, particularly allergic rhinitis [RR of SAD in those with allergic rhinitis 3.77 (P = 0.04)]. These two clinical associations of SAD were independent in this study [RR of chronic otorrhoea in those with allergic rhinitis 0.85 (P = 0.28)]. SAD was not an age-related phenomenon in this population. SAD has a distinct clinical phenotype, presenting as recurrent infection associated with chronic otorrhoea and/or allergic disease, and the condition should be sought in children with these features.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据