4.6 Article

Antibody response to a seven-valent pneumococcal conjugated vaccine in patients with ataxia-telangiectasia

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL IMMUNOLOGY
卷 24, 期 4, 页码 411-417

出版社

KLUWER ACADEMIC/PLENUM PUBL
DOI: 10.1023/B:JOCI.0000029109.15355.ba

关键词

ataxia-telangiectasia; conjugated pneumococcal vaccine; antibody response

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Immunodeficiency is a characteristic feature of ataxia-telangiectasia (A-T). Humoral immunodeficiency generally consists of hypogammaglobulinemia and impaired antibody response to bacterial and viral antigens. We previously observed defective antibody response to 23-valent pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine (PPV) in 96% of 29 patients with A-T. In this study, we investigated the antibody response to a seven-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine, PCV7, in 14 patients with A-T. IgG antibody levels to four pneumococcal serotypes, 6B, 14, 19F, 23F, which were included in PCV7, were measured by ELISA in pre- and postimmunization serum samples. Antibody titers against each individual Streptococcus pneumoniae serotype was considered to be positive when serotype specific pneumococcal antibody titer was higher than 10% (>10 U/mL) of the reference plasma pool level. However, when the fold increase (FI) in postimmunization antibody titer was less than two, the subject was determined to be unresponsive to the given serotype. The values were compared with the results obtained in age- and ethnic-matched children after one dose of PPV. Only two patients produced antibodies to one serotype each; one to serotype 19 with a fold increase of <2, and the other to serotype 23F with a fold increase of 5.7 based on the above criteria, although the differences between pre- and postvaccine antibody titers for serotypes 14, 19, and 23 appeared to be statistically significant. In conclusion, A-T patients failed to respond to one dose of PCV7 vaccine. Two or more doses of conjugated vaccine may be required to recruit the help of T lymphocytes in A-T patients.

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

4.6
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