Reassessing Polysaccharide Responsiveness: Unveiling Limitations of Current Guidelines and Introducing the Polysaccharide Responsiveness Percentile Approach.
Stine Fischer Fogsgaard, Sonia Todaro, Carsten Schade Larsen, Charlotte Sværke Jørgensen, Jens Magnus Bernth Jensen
{"title":"Reassessing Polysaccharide Responsiveness: Unveiling Limitations of Current Guidelines and Introducing the Polysaccharide Responsiveness Percentile Approach.","authors":"Stine Fischer Fogsgaard, Sonia Todaro, Carsten Schade Larsen, Charlotte Sværke Jørgensen, Jens Magnus Bernth Jensen","doi":"10.1007/s10875-025-01915-w","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The assessment of polysaccharide responsiveness via vaccination is pivotal in the evaluation of patients for primary immunodeficiency. However, the applicability of current guidelines provided by the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology (AAAAI) has been subject to scrutiny.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a prospective study involving 120 healthy Danish adult blood donors. Antibodies targeting pneumococcal capsular polysaccharide serotypes were quantified using a multianalyte bead immunoassay before and four to eight weeks post-vaccination. Polysaccharide responsiveness in donors was assessed according to AAAAI guidelines.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Remarkably, only a minority of participants (2.5%) demonstrated a normal polysaccharide response per AAAAI criteria. This finding prompted us to advocate for an alternative approach based on percentile rankings relative to a reference population. Polysaccharide Responsiveness Percentile (PRP) was not significantly associated with age, sex, vaccine batch, or the duration between vaccination and antibody measurements in our cohort supporting its robustness, generalizability, and potential for standardized clinical application.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Our study unveils significant limitations of the AAAAI guidelines, highlighting the imperative for a more robust and adaptable approach. By introducing a novel PRP assessment method, we aim to enhance the accuracy and reliability of immune function evaluations.</p>","PeriodicalId":15531,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Clinical Immunology","volume":"45 1","pages":"115"},"PeriodicalIF":5.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12296993/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Clinical Immunology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10875-025-01915-w","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"IMMUNOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background: The assessment of polysaccharide responsiveness via vaccination is pivotal in the evaluation of patients for primary immunodeficiency. However, the applicability of current guidelines provided by the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology (AAAAI) has been subject to scrutiny.
Methods: We conducted a prospective study involving 120 healthy Danish adult blood donors. Antibodies targeting pneumococcal capsular polysaccharide serotypes were quantified using a multianalyte bead immunoassay before and four to eight weeks post-vaccination. Polysaccharide responsiveness in donors was assessed according to AAAAI guidelines.
Results: Remarkably, only a minority of participants (2.5%) demonstrated a normal polysaccharide response per AAAAI criteria. This finding prompted us to advocate for an alternative approach based on percentile rankings relative to a reference population. Polysaccharide Responsiveness Percentile (PRP) was not significantly associated with age, sex, vaccine batch, or the duration between vaccination and antibody measurements in our cohort supporting its robustness, generalizability, and potential for standardized clinical application.
Conclusion: Our study unveils significant limitations of the AAAAI guidelines, highlighting the imperative for a more robust and adaptable approach. By introducing a novel PRP assessment method, we aim to enhance the accuracy and reliability of immune function evaluations.
期刊介绍:
The Journal of Clinical Immunology publishes impactful papers in the realm of human immunology, delving into the diagnosis, pathogenesis, prognosis, or treatment of human diseases. The journal places particular emphasis on primary immunodeficiencies and related diseases, encompassing inborn errors of immunity in a broad sense, their underlying genotypes, and diverse phenotypes. These phenotypes include infection, malignancy, allergy, auto-inflammation, and autoimmunity. We welcome a broad spectrum of studies in this domain, spanning genetic discovery, clinical description, immunologic assessment, diagnostic approaches, prognosis evaluation, and treatment interventions. Case reports are considered if they are genuinely original and accompanied by a concise review of the relevant medical literature, illustrating how the novel case study advances the field. The instructions to authors provide detailed guidance on the four categories of papers accepted by the journal.