IVIG products should be administered strictly according to indications. Commercially available IVIG products can contain blood group-specific antibodies that may induce haemolysis in some recipients. Monitoring of blood counts during applied IVIG therapy, especially when high doses are administered, is recommended.
This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC license. www.medicaljournals.se/acta Acta Derm Venereol 2019; 99: 978-983 978 SIGNIFICANCEThe simultaneous occurrence of HIV-related immunodeficiency and autoimmune diseases is clearly documented. This cross-sectional study including 594 HIV-infected patients and 248 healthy controls lacking signs of autoimmune blistering skin diseases evaluated the frequency, titres and combinational appearance of autoantibodies directed against BP180, BP230, desmoglein 1 and 3, and showed no differences between the 2 patient groups. Interestingly, reactive syphilis serology in both HIV-infected individuals and uninfected controls was associated with positive anti-BP180 ELISA results, prompting a further evaluation for syphilis antibodies in patients with positive BP180 ELISA results and no clinical signs of bullous pemphigoid.Various autoantibodies are detected more frequently in HIV-infected individuals than in HIV-negative controls; however, limited data exist regarding autoimmune blistering skin diseases. Using enzyme-linked immunoassay (ELISA) and indirect immunofluore scence, no difference in the frequency and magnitude of autoantibodies against BP180, BP230, desmoglein 1 and 3 was found between 594 HIV-infected patients and 248 uninfected controls in this cross-sectional study (16.0% vs. 11.7%, respectively, for at least one positive ELISA, p = 0.11). Interestingly, reactive syphilis serology in both HIV-infected individuals and uninfected controls was associated with positive anti-BP180 ELISA results (adjusted odds ratio (OR) 2.14, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.07-4.29, p = 0.03 and OR 4.70, CI 1.3-16.86; p = 0.0180). Our study shows a comparably low prevalence of cutaneous autoantibodies in both HIV-infected patients and uninfected controls lacking signs of autoimmune blistering skin disease. Positive BP180 ELISA in the absence of clinical signs of bullous pemphigoid should prompt further evaluation for syphilis antibodies.
Background: Diagnostic algorithms may reduce noise and bias and improve interrater agreement of clinical decisions. In a practical sense, algorithms may serve as alternatives to specialist consultations or decision support in store-and-forward teledermatology. It is, however, unknown how dermatologists interact with algorithms based on questionnaires. Objective: To evaluate the performance of a questionnaire-based diagnostic algorithm when applied by users with different expertise. Methods: We created 58 virtual test cases covering common dermatologic diseases and asked five raters with different expertise to complete a predefined clinical questionnaire, which served as input for a disease ranking algorithm. We compared the ranks of the correct diagnosis between users, analysed the similarity between inputs of different users, and explored the impact of different parts of the questionnaire on the final ranking. Results: When applied by a board-certified dermatologist, the algorithm top-ranked the correct diagnosis in the majority of cases (median rank 1; IQR: 1.0; mean reciprocal rank 0.757). The median rank of the correct diagnosis was significantly lower when the algorithm was applied by four dermatology residents (median rank 2-5, p<.01 for all). The lowest similarity between inputs of the residents and the board-certified dermatologist was found for questions regarding morphology. Sensitivity analysis showed the highest deterioration in performance after omission of information on morphology and anatomic site. Conclusions: A simple questionnaire-based disease ranking algorithm provides accurate ranking for a wide variety of dermatologic conditions. When applied in clinical practice, additional measures may be needed to ensure robustness of data entry for inexperienced users.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2025 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.