Atopic dermatitis is the most common chronic inflammatory skin disease in children and adolescents. The Korean Academy of Pediatric Allergy and Respiratory Disease published the Atopic Dermatitis Treatment Guideline in 2008, which has been helpful in atopic dermatitis treatment until now. Various reports on the development and effectiveness of new drugs have suggested that there is a need to develop and revise old treatment guidelines. Part 1 aimed to provide evidence-based recommendations for skin care management and topical treatment for atopic dermatitis. Part 2 focuses on systemic treatment, novel therapeutics, and adjuvant therapy. The goal of this guideline is intended to assist front-line doctors treating pediatric and adolescent atopic dermatitis patients make safer, more effective, and more rational decisions regarding systemic treatment, novel therapeutics, and adjuvant therapy by providing evidence-based recommendations with a clear level of evidence and benefit regarding treatment.

Atopic dermatitis is the most common chronic inflammatory skin disease in children and adolescents. The Korean Academy of Pediatric Allergy and Respiratory Disease published the Atopic Dermatitis Treatment Guideline in 2008, which has been helpful in atopic dermatitis treatment until now. Various reports on the development and effectiveness of new drugs have suggested that there is a need to develop and revise old treatment guidelines. Part 1 aimed to provide evidence-based recommendations for skin care management and topical treatment for atopic dermatitis. Part 2 focuses on systemic treatment, novel therapeutics, and adjuvant therapy. The goal of this guideline is intended to assist front-line doctors treating pediatric and adolescent atopic dermatitis patients make safer, more effective, and more rational decisions regarding systemic treatment, novel therapeutics, and adjuvant therapy by providing evidence-based recommendations with a clear level of evidence and benefit regarding treatment.

Atopic dermatitis is the most common chronic inflammatory skin disease in children and adolescents. The Korean Academy of Pediatric Allergy and Respiratory Disease published the Atopic Dermatitis Treatment Guideline in 2008, which has been helpful in atopic dermatitis treatment until now. Various reports on the development and effectiveness of new drugs have suggested that there is a need to develop and revise old treatment guidelines. Part 1 aimed to provide evidence-based recommendations for skin care management and topical treatment for atopic dermatitis. Part 2 focuses on systemic treatment, novel therapeutics, and adjuvant therapy. The goal of this guideline is intended to assist front-line doctors treating pediatric and adolescent atopic dermatitis patients make safer, more effective, and more rational decisions regarding systemic treatment, novel therapeutics, and adjuvant therapy by providing evidence-based recommendations with a clear level of evidence and benefit regarding treatment.

Atopic dermatitis is the most common chronic inflammatory skin disease in children and adolescents. The Korean Academy of Pediatric Allergy and Respiratory Disease published the Atopic Dermatitis Treatment Guideline in 2008, which has been helpful in atopic dermatitis treatment until now. Various reports on the development and effectiveness of new drugs have suggested that there is a need to develop and revise old treatment guidelines. Part 1 aimed to provide evidence-based recommendations for skin care management and topical treatment for atopic dermatitis. Part 2 focuses on systemic treatment, novel therapeutics, and adjuvant therapy. The goal of this guideline is intended to assist front-line doctors treating pediatric and adolescent atopic dermatitis patients make safer, more effective, and more rational decisions regarding systemic treatment, novel therapeutics, and adjuvant therapy by providing evidence-based recommendations with a clear level of evidence and benefit regarding treatment.

Background: We evaluated severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2)-specific humoral and cellular responses for up to 6 months after the 3rd dose of ancestral coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination in people living with HIV (PLWH) and healthy controls (HCs) who were not infected with COVID-19. Methods: Anti-spike receptor-binding domain IgG (anti-RBD IgG) concentrations using chemiluminescence immunoassay and neutralizing antibodies using focus reduction neutralization test (FRNT) were assessed at 1 week after each dose of vaccination, and 3 and 6 months after the 3rd dose in 62 PLWH and 25 HCs. T-cell responses using intracellular cytokine stain were evaluated at 1 week before, and 1 week and 6 months after the 3rd dose. Results: At 1 week after the 3rd dose, adequate anti-RBD IgG (> 300 binding antibody unit /mL) was elicited in all PLWH except for one patient with 36 CD4 T-cell count/mm3 . The geometric mean titers of 50% FRNT against wild type (WT) and omicron BA.5 strains of SARS-CoV-2 in PLWH with CD4 T-cell count ≥ 500 cells/mm3(high CD4 recovery, HCDR) were comparable to HC, but they were significantly decreased in PLWH with CD4 T-cell count < 500/mm3 (low CD4 recovery, LCDR). After adjusting for age, gender, viral suppression, and number of preexisting comorbidities, CD4 T-cell counts < 500/mm3 significantly predicted a poor magnitude of neutralizing antibodies against WT, omicron BA.5, and XBB 1.5 strains among PLWH. Multivariable linear regression adjusting for age and gender revealed that LCDR was associated with reduced neutralizing activity (P = 0.017) and interferon-γ-producing T-cell responses (P = 0.049 for CD T-cell; P = 0.014 for CD8 T-cell) against WT, and strongly associated with more decreased cross-neutralization against omicron BA.5 strains (P < 0.001). Conclusion HCDR demonstrated robust humoral and cell-mediated immune responses after a booster dose of ancestral SARS-CoV-2 vaccine, whereas LCDR showed diminished immune responses against WT virus and more impaired cross-neutralization against omicron BA.5 strain.

Background: We evaluated severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2)-specific humoral and cellular responses for up to 6 months after the 3rd dose of ancestral coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination in people living with HIV (PLWH) and healthy controls (HCs) who were not infected with COVID-19. Methods: Anti-spike receptor-binding domain IgG (anti-RBD IgG) concentrations using chemiluminescence immunoassay and neutralizing antibodies using focus reduction neutralization test (FRNT) were assessed at 1 week after each dose of vaccination, and 3 and 6 months after the 3rd dose in 62 PLWH and 25 HCs. T-cell responses using intracellular cytokine stain were evaluated at 1 week before, and 1 week and 6 months after the 3rd dose. Results: At 1 week after the 3rd dose, adequate anti-RBD IgG (> 300 binding antibody unit /mL) was elicited in all PLWH except for one patient with 36 CD4 T-cell count/mm3 . The geometric mean titers of 50% FRNT against wild type (WT) and omicron BA.5 strains of SARS-CoV-2 in PLWH with CD4 T-cell count ≥ 500 cells/mm3(high CD4 recovery, HCDR) were comparable to HC, but they were significantly decreased in PLWH with CD4 T-cell count < 500/mm3 (low CD4 recovery, LCDR). After adjusting for age, gender, viral suppression, and number of preexisting comorbidities, CD4 T-cell counts < 500/mm3 significantly predicted a poor magnitude of neutralizing antibodies against WT, omicron BA.5, and XBB 1.5 strains among PLWH. Multivariable linear regression adjusting for age and gender revealed that LCDR was associated with reduced neutralizing activity (P = 0.017) and interferon-γ-producing T-cell responses (P = 0.049 for CD T-cell; P = 0.014 for CD8 T-cell) against WT, and strongly associated with more decreased cross-neutralization against omicron BA.5 strains (P < 0.001). Conclusion HCDR demonstrated robust humoral and cell-mediated immune responses after a booster dose of ancestral SARS-CoV-2 vaccine, whereas LCDR showed diminished immune responses against WT virus and more impaired cross-neutralization against omicron BA.5 strain.

Background: We evaluated severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2)-specific humoral and cellular responses for up to 6 months after the 3rd dose of ancestral coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination in people living with HIV (PLWH) and healthy controls (HCs) who were not infected with COVID-19. Methods: Anti-spike receptor-binding domain IgG (anti-RBD IgG) concentrations using chemiluminescence immunoassay and neutralizing antibodies using focus reduction neutralization test (FRNT) were assessed at 1 week after each dose of vaccination, and 3 and 6 months after the 3rd dose in 62 PLWH and 25 HCs. T-cell responses using intracellular cytokine stain were evaluated at 1 week before, and 1 week and 6 months after the 3rd dose. Results: At 1 week after the 3rd dose, adequate anti-RBD IgG (> 300 binding antibody unit /mL) was elicited in all PLWH except for one patient with 36 CD4 T-cell count/mm3 . The geometric mean titers of 50% FRNT against wild type (WT) and omicron BA.5 strains of SARS-CoV-2 in PLWH with CD4 T-cell count ≥ 500 cells/mm3(high CD4 recovery, HCDR) were comparable to HC, but they were significantly decreased in PLWH with CD4 T-cell count < 500/mm3 (low CD4 recovery, LCDR). After adjusting for age, gender, viral suppression, and number of preexisting comorbidities, CD4 T-cell counts < 500/mm3 significantly predicted a poor magnitude of neutralizing antibodies against WT, omicron BA.5, and XBB 1.5 strains among PLWH. Multivariable linear regression adjusting for age and gender revealed that LCDR was associated with reduced neutralizing activity (P = 0.017) and interferon-γ-producing T-cell responses (P = 0.049 for CD T-cell; P = 0.014 for CD8 T-cell) against WT, and strongly associated with more decreased cross-neutralization against omicron BA.5 strains (P < 0.001). Conclusion HCDR demonstrated robust humoral and cell-mediated immune responses after a booster dose of ancestral SARS-CoV-2 vaccine, whereas LCDR showed diminished immune responses against WT virus and more impaired cross-neutralization against omicron BA.5 strain.

Background: We evaluated severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2)-specific humoral and cellular responses for up to 6 months after the 3rd dose of ancestral coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination in people living with HIV (PLWH) and healthy controls (HCs) who were not infected with COVID-19. Methods: Anti-spike receptor-binding domain IgG (anti-RBD IgG) concentrations using chemiluminescence immunoassay and neutralizing antibodies using focus reduction neutralization test (FRNT) were assessed at 1 week after each dose of vaccination, and 3 and 6 months after the 3rd dose in 62 PLWH and 25 HCs. T-cell responses using intracellular cytokine stain were evaluated at 1 week before, and 1 week and 6 months after the 3rd dose. Results: At 1 week after the 3rd dose, adequate anti-RBD IgG (> 300 binding antibody unit /mL) was elicited in all PLWH except for one patient with 36 CD4 T-cell count/mm3 . The geometric mean titers of 50% FRNT against wild type (WT) and omicron BA.5 strains of SARS-CoV-2 in PLWH with CD4 T-cell count ≥ 500 cells/mm3(high CD4 recovery, HCDR) were comparable to HC, but they were significantly decreased in PLWH with CD4 T-cell count < 500/mm3 (low CD4 recovery, LCDR). After adjusting for age, gender, viral suppression, and number of preexisting comorbidities, CD4 T-cell counts < 500/mm3 significantly predicted a poor magnitude of neutralizing antibodies against WT, omicron BA.5, and XBB 1.5 strains among PLWH. Multivariable linear regression adjusting for age and gender revealed that LCDR was associated with reduced neutralizing activity (P = 0.017) and interferon-γ-producing T-cell responses (P = 0.049 for CD T-cell; P = 0.014 for CD8 T-cell) against WT, and strongly associated with more decreased cross-neutralization against omicron BA.5 strains (P < 0.001). Conclusion HCDR demonstrated robust humoral and cell-mediated immune responses after a booster dose of ancestral SARS-CoV-2 vaccine, whereas LCDR showed diminished immune responses against WT virus and more impaired cross-neutralization against omicron BA.5 strain.

Atopic dermatitis is the most common chronic inflammatory skin disease in children and adolescents. The Korean Academy of Pediatric Allergy and Respiratory Disease published the Atopic Dermatitis Treatment Guideline in 2008, which has been helpful in atopic dermatitis treatment until now. Various reports on the development and effectiveness of new drugs have suggested that there is a need to develop and revise old treatment guidelines. Part 1 aimed to provide evidence-based recommendations for skin care management and topical treatment for atopic dermatitis. Part 2 focuses on systemic treatment, novel therapeutics, and adjuvant therapy. The goal of this guideline is intended to assist front-line doctors treating pediatric and adolescent atopic dermatitis patients make safer, more effective, and more rational decisions regarding systemic treatment, novel therapeutics, and adjuvant therapy by providing evidence-based recommendations with a clear level of evidence and benefit regarding treatment.

Atopic dermatitis is one of the most common chronic skin inflammatory diseases in children. Appropriate treatment is difficult due to chronic course with frequent exacerbations, especially in children. Treatment requires caution due to a lack of safety data and information regarding the long-term prognosis of management strategies. The Korean Academy of Pediatric Allergy and Respiratory Disease (KAPARD) published the Atopic Dermatitis Treatment Guidelines in 2008, which has been used to direct atopic dermatitis treatment. Accumulating evidence suggests that the guidelines need to be updated regarding bathing methods (duration of bath, temperature, etc.), wet wrap therapy, and topical treatments in line with environmental changes over time and changes in the management strategies of atopic dermatitis. This KAPARD guidelines for atopic dermatitis applied an adaptation based on a systematic review and analysis of selected literature. They are intended to support front-line doctors treating pediatric and adolescent patients with atopic dermatitis in making reasoned, safe, effective empirical treatment decisions. In Part I of the KAPARD guidelines for atopic dermatitis, we included evidence-based skin care management strategies and topical treatment options.