Skip to main content

Advertisement

  • Short Report
  • Open Access

Association between quantitative varicella-zoster virus antibody levels and zoster reactivation in HIV-infected persons

  • 1, 6Email author,
  • 2, 3,
  • 2, 3,
  • 2, 3, 4,
  • 5, 6, 7,
  • 6, 7, 8,
  • 6, 7 and
  • 1, 5
AIDS Research and Therapy201815:25

https://doi.org/10.1186/s12981-018-0212-0

  • Received: 25 April 2018
  • Accepted: 29 November 2018
  • Published:

Abstract

Background

Varicella-zoster virus (VZV) reactivation is common but difficult to predict in HIV-infected persons.

Objective

Since qualitative VZV antibodies can determine past VZV disease or vaccination, we evaluated whether quantitative VZV antibody levels over time can predict future zoster.

Study design

US Military HIV Natural History (NHS) participants with a zoster diagnosis at least 5 years after HIV diagnosis (n = 100) were included. Zoster-negative controls (n = 200) were matched by age, race, gender, and CD4 count at HIV diagnosis. Repository plasma specimens collected at baseline and prior to zoster diagnosis were evaluated using a quantitative anti-VZV ELISA assay. Differences in quantitative VZV levels were analyzed by Wilcoxon Mann–Whitney and Fisher’s exact tests.

Results

Median CD4 count at HIV diagnosis was similar for cases and controls (535 [IQR 384–666] vs. 523 [IQR 377–690] cells/μL; p = 0.940), but lower for cases at zoster diagnosis (436 [IQR 277–631] vs. 527 [IQR 367–744] cells/μL; p = 0.007). Antiretroviral therapy (ART) use prior to zoster diagnosis was lower for cases (52.0%) compared to controls (64.5%; p = 0.025). Cases had similar mean VZV antibody levels prior to zoster diagnosis compared to controls [2.25 ± 0.85 vs. 2.44 ± 0.96 index value/optical density (OD) ratio; p = 0.151] with no difference in the change in antibody levels over time (0.08 ± 0.71 vs. 0.01 ± 0.94 index value/OD per year; p = 0.276).

Conclusion

Quantitative VZV antibody levels are stable in HIV-infected persons and do not predict zoster reactivation. Low CD4 count and lack of ART use appear to be better predictors of future zoster diagnosis.

Keywords

  • HIV
  • Varicella zoster virus
  • Military

Background

Infection with varicella zoster virus (VZV) can cause relapse of disease in those with impaired cell mediated immunity (CMI) known as herpes zoster (HZ) and is seen more frequently in those with HIV infection compared to HIV-uninfected individuals [1]. Overall incidence has decreased with increased use of antiretroviral therapy (ART), but rates still remain high in the HIV-infected population compared to the general population (628–650 per 100,000 person years [1, 2] vs. 150–300 per 100,000-person-years [3, 4] respectively). Complications of HZ include bacterial superinfection, post-herpetic neuralgia (PHN), and ocular complications, among others [4]. PHN is a longterm neuropathic pain syndrome that is difficult to treat and it is estimated to affect 10–20% of those with HZ with risk increasing with age [5].

Cell mediated immunity appears to play a role in preventing HZ, as waning CD4 count is associated with development of HZ [1, 4]. Conversely, effective ART results in immune reconstitution and CD4 gains which reduce the risk of VZV reactivation [6, 7]. Even though the association between reduced CMI and VZV reactivation has been well established, it remains difficult to predict disease, as it can occur at any CD4 count, and the risk of HZ remains high in the HIV-infected population even in the ART era [1]. B cell dysfunction has also been observed in those with HIV [8, 9] and can lead to altered antibody response [10]. Clinicians currently use VZV antibody status to determine prior exposure to VZV and help guide vaccine decisions while Varicella vaccine clinical trials have used antibody levels to determine efficacy [11]. It is unclear if these antibody levels wane over time, and what role HIV infection plays in longitudinal quantitative VZV antibody levels.

Objectives

We retrospectively evaluated VZV antibody titers in HIV-infected persons with and without HZ in order to determine if VZV antibody levels can be used to predict HZ.

Study design

The US Military HIV Natural History Study (NHS) is a prospective observational study of HIV-infected military members and beneficiaries. Enrolled participants are ≥ 18 years of age with documented HIV infection and complete informed consent in this IRB approved study. NHS participants have clinical visits approximately every 6–12 months at select military treatment facilities.

The NHS database was queried for participants with (cases) or without (controls) a HZ diagnosis after HIV diagnosis. In order to assess the change in serum VZV antibody titers over time, only participants with a HZ diagnosis greater than or equal to 5 years after HIV diagnosis were included. Participants were required to have a serum sample 30–180 days prior to HZ diagnosis in addition to a sample at least 3 years prior to documented HZ infection. A total of 100 cases and 200 controls meeting inclusion criteria and serum sample availability were selected for analysis. Control participants who did not develop HZ were matched by age, race, gender, and CD4 count at time of HIV diagnosis. Participants with negative VZV antibody or receipt of varicella or zoster vaccines were excluded.

Two repository plasma specimens were evaluated using a quantitative anti-VZV ELISA assay (Zeus Scientific, Somerville, NJ). VZV antibody levels are represented for each sample by a calibration cut-off value which is expressed as index value/OD ratio. Specimen time-points for controls were matched to corresponding cases. Differences in quantitative VZV levels were analyzed by the Wilcoxon Mann–Whitney test and Fisher’s Exact test, controlling for time intervals between specimens.

Results

Participants were predominantly male (94%) with a median age of 29 [IQR 24–34] years at HIV diagnosis (Table 1). The median CD4 count at HIV diagnosis was similar for cases and controls (535 [IQR 384–666] vs. 523 [IQR 377–690] cells/μL; p = 0.940). Cases had a significantly lower CD4 count at the second serum date compared to controls (436 [IQR 277–631] vs. 527 [IQR 367–744] cells/μL; p = 0.007). ART use at HZ diagnosis was also lower at the second serum date for cases compared to controls (52% vs. 64.5%; p = 0.025). At HZ diagnosis, 60% of cases were on ART. The median CD4 count and viral load (VL) at time of VZV diagnosis were 443 cells/μL and 3.51 log10 copies/mL, respectively.
Table 1

Baseline characteristics of military personnel with HIV

Characteristics

All

N = 300

Cases

N = 100

Control

N = 200

p-value

Median age at HIV diagnosis (years)

28.35

28.35

28.25

0.978

Median time HIV negative to positive (years)

0.68

0.66

0.69

0.828

Median time HIV diagnosis to 1st ART (years)

5.41

5.78

4.82

0.078

Gender

   

0.611

 Male

282 (94%)

94 (94%)

188 (94%)

 

 Female

18 (6%)

6 (6%)

12 (6%)

 

Race/ethnicity

   

0.024

 Caucasian

134 (44.7%)

47 (47%)

87 (43.5%)

 

 African–American

123 (41%)

36 (36%)

87 (43.5%)

 

 Hispanic/Puerto Rican/Mexican

28 (9.3%)

13 (13%)

15 (7.5%)

 

 Asian/Pacific Islander

5 (1.7%)

0

5 (2.5%)

 

 Native American/Alaskan Native

3 (3%)

3 (3%)

0

 

 Other

7 (2.3%)

1 (1%)

6 (3%)

 

Median time HIV diagnosis to last study visit (years)

13.18

14.28

13.0384

0.201

Median time from HIV diagnosis to 1st serum date (years)

2.18

1.38

2.53

0.009

Median time from HIV diagnosis to 2nd serum date (years)

6.89

6.98

6.81

0.975

Median CD4 at 1st serum date (cells/μL)

530

534.5

523

0.940

Median VL at 1st serum date (log10 copies/mL)

3.66

3.72

3.65

0.471

Median CD4 at 2nd serum date (cells/μL)

501

436

527

0.007

Median VL at 2nd serum date (log10 copies/mL)

2.80

3.52

2.60

0.007

On ART at 1st serum date

   

0.075

 No

201 (67%)

73 (73%)

128 (64%)

 

 Yes

99 (33%)

27 (27%)

72 (36%)

 

On ART at 2nd serum date

   

0.025

 No

119 (39.7%)

48 (48%)

71 (35.5%)

 

 Yes

181 (60.3%)

52 (52%)

129 (64.5%)

 
Cases had similar mean VZV antibody levels prior to HZ diagnosis compared to controls (2.25 ± 0.85 vs. 2.44 ± 0.96 index value/OD; p = 0.151) and there was no difference in the change in VZV antibody levels over time (0.08 ± 0.71 vs. 0.01 ± 0.94 index value/OD per year; p = 0.276). The range of values for cases was similar to controls [IQR 1.7–2.9 index value/OD vs. 1.7–3 index value/OD]. However, the mean antibody level was higher for those on ART (2.48 index value/OD) compared to those who were not on ART (2.26 index value/OD) with SD of 0.89 and p < 0.05 (Table 2). When evaluating the change in antibody level over time, those with HIV diagnosis for greater than 7 years had a small but significant increase in antibody level over time by 0.03 index value/OD per year compared to those with a diagnosis of HIV for less than 7 years (decrease of 0.04 index value/OD per year) (Table 3).
Table 2

VZV level prior to zoster diagnosis subgroup analysis

 

Mean index value/OD (n)

SD

T-test

On ART at second serum

 No

2.26 (119)

0.89

− 2.08*

 Yes

2.48 (180)

0.93

− 2.08*

Duration of HIV infection at second serum (years)

 < 7

2.38 (153)

0.95

− 0.30

 7+

2.41 (146)

0.89

− 0.30

Viral load at second serum (log10 copies/mL)

 < 400

2.41 (127)

0.87

0.20

 400+

2.38 (170)

0.95

0.20

CD4 at second serum (cells/μL)

 < 500

2.42 (149)

0.97

0.56

 500+

2.36 (149)

0.87

0.56

CD4 at HIV diagnosis (cells/μL)

 < 500

2.45 (111)

0.88

0.90

 500+

2.34 (157)

0.97

0.90

Age at HIV diagnosis (years)

 < 30

2.40 (174)

0.98

0.09

 30+

2.39 (125)

0.82

0.09

Age at VZV infection (years)

 < 40

2.27 (59)

0.97

0.32

 40+

2.22 (40)

0.65

0.32

* indicates p < 0.05

Table 3

Average VZV level change per year subgroup analysis

 

Mean index value/OD (n)

SD

T-test

On ART at second serum

 No

0.03 (119)

0.21

1.58

 Yes

− 0.01 (180)

0.25

1.58

Duration of HIV infection at second serum (years)

 < 7

0.04 (153)

0.27

2.45*

 7+

− 0.03 (146)

0.19

2.45*

Viral load at second serum (log10 copies/mL) 

 < 400

0.01 (127)

0.21

− 0.01

 400+

0.01 (170)

0.25

− 0.01

CD4 at second serum (cells/μL)

 < 500

− 0.01 (149)

0.27

− 1.02

 500+

0.02 (149)

0.19

− 1.02

CD4 at HIV diagnosis (cells/μL)

 < 500

0.00 (111)

0.25

− 0.09

 500+

0.01 (157)

0.22

− 0.09

Age at HIV diagnosis (years)

 < 30

0.01 (174)

0.25

− 0.02

 30+

0.01 (125)

0.21

− 0.02

Age at VZV infection (years) 

 < 40

0.01 (59)

0.17

0.12

 40+

0.01 (40)

0.14

0.12

* indicates p < 0.05

Discussion

Although VZV antibody can identify exposure to Varicella infection or past immunization, we found that neither the magnitude of VZV antibody level nor the change in concentration over time predicted HZ reactivation in HIV-infected persons. CMI most likely plays a larger role in immune protection from HZ and may be a better predictor of HZ than VZV antibodies, however the latter have been shown to be important as described below. Markers of intact CMI are associated with reduced incidence of HZ and reduced PHN [12, 13]. The zoster vaccine increases the number of VZV specific CD4+ T cells [14] and older adults have an increase in IFNγ after a second dose of vaccine [15]. However, the only marker of CMI assessed clinically is CD4 count which is associated with development of HZ but not always predictive. For example, a higher prevalence of HZ has been observed in those with VL suppression and CD4 > 750 cells/μL compared to HIV-uninfected persons [1, 7, 16].

In addition to a T-cell mediated immune response, humoral response also appears to be important as VZV antibodies have been used to demonstrate vaccine effectiveness [11, 1719]. A study analyzed gpELISA VZV antibody prior to immunization and at week 6 after immunization and found that 100% rise (onefold) in levels better correlated with protection against HZ rather than antibody level alone irrespective of baseline level [20]. Additionally, varicella zoster immune globulin (VZIG) is given to allow passive immunity and is currently recommended in those with high risk exposure [21]. Currently there is a licensed vaccine to prevent the occurrence of HZ and reduce the complications such as PHN [17, 21]. However, this is only FDA approved for those over age 50 and is contraindicated in HIV infected individuals with a CD4 count less than 200 cells/μL [21, 22].

In the population with HIV infection, the risk for HZ exists even in those less than the age of 40 [6] and it would be helpful to have a marker that can predict who will develop HZ as they may benefit from vaccination even if not in the current recommended age range. Although our study showed no association between VZV antibody levels and clinical HZ in an HIV-infected population, we validated findings from prior studies demonstrating that that lower CD4 count and lack of ART use were risk factors for the development of HZ. Other risk factors described in this population include high VL and prior history of HZ [6, 7]. In order to reduce the morbidity associated with HZ in HIV-infected persons, additional clinical markers of risk are needed as well as VZV vaccine safety and efficacy studies in younger patients with preserved CD4 counts.

Declarations

Authors’ contributions

All authors participated in the design of the study and manuscript preparation. HSP wrote the concept sheet, collected the data and was the main author the paper. XX and JW performed the statistical analysis. TSS, RGD, AG, and BKA help maintain the NHS database, gave demographic information, and reviewed the protocol and made edits to the manuscript. JFO was the primary investigator and helped with study design and edited the manuscript as well. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Acknowledgements

The contents of this publication are the sole responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions or policies of Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences (USUHS), the Department of Defense (DoD), or the Departments of the Army, Navy, or Air Force. Mention of trade names, commercial products, or organizations does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Consent for publication

This study is IRB approved and full complete consent was obtained.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

This study is IRB approved and full complete consent was obtained.

Funding

Support for this work (IDCRP-000-03) was provided by the Infectious Disease Clinical Research Program (IDCRP), a Department of Defense (DoD) program executed through the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences. This project has been funded in whole, or in part, with federal funds from the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, National Institutes of Health (NIH), under Inter-Agency Agreement Y1-AI-5072.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Infectious Disease Service, San Antonio Military Medical Center, San Antonio, USA
(2)
School of Public Administration, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China
(3)
Department of Sociology, University of Texas San Antonio, San Antonio, TX, USA
(4)
TX Institute for Health Disparities Research, University of Texas at San Antonio, San Antonio, TX, USA
(5)
Division of Infectious Diseases, Naval Medical Center San Diego, San Diego, CA, USA
(6)
Infectious Disease Clinical Research Program, Preventive Medicine and Biostatistics Department, Uniformed Services University, Bethesda, MD, USA
(7)
Henry M. Jackson Foundation for the Advancement of Military Medicine, Bethesda, MD, USA
(8)
Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, Bethesda, MD, USA

References

  1. Grabar S, Tattevin P, Selinger-Leneman H, de La Blanchardiere A, de Truchis P, Rabaud C, et al. Incidence of herpes zoster in HIV-infected adults in the combined antiretroviral therapy era: results from the FHDH-ANRS CO4 cohort. Clin Infect Dis. 2015;60:1269–77.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  2. Wood SM, Shah SS, Steenhoff AP, Rutstein RM. Primary varicella and herpes zoster among HIV-infected children from 1989 to 2006. Pediatrics. 2008;121:e150–6.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  3. Donahue JG, Choo PW, Manson JE, Platt R. The incidence of herpes zoster. Arch Intern Med. 1995;155:1605–9.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  4. Gebo KA, Kalyani R, Moore RD, Polydefkis MJ. The incidence of, risk factors for, and sequelae of herpes zoster among HIV patients in the highly active antiretroviral therapy era. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 1999;2005(40):169–74.Google Scholar
  5. Gialloreti LE, Merito M, Pezzotti P, Naldi L, Gatti A, Beillat M, et al. Epidemiology and economic burden of herpes zoster and post-herpetic neuralgia in Italy: a retrospective, population-based study. BMC Infect Dis. 2010;10:230.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  6. Shearer K, Maskew M, Ajayi T, Berhanu R, Majuba P, Sanne I, et al. Incidence and predictors of herpes zoster among antiretroviral therapy-naive patients initiating HIV treatment in Johannesburg, South Africa. Int J Infect Dis. 2014;23:56–62.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  7. Lee YC, Hung CC, Tsai MS, Zhang JY, Wu PY, Yang SP, Luo YZ, Chang HY, Liu WC, Sun HY, Chang SC. Incidence and risk factors of herpes zoster in human immunodeficiency virus-positive patients initiating combination antiretroviral therapy in Taiwan. J Microbiol Immunol Infect. 2018;51(1):38–44View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  8. Lane HC, Masur H, Edgar LC, Whalen G, Rook AH, Fauci AS. Abnormalities of B-cell activation and immunoregulation in patients with the acquired immunodeficiency syndrome. N Engl J Med. 1983;309:453–8.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  9. Pensieroso S, Galli L, Nozza S, Ruffin N, Castagna A, Tambussi G, et al. B-cell subset alterations and correlated factors in HIV-1 infection. AIDS. 2013;27:1209–17.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  10. Kohler I, Kouyos R, Bianchi M, Grube C, Wyrzucki A, Gunthard HF, et al. The impact of vaccination on the breadth and magnitude of the antibody response to influenza A viruses in HIV-infected individuals. AIDS. 2015;29:1803–10.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  11. Breuer J, Schmid DS, Gershon AA. Use and limitations of varicella-zoster virus-specific serological testing to evaluate breakthrough disease in vaccinees and to screen for susceptibility to varicella. J Infect Dis. 2008;197(Suppl 2):S147–51.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  12. Asada H, Nagayama K, Okazaki A, Mori Y, Okuno Y, Takao Y, et al. An inverse correlation of VZV skin-test reaction, but not antibody, with severity of herpes zoster skin symptoms and zoster-associated pain. J Dermatol Sci. 2013;69:243–9.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  13. Weinberg A, Zhang JH, Oxman MN, Johnson GR, Hayward AR, Caulfield MJ, et al. Varicella-zoster virus-specific immune responses to herpes zoster in elderly participants in a trial of a clinically effective zoster vaccine. J Infect Dis. 2009;200:1068–77.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  14. Patterson-Bartlett J, Levin MJ, Lang N, Schodel FP, Vessey R, Weinberg A. Phenotypic and functional characterization of ex vivo T cell responses to the live attenuated herpes zoster vaccine. Vaccine. 2007;25:7087–93.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  15. Levin MJ, Schmader KE, Pang L, Williams-Diaz A, Zerbe G, Canniff J, et al. Cellular and humoral responses to a second dose of herpes zoster vaccine administered 10 years after the first dose among older adults. J Infect Dis. 2016;213:14–22.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  16. Glesby MJ, Hoover DR, Tan T, Shi Q, Gao W, French AL, et al. Herpes zoster in women with and at risk for HIV: data from the Women’s Interagency HIV Study. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 1999;2004(37):1604–9.Google Scholar
  17. Levin MJ, Schmader KE, Gnann JW, McNeil SA, Vesikari T, Betts RF, et al. Varicella-zoster virus-specific antibody responses in 50–59-year-old recipients of zoster vaccine. J Infect Dis. 2013;208:1386–90.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  18. Oxman MN, Levin MJ, Johnson GR, Schmader KE, Straus SE, Gelb LD, et al. A vaccine to prevent herpes zoster and postherpetic neuralgia in older adults. N Engl J Med. 2005;352:2271–84.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  19. Russell AF, Parrino J, Fisher CL Jr, Spieler W, Stek JE, Coll KE, et al. Safety, tolerability, and immunogenicity of zoster vaccine in subjects on chronic/maintenance corticosteroids. Vaccine. 2015;33:3129–34.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  20. Gilbert PB, Gabriel EE, Miao X, Li X, Su SC, Parrino J, et al. Fold rise in antibody titers by measured by glycoprotein-based enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay is an excellent correlate of protection for a herpes zoster vaccine, demonstrated via the vaccine efficacy curve. J Infect Dis. 2014;210:1573–81.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  21. Harpaz R, Ortega-Sanchez IR, Seward JF. Prevention of herpes zoster: recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP). MMWR Recomm Rep. 2008;57:1–30 (quiz CE2-4).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Hales CM, Harpaz R, Ortega-Sanchez I, Bialek SR. Update on recommendations for use of herpes zoster vaccine. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2014;63:729–31.PubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© The Author(s) 2018

Advertisement