@article{MohmeSchmalzingMuelleretal.2020,
  author    = {Mohme, Sophia and Schmalzing, Marc and M{\"u}ller, Cornelia S.L. and Vogt, Thomas and Goebeler, Matthias and Stoevesandt, Johanna},
  title     = {Immunizations in immunocompromised patients: a guide for dermatologists},
  series = {JDDG: Journal der Deutschen Dermatologischen Gesellschaft},
  volume    = {18},
  journal   = {JDDG: Journal der Deutschen Dermatologischen Gesellschaft},
  number    = {7},
  doi       = {10.1111/ddg.14156},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-217982},
  pages     = {699 -- 723},
  year      = {2020},
  abstract  = {The increasingly frequent use of immunomodulatory agents in dermatology requires the observance of specific recommendations for immunization. These recommendations are developed and regularly updated by the German Standing Committee on Vaccination (STIKO), an independent advisory group at the Robert Koch Institute. Dermatological patients on immunosuppressive treatment should ideally receive all vaccinations included in the standard immunization schedule. Additionally, it is recommended that they also undergo vaccination against the seasonal flu, pneumococci, and herpes zoster (inactivated herpes zoster subunit vaccine for patients ≥ 50 years). Additional immunizations against Haemophilus influenzae type B, hepatitis B and meningococci may be indicated depending on individual comorbidities and exposure risk. Limitations of use, specific contraindications and intervals to be observed between vaccination and immunosuppression depend on the immunosuppressive agent used and its dosing. Only under certain conditions may live-attenuated vaccines be administered in patients on immunosuppressive therapy. Given its strong suppressive effect on the humoral immune response, no vaccines - except for flu shots - should be given within six months after rituximab therapy. This CME article presents current recommendations on immunization in immunocompromised individuals, with a special focus on dermatological patients. Its goal is to enable readers to provide competent counseling and to initiate necessary immunizations in this vulnerable patient group.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{BenoitScheurlenGoebeleretal.2018,
  author    = {Benoit, Sandrine and Scheurlen, Michael and Goebeler, Matthias and Stoevesandt, Johanna},
  title     = {Structured diagnostic approach and risk assessment in mucous membrane pemphigoid with oesophageal involvement},
  series = {Acta Dermato-Venereologica},
  volume    = {98},
  journal   = {Acta Dermato-Venereologica},
  doi       = {10.2340/00015555-2938},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-176191},
  pages     = {660-666},
  year      = {2018},
  abstract  = {Oesophageal involvement in mucous membrane pemphigoid is considered rare, but it may be underdiagnosed. To assess the incidence of oesophageal involvement in a group of patients with newly diagnosed mucous membrane pemphigoid we retrospectively analysed the medical records of 30 consecutive patients with mucous membrane pemphigoid diagnosed between 2006 and 2016 at the Department of Dermatology, University Hospital W{\"u}rzburg. Twenty-one patients (70\%) reported symptoms indicative of oesophageal mucous membrane pemphigoid. Twelve patients (40\%) underwent oesophagogastroduodenoscopy, and oesophageal pathology compatible with mucous membrane pemphigoid was endoscopically found in 9 cases (30\%). In all patients indirect and direct immunofluorescence were performed. Patients with and without oesophageal involvement did not differ with regard to the results of indirect immunofluorescence on salt-split human skin and monkey oesophagus. Study results demonstrate the necessity of a standardized diagnostic work-up, including adequate tissue samples for direct immunofluorescence, to prevent underdiagnosis of oesophageal mucous membrane pemphigoid.},
  language  = {en}
}