Search

Syndromic immunodeficiencies are a heterogeneous group of inborn errors of immunity that can affect the development of non-immune organs and systems. The genetic basis of these immunodeficiencies is highly diverse, ranging from monogenic defects to large chromosomal aberrations. Antibody deficiency is the most prevalent immunological abnormality in patients with syndromic immunodeficiencies caused by chromosomal rearrangements, and usually manifests as a common variable immunodeficiency (CVID)-like phenotype. Here we describe a patient with a complex phenotype, including neurodevelopmental delay, dysmorphic features, malformations, and CVID (hypogammaglobulinemia, reduced pre-switch and switch memory B cells, and impaired vaccine response). Microarray-based comparative genomic hybridization (aCGH) revealed a 13-Mb deletion on chromosome 4q22.2-q24 involving 53 genes, some of which were related to the developmental manifestations in our patient. Although initially none of the affected genes could be linked to his CVID phenotype, subsequent reanalysis identified NFKB1 haploinsufficiency as the cause. This study underscores the value of periodic reanalysis of unsolved genetic studies performed with high-throughput technologies (eg, next-generation sequencing and aCGH). This is important because of the ongoing incorporation of new data establishing the relationship between genes and diseases. In the present case, NFKB1 had not been associated with human disease at the time aCGH was performed. Eight years later, reanalysis of the genes included in the chromosome 4 deletion enabled us to identify NFKB1 haploinsufficiency as the genetic cause of our patient’s CVID. In the future, other genes included in the deletion may be linked to human disease, allowing us to better define the molecular basis of our patient’s complex clinical phenotype.

BackgroundTwo years since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic no predictive algorithm has been generally adopted for clinical management and in most algorithms the contribution of laboratory variables is limited.ObjectivesTo measure the predictive performance of currently used clinical laboratory tests alone or combined with clinical variables and explore the predictive power of immunological tests adequate for clinical laboratories. Methods: Data from 2,600 COVID-19 patients of the first wave of the pandemic in the Barcelona area (exploratory cohort of 1,579, validation cohorts of 598 and 423 patients) including clinical parameters and laboratory tests were retrospectively collected. 28-day survival and maximal severity were the main outcomes considered in the multiparametric classical and machine learning statistical analysis. A pilot study was conducted in two subgroups (n=74 and n=41) measuring 17 cytokines and 27 lymphocyte phenotypes respectively.Findings1) Despite a strong association of clinical and laboratory variables with the outcomes in classical pairwise analysis, the contribution of laboratory tests to the combined prediction power was limited by redundancy. Laboratory variables reflected only two types of processes: inflammation and organ damage but none reflected the immune response, one major determinant of prognosis. 2) Eight of the thirty variables: age, comorbidity index, oxygen saturation to fraction of inspired oxygen ratio, neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio, C-reactive protein, aspartate aminotransferase/alanine aminotransferase ratio, fibrinogen, and glomerular filtration rate captured most of the combined statistical predictive power. 3) The interpretation of clinical and laboratory variables was moderately improved by grouping them in two categories i.e., inflammation related biomarkers and organ damage related biomarkers; Age and organ damage-related biomarker tests were the best predictors of survival, and inflammatory-related ones were the best predictors of severity. 4) The pilot study identified immunological tests (CXCL10, IL-6, IL-1RA and CCL2), that performed better than most currently used laboratory tests.ConclusionsLaboratory tests for clinical management of COVID 19 patients are valuable but limited predictors due to redundancy; this limitation could be overcome by adding immunological tests with independent predictive power. Understanding the limitations of tests in use would improve their interpretation and simplify clinical management but a systematic search for better immunological biomarkers is urgent and feasible.

Myelin basic protein (MBP) is thought to be one of the key autoantigens in multiple sclerosis (MS) development. A recent study described the association of the single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) rs12959006, within the MBP gene, with a higher risk of relapse and worse prognosis. We aim at studying potential associations of this SNP to MS in an independent population. Clinical data of the first 5 years of the disease were collected retrospectively from 291 MS confirmed patients. MBP polymorphism rs12959006 was genotyped in all patients. Associations with EDSS, number of relapses and serology for Herpesvirus 6 (HHV-6) and Epstein Barr (EBV) viruses were studied. Lymphocyte activation measured by CD69 expression was also analyzed according to sex and rs12959006 genotype. The rs12959006 polymorphism contributed significantly to a higher number of relapses at 5 years after onset only in male patients (rs12959006∗TT β = 0.74 [0.36–1.09]; p = 7 × 10–5). Titers of anti-HHV6 IgG antibodies showed also a mild association with relapses, both in male and female patients (β = 0.01 [0.01–0.02]; p = 3.7 × 10–8). Both the genetic variation in MBP and HHV-6 infection aid in predicting a higher number of relapses during the first years of MS. The association described in MBP rs12959006∗T is exclusive to male patients.

Background: Immunodeficiencies (ID), in particular primary immunodeficiencies (PID), are often associated with haematological manifestations, such as peripheral cytopenias or lymphoproliferative syndromes. Early diagnosis and management have significant prognostic implications. Secondary immunodeficiencies (SID) may also be induced by oncohaematological diseases and their treatments. Haematologists and oncologists must therefore be aware of the association between blood disorders and cancer and ID, and be prepared to offer their patients appropriate treatment without delay. Our aim was to define the warning signs of primary and secondary IDs in paediatric and adult patients with oncohaematological manifestations.Methods: A multidisciplinary group of six experts (2 haematologists, 2 immunologists, and 2 paediatricians specializing in ID) conducted a literature review and prepared a document based on agreements reached an in-person meeting. An external group of 44 IDs specialists from all over Spain assessed the document and were consulted regarding their level of agreement.Results: This document identifies the haematological and extra-haematological diseases that should prompt a suspicion of PIDs in adults and children, in both primary care and haematology and oncology departments. Cytopenia and certain lymphoproliferative disorders are key diagnostic pointers. The diagnosis must be based on a detailed clinical history, physical exploration, complete blood count and standard laboratory tests. The immunological and haematological tests included in the diagnostic process will depend on the care level. Patients who are candidates for immunoglobulin replacement therapy must be carefully selected, and treatment should be offered as soon as possible to avoid the development of complications. Finally, this document recommends procedures for monitoring these patients.Conclusions: This document combines scientific evidence with the opinion of a broad panel of experts, and emphasizes the importance of an early diagnosis and treatment to avoid complications. The resulting document is a useful tool for primary care physicians and specialists who see both adult and paediatric patients with oncohaematological diseases.