Search

Background: Common Variable Immunodeficiency Disorders (CVID) encompass a spectrum of immunodeficiency characterised by recurrent infections and diverse non-infectious complications (NICs). This study aimed to describe the clinical features and variation in NICs in CVID with and without interstitial lung disease (ILD) from a large UK national registry population., Methods: Retrospective, cross-sectional data from a UK multicentre database (previously known as UKPIN), categorising patients into those with CVID-ILD and those with NICs related to CVID but without pulmonary involvement (CVID-EP; EP= extra-pulmonary involvement only)., Results: 129 patients were included. Chronic lung diseases, especially CVID-ILD, are prominent complications in complex CVID, occurring in 62% of the cohort. Bronchiectasis was common (64% of the cohort) and associated with greater pulmonary function impairment in patients with CVID-ILD compared to those without bronchiectasis. Lymphadenopathy and the absence of gastrointestinal diseases were significant predictors of ILD in complex CVID. Although the presence of liver disease did not differ significantly between the groups, nearly half of the CVID-ILD patients were found to have liver disease. Patients with CVID-ILD were more likely to receive immunosuppressive treatments such as rituximab and mycophenolate mofetil than the CVID-EP group, indicating greater need for treatment and risk of complications., Conclusion: This study highlights the significant burden of CVID-ILD within the CVID population with NICs only. The lungs emerged as the most frequently affected organ, with ILD and bronchiectasis both highly prevalent. These findings emphasise the necessity of a comprehensive and multidisciplinary approach in managing CVID patients, considering their susceptibility to various comorbidities and complications., Competing Interests: LM received speaker fees and travel grants from Takeda, BioCryst and CSL. MA received honoraria from Takeda and Biocryst for educational activities in the past. No direct conflicts with this work. TG received consulting, advisory work and educational support from BioCryst, CSL Behring, KalVista, Novartis, Octapharma, Pharming, Pharvaris and Takeda. AH received support for attending meetings from Biocryst, Pharming and Takeda. NH has received honoraria from Dr Falk and Advanz Pharma for educational activities and has consultancy agreements with Mirum Pharma and Signant Health, none of which relate to this work. SB received grant support from CSL Behring and personal fees or travel expenses from Grifols, Pharming, GSK, CSL Behring, Baxalta US Inc and Biotest. CS: Received honoraria and educational support from BioCryst, CSL Behring, Pharming and Takeda. JH received grant support, and payment for educational and advisory work to his institution from pharmaceutical companies that make medicines to treat respiratory disease and immunodeficiency. Personal payment for educational and advisory work, and support to attend meetings from the same. SGo received Takeda sponsored meetings in the last 12 months and was paid to co-lead a workshop relating to immunodeficiency. The remaining authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2024 Bintalib, Grigoriadou, Patel, Mutlu, Sooriyakumar, Vaitla, McDermott, Drewe, Steele, Ahuja, Garcez, Gompels, Grammatikos, Herwadkar, Ayub, Halliday, Burns, Hurst and Goddard.)

Background: Individuals with primary and secondary immunodeficiency (PID/SID) were shown to be at risk of poor outcomes during the early stages of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. SARS-CoV-2 vaccines demonstrate reduced immunogenicity in these patients., Objectives: To understand whether the risk of severe COVID-19 in individuals with PID or SID has changed following the deployment of vaccination and therapeutics in the context of the emergence of novel viral variants of concern., Methods: The outcomes of two cohorts of patients with PID and SID were compared: the first, infected between March and July 2020, prior to vaccination and treatments, the second after these intervention became available between January 2021 and April 2022., Results: 22.7% of immunodeficient patients have been infected at least once with SARS-CoV-2 since the start of the pandemic, compared to over 70% of the general population. Immunodeficient patients were typically infected later in the pandemic when the B.1.1.529 (Omicron) variant was dominant. This delay was associated with receipt of more vaccine doses and higher pre-infection seroprevalence. Compared to March-July 2020, hospitalization rates (53.3% vs 17.9%, p<0.0001) and mortality (Infection fatality rate 20.0% vs 3.4%, p=0.0003) have significantly reduced for patients with PID but remain elevated compared to the general population. The presence of a serological response to vaccination was associated with a reduced duration of viral detection by PCR in the nasopharynx. Early outpatient treatment with antivirals or monoclonal antibodies reduced hospitalization during the Omicron wave., Conclusions: Most individuals with immunodeficiency in the United Kingdom remain SARS-CoV-2 infection naïve. Vaccination, widespread availability of outpatient treatments and, possibly, the emergence of the B.1.1.529 variant have led to significant improvements in morbidity and mortality followings SARS-CoV-2 infection since the start of the pandemic. However, individuals with PID and SID remain at significantly increased risk of poor outcomes compared to the general population; mitigation, vaccination and treatment strategies must be optimized to minimize the ongoing burden of the pandemic in these vulnerable cohorts., Competing Interests: The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2022 Shields, Tadros, Al-Hakim, Nell, Lin, Chan, Goddard, Dempster, Dziadzio, Patel, Elkalifa, Huissoon, Duncan, Herwadkar, Khan, Bethune, Elcombe, Thaventhiran, Klenerman, Lowe, Savic, Burns and Richter.)

Background: Patients with primary and secondary antibody deficiency are vulnerable to COVID-19 and demonstrate diminished responses following two-dose SARS-CoV-2 vaccine schedules. Third primary vaccinations have been deployed to enhance their humoral and cellular immunity., Objectives: To determine the immunogenicity of the third primary SARS-CoV-2 immunisation in a heterogeneous cohort of patients with antibody deficiency., Methods: Participants enrolled in the COV-AD study were sampled before and after their third vaccine dose. Serological and cellular responses were determined using ELISA, live-virus neutralisation and ELISPOT assays., Results: Following a two-dose schedule, 100% of healthy controls mounted a serological response to SARS-CoV-2 vaccination, however, 38.6% of individuals with antibody deficiency remained seronegative. A third primary SARS-CoV-2 vaccine significantly increased anti-spike glycoprotein antibody seroprevalence from 61.4% to 76.0%, the magnitude of the antibody response, its neutralising capacity and induced seroconversion in individuals who were seronegative after two vaccine doses. Vaccine-induced serological responses were broadly cross-reactive against the SARS-CoV-2 B.1.1.529 variant of concern, however, seroprevalence and antibody levels remained significantly lower than healthy controls. No differences in serological responses were observed between individuals who received AstraZeneca ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 and Pfizer BioNTech 162b2 during their initial two-dose vaccine schedule. SARS-CoV-2 infection-naive participants who had received a heterologous vaccine as a third dose were significantly more likely to have a detectable T cell response following their third vaccine dose (61.5% vs 11.1%)., Conclusion: These data support the widespread use of third primary immunisations to enhance humoral immunity against SARS-CoV-2 in individuals with antibody deficiency., Competing Interests: The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2022 Shields, Faustini, Hill, Al-Taei, Tanner, Ashford, Workman, Moreira, Verma, Wagg, Heritage, Campton, Stamataki, Drayson, Klenerman, Thaventhiran, Elkhalifa, Goddard, Johnston, Huissoon, Bethune, Elcombe, Lowe, Patel, Savic, Richter, Burns and the COV-AD consortium.)

Interstitial lung disease (ILD) is an important non-infectious complication in several primary immune deficiencies. In common variable immune deficiency (CVID) it is associated with complex clinical phenotypes and adverse outcomes. The histology of ILD in CVID is heterogeneous and mixed patterns are frequently observed within a single biopsy, including non-necrotising granulomatous inflammation, lymphoid interstitial pneumonitis, lymphoid hyperplasia, follicular bronchiolitis, organizing pneumonia, and interstitial fibrosis; ILD has to be differentiated from lymphoma. The term granulomatous-lymphocytic interstitial lung disease (GLILD), coined to describe the histopathological findings within the lungs of patients with CVID with or without multisystem granulomata, is somewhat controversial as pulmonary granulomata are not always present on histology and the nature of infiltrating lymphocytes is variable. In this mini review we summarize the literature on the histology of CVID-related ILD and discuss some of the factors that may contribute to the inter- and intra- patient variability in the histological patterns reported. Finally, we highlight areas for future development. In particular, there is a need for standardization of histological assessments and reporting, together with a better understanding of the immunopathogenesis of CVID-related ILD to resolve the apparent heterogeneity of ILD in this setting and guide the selection of rational targeted therapies in different patients., Competing Interests: The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest. The handling editor declared a past collaboration with one of the authors, SP., (Copyright © 2020 Dhalla, Lochlainn, Chapel and Patel.)

Antibody deficiency or hypogammaglobulinemia can have primary or secondary etiologies. Primary antibody deficiency (PAD) is the result of intrinsic genetic defects, whereas secondary antibody deficiency may arise as a consequence of underlying conditions or medication use. On a global level, malnutrition, HIV, and malaria are major causes of secondary immunodeficiency. In this review we consider secondary antibody deficiency, for which common causes include hematological malignancies, such as chronic lymphocytic leukemia or multiple myeloma, and their treatment, protein-losing states, and side effects of a number of immunosuppressive agents and procedures involved in solid organ transplantation. Secondary antibody deficiency is not only much more common than PAD, but is also being increasingly recognized with the wider and more prolonged use of a growing list of agents targeting B cells. SAD may thus present to a broad range of specialties and is associated with an increased risk of infection. Early diagnosis and intervention is key to avoiding morbidity and mortality. Optimizing treatment requires careful clinical and laboratory assessment and may involve close monitoring of risk parameters, vaccination, antibiotic strategies, and in some patients, immunoglobulin replacement therapy (IgRT). This review discusses the rapidly evolving list of underlying causes of secondary antibody deficiency, specifically focusing on therapies targeting B cells, alongside recent advances in screening, biomarkers of risk for the development of secondary antibody deficiency, diagnosis, monitoring, and management.

Common variable immune deficiency disorder (CVID) is the most clinically relevant cause of antibody failure. It is a highly heterogeneous disease with different underlying etiologies. CVID has been associated with a quantitative B cell defect, however, little is known about the quality of B cells present. Here, we studied the naïve and antigen selected B-cell receptor (BCR) repertoire in 33 CVID patients using next generation sequencing, to investigate B cells quality. Analysis for each individual patient revealed whether they have a defect in immune repertoire formation [V(D)J recombination] or specification (somatic hypermutation, subclass distribution, or selection). The naïve BCR repertoire was normal in most of the patients, although alterations in repertoire diversity and the junctions were found in a limited number of patients indicating possible defects in early B-cell development or V(D)J recombination in these patients. In contrast, major differences were found in the antigen selected BCR repertoire. Here, most patients (15/17) showed a reduced frequency of somatic hypermutation (SHM), changes in subclass distribution and/or minor alterations in antigen selection. Together these data show that in our CVID cohort only a small number of patients have a defect in formation of the naïve BCR repertoire, whereas the clear majority of patients have disturbances in their antigen selected repertoire, suggesting a defect in repertoire specification in the germinal centers of these patients. This highlights that CVID patients not only have a quantitative B cell defect, but that also the quality of, especially post germinal center B cells, is impaired.