Search

Contains fulltext : 202944.pdf (publisher's version ) (Closed access), OBJECTIVE: Provisional evidence-based classification criteria for hereditary periodic fever (HPF) have been recently developed. However, no consensus on how to combine clinical criteria, laboratory tests, and results of molecular analysis has been reached. The objective of this study is to understand which variables physicians consider important for the classification of patients with HPF. METHODS: Two Delphi surveys were sent to health professionals in the field of autoinflammation. In the first open survey, 124 researchers could list all the variables they consider useful for the diagnosis of each monogenic periodic fever. The variables could be of any type and each researcher could complete the survey for 1 or more diseases. In the second survey, 162 researchers were asked to select, from a list of items coming from the first survey, the 10 top variables and to rank them by assigning a score from 10 to 1. RESULTS: The response rates to the Delphi surveys were 85% for the first session and 87% for the second. The variables selected for each disease (corresponding to the third quartile, considering the total score obtained by the variables after the second Delphi survey) were 21 for mevalonate kinase deficiency, 22 for cryopyrinopathies, 18 for familial Mediterranean fever, and 20 for tumor necrosis factor receptor-associated periodic fever syndrome. A positive genetic test reached the top rank in all the HPF. CONCLUSION: Our process led to the identification of those features considered the most important as candidate variables to be included in a new set of evidence-based classification criteria for HPF.

Contains fulltext : 208780.pdf (publisher's version ) (Closed access), BACKGROUND: Different diagnostic and classification criteria are available for hereditary recurrent fevers (HRF)-familial Mediterranean fever (FMF), tumour necrosis factor receptor-associated periodic fever syndrome (TRAPS), mevalonate kinase deficiency (MKD) and cryopyrin-associated periodic syndromes (CAPS)-and for the non-hereditary, periodic fever, aphthosis, pharyngitis and adenitis (PFAPA). We aimed to develop and validate new evidence-based classification criteria for HRF/PFAPA. METHODS: Step 1: selection of clinical, laboratory and genetic candidate variables; step 2: classification of 360 random patients from the Eurofever Registry by a panel of 25 clinicians and 8 geneticists blinded to patients' diagnosis (consensus >/=80%); step 3: statistical analysis for the selection of the best candidate classification criteria; step 4: nominal group technique consensus conference with 33 panellists for the discussion and selection of the final classification criteria; step 5: cross-sectional validation of the novel criteria. RESULTS: The panellists achieved consensus to classify 281 of 360 (78%) patients (32 CAPS, 36 FMF, 56 MKD, 37 PFAPA, 39 TRAPS, 81 undefined recurrent fever). Consensus was reached for two sets of criteria for each HRF, one including genetic and clinical variables, the other with clinical variables only, plus new criteria for PFAPA. The four HRF criteria demonstrated sensitivity of 0.94-1 and specificity of 0.95-1; for PFAPA, criteria sensitivity and specificity were 0.97 and 0.93, respectively. Validation of these criteria in an independent data set of 1018 patients shows a high accuracy (from 0.81 to 0.98). CONCLUSION: Eurofever proposes a novel set of validated classification criteria for HRF and PFAPA with high sensitivity and specificity.

Background: Primary Immunodeficiencies (PIDs) are a heterogeneous group of genetic immune disorders. While some PIDs can manifest with more than one phenotype, signs, and symptoms of various PIDs overlap considerably. Recently, novel defects in immune-related genes and additional variants in previously reported genes responsible for PIDs have been successfully identified by Next Generation Sequencing (NGS), allowing the recognition of a broad spectrum of disorders. Objective: To evaluate the strength and weakness of targeted NGS sequencing using custom-made Ion Torrent and Haloplex (Agilent) panels for diagnostics and research purposes. Methods: Five different panels including known and candidate genes were used to screen 105 patients with distinct PID features divided in three main PID categories: T cell defects, Humoral defects and Other PIDs. The Ion Torrent sequencing platform was used in 73 patients. Among these, 18 selected patients without a molecular diagnosis and 32 additional patients were analyzed by Haloplex enrichment technology. Results: The complementary use of the two custom-made targeted sequencing approaches allowed the identification of causative variants in 28.6% (n = 30) of patients. Twenty-two out of 73 (34.6%) patients were diagnosed by Ion Torrent. In this group 20 were included in the SCID/CID category. Eight out of 50 (16%) patients were diagnosed by Haloplex workflow. Ion Torrent method was highly successful for those cases with well-defined phenotypes for immunological and clinical presentation. The Haloplex approach was able to diagnose 4 SCID/CID patients and 4 additional patients with complex and extended phenotypes, embracing all three PID categories in which this approach was more efficient. Both technologies showed good gene coverage. Conclusions: NGS technology represents a powerful approach in the complex field of rare disorders but its different application should be weighted. A relatively small NGS target panel can be successful