Aliberti S, Amati F, Gramegna A, Vigone B, Oriano M, Sotgiu G, Mantero M, Simonetta E, Saderi L, Stainer A, Tammaro S, Marchisio P, Polverino E, Chalmers JD, and Blasi F
Background: The reported prevalence of immunodeficiencies in bronchiectasis patients is variable depending on the frequency and extent of immunological tests performed. European Respiratory Society guidelines recommend a minimum bundle of tests. Broadening the spectrum of immunological tests could increase the number of patients diagnosed with an immunodeficiency and those who could receive specific therapy. The primary objective of the present study was to assess the performance of different sets of immunological tests in diagnosing any, primary, secondary or treatable immunodeficiencies in adults with bronchiectasis., Methods: An observational, cross-sectional study was conducted at the Bronchiectasis Program of the Policlinico University Hospital in Milan, Italy, from September 2016 to June 2019. Adult outpatients with a clinical and radiological diagnosis of bronchiectasis underwent the same immunological screening during the first visit when clinically stable consisting of: complete blood count; immunoglobulin (Ig) subclass tests for IgA, IgG, IgM and IgG; total IgE; lymphocyte subsets; and HIV antibodies. The primary endpoint was the prevalence of patients with any immunodeficiencies using five different sets of immunological tests., Results: A total of 401 bronchiectasis patients underwent the immunological screening. A significantly different prevalence of bronchiectasis patients diagnosed with any, primary or secondary immunodeficiencies was found across different bundles. 44.6% of bronchiectasis patients had a diagnosis of immunodeficiency when IgG subclasses and lymphocyte subsets were added to the minimum bundle suggested by the guidelines., Conclusion: A four-fold increase in the diagnosis of immunodeficiencies can be found in adults with bronchiectasis when IgG subclasses and lymphocyte subsets are added to the bundle of tests recommended by guidelines., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest: S. Aliberti reports grants or contracts from Insmed, Chiesi and Fisher & Paykel; royalties or licences from McGraw Hill; consulting fees from Insmed, Zambon, AstraZeneca, CSL Behring GmbH, Grifols, Fondazione Charta, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, Zcube Srl and Menarini; and payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speaker bureaus, manuscript writing or educational events from GlaxoSmithKline, and for participation on a Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board for Insmed and AstraZeneca, all outside the submitted work. M. Mantero declares honoraria for educational events from GlaxoSmithKline and Boehringer Ingelheim, outside the present study. A. Stainer reports grants, speaker fees and travel support from AstraZeneca, Bayer, Chiesi, Forest Laboratories, GlaxoSmithKline, Insmed, Pfizer, Medimmune, Novartis and Zambon, outside the submitted work. E. Polverino reports grants or contracts from Grifols; consulting fees from Insmed, Chiesi and Zambon; payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speaker bureaus, manuscript writing or educational events from Insmed, GlaxoSmithKline, Teva, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi and Zambon; support for attending meetings from Insmed and Teva, and for participation on a Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board from Insmed and Chiesi, all outside the submitted work. J.D. Chalmers reports grants and personal fees from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, GlaxoSmithKline and Insmed, grants from Gilead Sciences, and personal fees from Chiesi, Novartis and Zambon, outside the submitted work. F. Blasi reports grants and personal fees from AstraZeneca, Chiesi, GlaxoSmithKline, Pfizer and Insmed; grants from Bayer; and personal fees from Guidotti, Grifols, Menarini, Mundipharma, Novartis and Zambon, outside the submitted work. F. Amati, A. Gramegna, B. Vigone, M. Oriano, G. Sotgiu, E. Simonetta, L. Saderi, S. Tammaro and P. Marchisio report no conflict of interest., (Copyright ©The authors 2022.)