Infection Phenotypes Among Patients with Primary Antibody Deficiency Mined from a US Patient Registry.

PURPOSE: Primary immunodeficiency disorders (PIDs) affect immune system development and/or function, increase infection susceptibility, and cause dysregulation or both. Recognition of PID requires assessment about the normal state of infection frequency and microbiology. To help clarify infection characteristics, we use data mined from the US Immunodeficiency Network (USIDNET) registry among primary antibody deficiency (PAD) patients before diagnosis. METHODS: We analyzed PAD patient data from the USIDNET registry prior to ultimate diagnosis. Our analysis included basic descriptive statistics for 8 major infection subtypes and significance testing for comparing infection rate by specific organisms across 7 distinct PAD subtypes. RESULTS: Of 2038 patients reviewed, 1259 (61.8%) had infections reported prior to diagnosis. Most (77.4%) had four or less reported infections prior to diagnosis; however, some suffered up to 16 infections. Infection patterns differed across the PAD subtypes. Patients with agammaglobulinemia differed significantly from patients with all other forms of PAD studied in at least one infection category, whereas patients with CVID differed from 3 other PAD categories in at least one infection category. Patterns of infections in patients with hypogammaglobulinemia, specific antibody deficiency, and transient hypogammaglobulinemia were less unique. For each of the infection types, bacteria were the most prevalent cause of disease. CONCLUSIONS: Our data shows that distinct subtypes of PAD display unique infection patterns. We also show that patients with agammaglobulinemia suffer more invasive infections and differ most significantly from all other forms of PAD studied. Our analysis has broad implications about infection surveillance, progression, and vulnerability by PAD subtype.

Addressing common questions on food oral immunotherapy: a practical guide for paediatricians.

Food allergy has been increasing in prevalence in most westernised countries and poses a significant burden to patients and families; dietary and social limitations as well as psychosocial and economic burden affect daily activities, resulting in decreased quality of life. Food oral immunotherapy (food-OIT) has emerged as an active form of treatment, with multiple benefits such as increasing the threshold of reactivity to the allergenic food, decreasing reaction severity on accidental exposures, expanding dietary choices, reducing anxiety and generally improving quality of life. Risks associated with food immunotherapy mostly consist of allergic reactions during therapy. While the therapy is generally considered both safe and effective, patients and families must be informed of the aforementioned risks, understand them, and be willing to accept and hedge these risks as being worthwhile and outweighed by the anticipated benefits through a process of shared decision-making. Food-OIT is a good example of a preference-sensitive care paradigm, given candidates for this therapy must consider multiple trade-offs for what is considered an optional therapy for food allergy compared with avoidance. Additionally, clinicians who discuss OIT should remain increasingly aware of the growing impact of social media on medical decision-making and be prepared to counter misconceptions by providing clear evidence-based information during in-person encounters, on their website, and through printed information that families can take home and review.