RESUMEN
Background: Common variable immunodeficiency (CVID) is a complex, predominantly antibody deficiency usually diagnosed between 20−40 years. Few data about elderly patients are reported in the literature. Our aim was to evaluate the clinical phenotypes of elderly patients with CVID. Method: A retrospective analysis of adult patients with CVID was performed in our Referral Centre, focusing on the main differences between "older" patients (≥65 years at the diagnosis) and "younger" patients (<65 years). Results: The data from 65 younger and 13 older patients followed up for a median period of 8.5 years were available. At diagnosis, recurrent infections represented the only clinical manifestation in 61% and 69% of younger and older patients, respectively. The incidence of autoimmune diseases was higher in elderly patients compared with younger ones (30 vs. 18%, respectively). During the follow-up, the incidence of autoimmune disorders and enteropathy increased in the younger patients whereas neoplasia became the most prevalent complication in the elderly (38%). All patients received a replacement therapy with immunoglobulin, with good compliance. Conclusion: CVID occurrence in elderly patients is rarely described; therefore, the clinical characteristics are not completely known. In our series, neoplasia became the most prevalent complication in the elderly during the follow-up. In elderly patients, 20% SCIg was as safe as in the younger ones, with good compliance. A genetic analysis is important to confirm the diagnosis, identify specific presentations in the different ages, clarify the prognosis and guide the treatment. Future clinical research in this field may potentially help to guide their care.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Common variable immunodeficiency (CVID) is the most common symptomatic primary immunodeficiency and has a broad spectrum of clinical manifestations. Among non-infectious complications, an increased incidence of malignancies may have a special relevance for survival, but little is known about treatment efficacy on malignant complications. METHODS: This was a monocenter retrospective study on CVID patients, designed to provide preliminary data for the investigation of the possible link between therapeutic delay and tumor incidence. RESULTS: A total of 67 CVID subjects were included. The median diagnostic delay was 7.5 years (range: 0-63 years), and the median therapeutic delay was 8.5 years (range: 0-67 years). Malignancies were diagnosed in 18 (27%) patients. Eight out of 18 (44%) patients with a malignancy had lymphoma. Patients who developed a malignancy showed a longer therapeutic delay in comparison to patients with no malignancy, although no statistical significance was achieved (11 years vs 8 years, respectively, p = 0.424). We observed a lower frequency of malignancy in CVID patients with reduced therapeutic delay compared with patients with therapeutic delay ≥ 10 years. With a therapeutic delay of > 1 year, 74% had no tumor, and 25% had a tumor; with a therapeutic delay of > 10 years, 65% had no tumor and 35% had a malignancy. Among patients who had no malignancy, 64% had a therapeutic delay of < 10 years, and 36% had a therapeutic delay of ≥ 10 years. Among patients with malignancy, 47% of subjects had a therapeutic delay < 10 years, and 53% a therapeutic delay ≥ 10 years. CONCLUSIONS: The observation of clinical characteristics of our patients with CVID may suggest that an early institution of IgG replacement therapy could be of benefit for the prevention of malignant complications.Name of the registry: Comitato Etico Regionale delle Marche. Trial registration number: 1505. Date of registration: 27/10/2016, Retrospectively registered URL of trial registry record: http://www.ospedaliriuniti.marche.it/portale/archivio13_cerm-ancona_0_446_1.html. The trial was not registered before the first participant was enrolled.
RESUMEN
MGD and CG were responsible for the study's conception and design. VP and DM contributed to data acquisition. VP and DB planned and performed the statistical analyses. All Authors contributed to data interpretation. MGD, CG, VP and DM drafted the manuscript. AG and DB revised the manuscript critically for intellectual content. All authors gave their final approval of the version of the manuscript to be published.