Clinical Features, Immunological Characteristics, and Treatment Outcomes of Campylobacter spp. Infections in Patients With Common Variable Immunodeficiency
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BackgroundCampylobacter infection usually causes a self-limited clinical illness lasting 5 to 7 days, resolving without antimicrobial treatment in immunocompetent subjects. However, an inadequate immune response can lead to a prolonged and severe disease requiring antibiotics and more aggressive therapeutic approaches.ObjectiveTo comprehensively describe Campylobacter spp. infections in patients with common variable immunodeficiency (CVID).MethodsA retrospective cohort of 14 CVID patients with Campylobacter infection and 95 CVID controls attending the immunology clinic at a large tertiary hospital was assessed. Immunological, clinical, and microbiological parameters were measured with median follow-up over 20 years in both cohorts. Patients were treated according to a novel algorithm for Campylobacter in antibody-deficient patients.ResultsCampylobacter patients had a higher proportion of CD21lowCD38low and transitional B cells (median 38.0% vs 14.2% and 5.4% vs 3.2%) and lower long-term average CD19+ B cells (median 0.06 vs 0.18 × 109/L) and CD4+ T cells (0.41 vs 0.62 × 109/L) in comparison with the controls. Similarly, Campylobacter patients showed a decline in B cells (median 0.02 vs 0.14 × 109/L), CD4+ T cells (0.33 vs 0.59 × 109/L), CD8+ T cells (0.26 vs 0.62 × 109/L), and natural killer cells (0.08 vs 0.18 × 109/L) over time. Antimicrobial resistance, especially to macrolides and fluoroquinolones, was common. Bacterial clearance with associated clinical improvement was obtained after a median of 20 and 113 days for acute Campylobacter (resolution within 3 mo of onset) and chronic Campylobacter (>3 mo) infections, respectively. Seven received first-line treatment (azithromycin or chloramphenicol), 4 second-line (neomycin), and 3 third-line (combination of tigecycline, chloramphenicol, and ertapenem; 1 received gentamicin owing to resistance to carbapenems).ConclusionsOur study highlights immunological and clinical characteristics of recurrent Campylobacter infections in patients with CVID. Our treatment algorithm was successful and should be evaluated in a larger cohort. Campylobacter infection usually causes a self-limited clinical illness lasting 5 to 7 days, resolving without antimicrobial treatment in immunocompetent subjects. However, an inadequate immune response can lead to a prolonged and severe disease requiring antibiotics and more aggressive therapeutic approaches. To comprehensively describe Campylobacter spp. infections in patients with common variable immunodeficiency (CVID). A retrospective cohort of 14 CVID patients with Campylobacter infection and 95 CVID controls attending the immunology clinic at a large tertiary hospital was assessed. Immunological, clinical, and microbiological parameters were measured with median follow-up over 20 years in both cohorts. Patients were treated according to a novel algorithm for Campylobacter in antibody-deficient patients. Campylobacter patients had a higher proportion of CD21lowCD38low and transitional B cells (median 38.0% vs 14.2% and 5.4% vs 3.2%) and lower long-term average CD19+ B cells (median 0.06 vs 0.18 × 109/L) and CD4+ T cells (0.41 vs 0.62 × 109/L) in comparison with the controls. Similarly, Campylobacter patients showed a decline in B cells (median 0.02 vs 0.14 × 109/L), CD4+ T cells (0.33 vs 0.59 × 109/L), CD8+ T cells (0.26 vs 0.62 × 109/L), and natural killer cells (0.08 vs 0.18 × 109/L) over time. Antimicrobial resistance, especially to macrolides and fluoroquinolones, was common. Bacterial clearance with associated clinical improvement was obtained after a median of 20 and 113 days for acute Campylobacter (resolution within 3 mo of onset) and chronic Campylobacter (>3 mo) infections, respectively. Seven received first-line treatment (azithromycin or chloramphenicol), 4 second-line (neomycin), and 3 third-line (combination of tigecycline, chloramphenicol, and ertapenem; 1 received gentamicin owing to resistance to carbapenems). Our study highlights immunological and clinical characteristics of recurrent Campylobacter infections in patients with CVID. Our treatment algorithm was successful and should be evaluated in a larger cohort.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,002 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».