Reappraisal of Idiopathic CD4 Lymphocytopenia at 30 Years.

BACKGROUND: Idiopathic CD4 lymphocytopenia (ICL) is a clinical syndrome that is defined by CD4 lymphopenia of less than 300 cells per cubic millimeter in the absence of any primary or acquired cause of immunodeficiency. Some 30 years after its original identification, ICL has remained a disease of obscure cause, with limited evidence with respect to its prognosis or management, despite diagnostic and therapeutic innovations. METHODS: We evaluated the clinical, genetic, immunologic, and prognostic characteristics of 108 patients who were enrolled during an 11-year period. We performed whole-exome and targeted gene sequencing to identify genetic causes of lymphopenia. We also performed longitudinal linear mixed-model analyses of T-cell count trajectories and evaluated predictors of clinical events, the response to immunization against coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19), and mortality. RESULTS: After the exclusion of patients with genetic and acquired causes of CD4 lymphopenia, the study population included 91 patients with ICL during 374 person-years of follow-up. The median CD4+ T-cell count among the patients was 80 cells per cubic millimeter. The most prevalent opportunistic infections were diseases related to human papillomavirus (in 29%), cryptococcosis (in 24%), molluscum contagiosum (in 9%), and nontuberculous mycobacterial diseases (in 5%). A reduced CD4 count (<100 cells per cubic millimeter), as compared with a CD4 count of 101 to 300 cells, was associated with a higher risk of opportunistic infection (odds ratio, 5.3; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.8 to 10.7) and invasive cancer (odds ratio, 2.1; 95% CI, 1.1 to 4.3) and a lower risk of autoimmunity (odds ratio, 0.5; 95% CI, 0.2 to 0.9). The risk of death was similar to that in the age- and sex-adjusted general population, but the prevalence of cancer was higher. CONCLUSIONS: Among the study patients, ICL continued to be associated with increased susceptibility to viral, encapsulated fungal, and mycobacterial diseases, as well as with a reduced response to novel antigens and an increased risk of cancer. (Funded by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and the National Cancer Institute; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00867269.).

Risk of Transmitting Coronavirus Disease 2019 During Nebulizer Treatment: A Systematic Review.

Rationale: There is an urgent need to understand the risk of viral transmission during nebulizer treatment of patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Objectives: To assess the risk of transmitting severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), SARS, Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS), and influenza with administration of drugs via nebulizer. Methods: We searched multiple electronic databases, including PubMed®, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wanfang, preprint databases, and clinicaltrials.gov through December 1, 2020. Any study design in any language describing the risk of viral transmission with nebulizer treatment was eligible. Data were abstracted by one investigator and verified by a second. Results: We identified 22 articles: 1 systematic review, 7 cohort/case-control studies, 7 case series, and 7 simulation-based studies. Eight individual studies involved patients with SARS, five involved MERS, and one involved SARS-CoV-2. The seven cohort/case-control studies (four high risk of bias [ROB], three unclear ROB) found mixed results (median odds ratio 3.91, range 0.08-20.67) based on very weak data among a small number of health care workers (HCWs) with variable use of personal protective equipment (PPE). Case series had multiple potential contributors to transmission. Simulation studies found evidence for droplet dispersion after saline nebulization and measureable influenza viral particles up to 1.7 m from the source after 10 minutes of nebulization with a patient simulator. Study heterogeneity prevented meta-analysis. Conclusions: Case series raise concern of transmission risk, and simulation studies demonstrate droplet dispersion with virus recovery, but specific evidence that exposure to nebulizer treatment increases transmission of coronaviruses similar to COVID-19 is inconclusive. Tradeoffs balancing HCW safety and patient appropriateness can potentially minimize risk, including choice of delivery method for inhaled medications (e.g., nebulizer vs. metered dose inhaler) and PPE (e.g., N95 vs. surgical mask).