ArticleBiomedicines2022
Common Variable Immunodeficiency in Elderly Patients: A Long-Term Clinical Experience.
Article in Biomedicines, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- 25-Hydroxyvitamin D Sufficiency Is Associated With Reduced Atelectasis in Common Variable Immunodeficiency: A Cross-Sectional Study.Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research · 2026Article
- Allergic Diseases in Common Variable Immunodeficiency: A Prospective Cross-Sectional Study on Prevalence and Allergy Biomarkers of Clinical Phenotypes.Scandinavian journal of immunology · 2026Article
- Polyautoimmunity Reflecting Immune Dysregulation in Common Variable Immunodeficiency.Biomedicines · 2025Article
- Customizing subcutaneous immunoglobulin administration in primary antibody deficiency: patient-centric care perspectives.Immunotherapy · 2024Review
- Investigating population-level immunosenescence: From bench to bedside.Frontiers in immunology · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
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.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.