Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Springer logoLink to Springer
. 2022 Jul 11;42(8):1626–1637. doi: 10.1007/s10875-022-01319-0

Evaluation of Laboratory and Sonographic Parameters for Detection of Portal Hypertension in Patients with Common Variable Immunodeficiency

Anna-Maria Globig 1, Valentina Strohmeier 2,3,4, Rambabu Surabattula 5, Diana J Leeming 6, Morten A Karsdal 6, Maximilian Heeg 7, Gerhard Kindle 3,7, Sigune Goldacker 2,3, Caroline von Spee-Mayer 2,3,7, Michele Proietti 3,7,8,9, Birke Bausch 1, Dominik Bettinger 1, Michael Schultheiß 1, Robert Thimme 1, Detlef Schuppan 5,10, Klaus Warnatz 2,3,✉
PMCID: PMC9700587  PMID: 35821451

Abstract

Timely detection of portal hypertension as a manifestation in a subgroup of patients with common variable immunodeficiency (CVID) represents a challenge since it is usually not associated with liver cirrhosis. To identify relevant markers for portal hypertension, we evaluated clinical history, laboratory parameters, and abdominal ultrasound including liver elastography and biomarkers of extracellular matrix formation. Twenty seven (6%) of 479 CVID patients presented with clinically significant portal hypertension as defined by either the presence of esophageal varices or ascites. This manifestation occurred late during the course of the disease (11.8 years after first diagnosis of CVID) and was typically part of a multiorgan disease and associated with a high mortality (11/27 patients died during follow up). The strongest association with portal hypertension was found for splenomegaly with a longitudinal diameter of > 16 cm. Similarly, most patients presented with a liver stiffness measurement (LSM) of above 6.5 kPa, and a LSM above 20 kPa was always indicative of manifest portal hypertension. Additionally, many laboratory parameters including Pro-C4 were significantly altered in patients with portal hypertension without clearly increasing the discriminatory power to detect non-cirrhotic portal hypertension in CVID. Our data suggest that a spleen size above 16 cm and an elevated liver stiffness above 6.5 kPa should prompt further evaluation of portal hypertension and its sequelae, but earlier and better liquid biomarkers of this serious secondary complication in CVID are needed.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s10875-022-01319-0.

Keywords: Common variable immunodeficiency, hepatopathy, portal hypertension, diagnosis, nodular regenerative hyperplasia

Introduction

Common variable immunodeficiency (CVID) is the most common form of symptomatic primary immunodeficiencies [1]. CVID is a genetically and immunologically heterogeneous disease that is defined by hypogammaglobulinemia of IgG and IgA with or without low IgM levels [2]. Patients can be classified according to molecular characteristics, immunologic phenotype, or clinical characteristics [3–10]. Based on clinical phenotype, patients can be divided into two subgroups: Those that show primarily infectious complications and those with additional disease manifestations such as enteropathy, liver disease, interstitial lung disease, granuloma, splenomegaly, autoimmunity, or malignancy. It is essential to distinguish these patient subgroups as patients with additional non-infectious complications have a significantly decreased life expectancy [11, 12].

While infectious complications, lung function, cytopenias, gastrointestinal involvement, and immunoglobulin levels are more closely monitored by clinicians, affection of the liver with development of portal hypertension is a severe complication that is usually recognized only at advanced stages. Importantly, diagnostic markers and therapeutic approaches in fibrotic liver disease and portal hypertension due to CVID are insufficiently defined [13]. Chronic liver disease has been reported to occur in ~ 12% of CVID patients seen in tertiary treatment centers, and occurrence of liver disease is associated with increased mortality [11, 12, 14]. Underlying pathologies comprise granulomatous inflammation, autoimmune hepatitis, and most commonly nodular regenerative hyperplasia (NRH) [15]. While liver function may be still preserved, the major complication of NRH is portal hypertension with development of ascites and/or esophageal varices that can ultimately cause potentially fatal upper gastrointestinal bleeding [13, 16, 17].

With regard to laboratory markers of liver disease in CVID, especially elevations in alkaline phosphatase (ALP), bilirubin and transaminases have been described [18, 19]. Abdominal ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging as well as transient elastography (FibroScan®) can be used to assess structural changes in the liver as well as signs of portal hypertension [20–22]. There is, however, so far no standard in the field with regard to which parameters should be assessed in CVID patients to determine whether the patient suffers from portal hypertension. In this study, we therefore characterized patients with CVID who developed portal hypertension in a cohort of 479 CVID patients treated at the University Hospital of Freiburg, Germany, and longitudinally assessed conventional and novel laboratory, clinical, endoscopic, and ultrasound characteristics of these patients.

Methods

Patients

Patients with CVID were retrospectively identified from the hospital information system of the University Hospital of Freiburg according to documentation from the outpatient department of the Centre for Chronic Immunodeficiency. Laboratory data and clinical data as well as ultrasound and endoscopy data for these patients were exported and manually validated from the hospital information system. Clinically significant portal hypertension was defined as occurrence of esophageal varices and/or portal hypertensive gastropathy and/or ascites. Female patients with a single episode of ascites in the recto-uterine pouch due to gynecological reasons were not included in the patient group with portal hypertension. The date of onset of portal hypertension was identified according to the date of the first documentation of the aforementioned symptoms. If documentation from previous inpatient or outpatient stays in other hospitals was available, the date of onset was corrected to the first description of aforementioned signs. Patients that never showed esophageal varices, portal hypertensive gastropathy, or ascites were assigned to the control group.

In total, we identified 479 CVID patients of whom 27 showed clinical signs of portal hypertension (for details, see Table 1). Not all data were available for every patient; the number of available data points is indicated in the figures.

Table 1.

Clinical characteristics of CVID patients with portal hypertension

Patient Gender Year of birth Manifestation of CVID Diagnosis of CVID Genetics Euroclass Freiburg class Onset portal hypertension Liver biopsy Etiology of liver disease (pathology report) Maximal LSM (kPa) Death
1 m 1968 1996 idiopathic B + 21norm smB- Ib 2004 Yes Autoimmune cholangitis n.a Yes
2 m 1963 1991 n.a B + 21norm smB- Ib 2015 Yes Discrete portal inflammatory reaction n.a Yes
3 m 1956 1982 1996 NFKB1 deficiency B + 21low smB +  Ia 1999 Yes HCV associated liver cirrhosis 30.8 No
4 f 1969 1972 2003 n.a B + 21low smB +  Ia 2004 Yes Nodular regenerative hyperplasia 16.8 Yes
5 f 1959 1998 2001 n.a B + 21low smB- Ia 2011 Yes Nodular regenerative hyperplasia n.a Yes
6 f 1948 1986 1996 n.a B + 21low smB- Ia 2004 Yes Nodular regenerative hyperplasia n.a Yes
7 f 1956 1996 2006 n.a nd Ib 2008 Yes Chronic portal and lobular hepatitis 26.3 Yes
8 f 1966 1990 1998 n.a B + 21low smB- Ib 2012 Yes Nodular regenerative hyperplasia n.a Yes
9 m 1956 1996 2003 n.a B + 21low smB- 2012 Yes Discrete hepatitis with periportal and discrete intralobular inflammatory infiltrates 9.9 Yes
10 m 1971 2004 2006 n.a B + 21low smB- Ia 2015 Yes Granulomatous liver disease with epitheloid granuloma and lymphocytic portal-inflammatory infiltrate 22.3 No
11 f 1961 1999 2002 n.a B + 21low smB- Ia 2012 Yes Nodular regenerative hyperplasia and suspected autoimmune cholangiopathy 46.4 No
12 m 1962 1977 ICOS deletion B + 21norm smB- Ib 2015 Yes Nodular regenerative hyperplasia 9.9 No
13 m 1956 1984 1991 NFKB1 deficiency B + smB- Ia 2017 Yes Nodular regenerative hyperplasia 7.3 Yes
14 f 1959 2000 2005 n.a B + 21low smB- Ia 2017 No n.a 8.9 No
15 m 1955 2007 2012 n.a B + 21low smB- Ia 2017 Yes Nodular regenerative hyperplasia 11.5 No
16 m 1978 2010 2012 idiopathic B + 21low smB- Ia 2018 Yes Nodular regenerative hyperplasia n.a No
17 f 1972 1995 n.a B- 2015 Yes Nodular regenerative hyperplasia n.a No
18 m 1968 1989 n.a nd Ia 2004 Yes CVID involvement of liver n.a Yes
19 f 1960 1988 1993 TACI deficiency B + 21low smB- 2009 Yes Cryptogenic liver cirrhosis 8.7 No
20 f 1976 1986 n.a B + 21low smB- Ia 2010 Yes Nodular regenerative hyperplasia 7.4 No
21 m 1962 2004 idiopathic nd 2010 No n.a n.a No
22 f 1983 2000 n.a B + 21low smB- Ia 2011 No n.a n.a No
23 f 1957 1962 1996 n.a B + 21low smB- Ia 2008 Yes Granulomatous liver disease with epitheloid cell granuloma 23.6 Yes
24 m 1993 2011 idiopathic B + 21low smB- Ia 2016 No n.a n.a No
25 f 1993 2006 2014 CTLA-4 deficiency 2017 No 15.7 No
26 m 1963 2013 n.a B + 21low smB- 2017 No n.a n.a No
27 m 1983 2014 idiopathic B + 21norm smB- 2018 Yes Granulomatous hepatitis 30.7 No
Open in a new tab

n.a., not available; NFKB1, nuclear factor kappa B subunit 1; ICOS, inducible T cell costimulator; TACI, transmembrane activator and calcium-modulator and cyclophilin ligand interactor; CTLA-4, cytotoxic T-lymphocyte associated protein 4; HCV, hepatitis C virus.

Transient Elastography

Where available, results of transient elastography (FibroScan®) measurements were included in the study. This ultrasound-based technique using a hand-held ultrasound probe allows non-invasive measurement of liver stiffness. Interpretation of generated data depends on the underlying disease-pathology [23–27]; however, transient elastography has previously been demonstrated to be of diagnostic value for CVID patients, particularly in those at risk for portal hypertension [20, 28]. ROC analysis of the LSM was performed, and the optimal cutoff for determination of portal hypertension was calculated by the Youden Index.

ELISAs

Biomarkers of extracellular matrix formation were assessed in serum with validated competitive ELISAs developed and performed as described in previous publications for type III collagen formation (PRO-C3) [29], type IV collagen formation (PRO-C4) [30], and type VI collagen formation and endotrophin (PRO-C6) by Nordic Bioscience (Herlev, Denmark). All samples were measured in duplicates. The median time duration between diagnosis of portal hypertension in the “portal hypertension” group and obtaining the sample was 1051 days, 95% CI [83; 2563].

Data Analysis

Pseudonymized data were stored in MariaDB 10.4.13. Data analysis was performed using R (version 3.6.1) and the following packages: DBI 1.1.0, dplyr 0.8.3, ggplot2 3.3.0, purrr 0.3.3, tidyr 1.0.0, ggbeeswarm 0.6.0, patchwork 1.0.0, lme4 1.1–21, plotROC 2.2.1, and wesanderson 0.3.6. Statistical tests used are indicated in the figure legends. A p value < 0.05 was considered significant. **** indicates a p value < 0.0001, *** < 0.001, ** < 0.01, and * < 0.05. For laboratory and continuous ultrasound parameters, a linear mixed model was calculated: lmer(value ~ group + year(date) + (1|PatientID).

Results

In a retrospective analysis of patients treated at the Centre for Chronic Immunodeficiency of the University Hospital of Freiburg, we have identified 479 CVID patients of whom 27 (6%, 13 female and 14 male) showed clinical signs of portal hypertension (see Table 1). Ninety two percent (23 of 25 patients with available data for ascites) of the CVID patients with portal hypertension presented with ascites and 62% (16 of 26 patients with available data for esophageal varicosis) with esophageal varices during the disease course. Liver biopsy was performed in 21 patients, revealing nodular regenerative hyperplasia of the liver in 52% (11/21) and granulomatous liver disease in 14% (3/21) of patients with biopsy. Typical cirrhosis was histologically seen in only 2 patients. On average, signs of portal hypertension first occurred 11.8 years after first diagnosis of CVID and 19.1 years after first manifestation of CVID respectively (Fig. 1). Compared to other manifestations of CVID, signs of portal hypertension appeared markedly later (Fig. 2).

Fig. 1.

Fig. 1

Open in a new tab

Time from onset of CVID diagnosis and manifestation. Time period between first diagnosis (A) and first manifestation (B) of CVID and diagnosis of portal hypertension is depicted. Data on date of manifestation of CVID were not available for all patients. The blue line indicates the mean

Fig. 2.

Fig. 2

Open in a new tab

Time of onset of CVID manifestations relative to date of CVID diagnosis. Time of onset of CVID manifestations in patients with portal hypertension was plotted relative to first diagnosis of CVID

To define which patients are at risk for portal hypertension, we assessed other CVID manifestations in patients with and without portal hypertension. Interestingly, patients with portal hypertension displayed a higher rate of other CVID manifestations such as allergy, autoimmune cytopenia, other autoimmune organ manifestations, enteropathy, granuloma, interstitial lung disease, lymphadenopathy, solid tumors, and splenomegaly compared to patients without portal hypertension (Fig. 3). These findings underline that patients with portal hypertension belong to a cohort with a high risk for multiorgan disease within the total CVID population. Compatible with this association, most of the patients with portal hypertension belonged to the EUROClass group of B + smB-21low as this had been associated before with more complex disease in CVID [6]. The severity of the disease associated with the manifestation of portal hypertension was underlined by the high mortality rate of 41% (11/27) during follow up in this cohort.

Fig. 3.

Fig. 3

Open in a new tab

Clinical manifestations of CVID patients with and without portal hypertension. Clinical manifestations of CVID were compared between patients with and without portal hypertension. Fisher’s exact test was used to assess statistical significance

To allow for easier clinical identification of these patients, we next sought to characterize the changes in routine blood-based parameters. Patients after diagnosis of portal hypertension displayed significant increases in alanine transaminase (ALT), gamma-glutamyltransferase (γ-GT), and ALP, while serum albumin and total protein were decreased. Patients after diagnosis of portal hypertension further displayed impaired coagulation (Quick value), lower hemoglobin, and reduced thrombocyte counts. The absolute neutrophil count as well as the CRP levels were reduced after diagnosis of portal hypertension. The ALBI score, a score to assess liver dysfunction calculated based on albumin and total bilirubin [31], was increased in CVID patients after diagnosis of portal hypertension (Fig. 4). However, despite these changes, a notable proportion of measurements was within the normal range, thus complicating the identification of this patient collective.

Fig. 4.

Fig. 4

Open in a new tab

Laboratory parameters of CVID patients with and without portal hypertension. Laboratory values were compared between patients without portal hypertension combined with values of patients before the onset of portal hypertension against values after diagnosis of portal hypertension. A linear mixed model was computed to assess statistical significance. Blue line indicates the median. Grey shaded area reflects normal range

In abdominal ultrasound, patients with portal hypertension frequently showed hepatomegaly, while alterations of the hepatic surface and hepatic veins as well as inhomogeneous hepatic parenchyma occurred infrequently. Ascites as one of the defining features of portal hypertension was detected in 92% of the affected patients. Interestingly, the portal vein diameter was increased in patients with portal hypertension but the Vmax of the portal vein was not altered, which is in contrast to other liver disease entities with portal hypertension. Both crosswise and longitudinal diameter of the spleen were significantly increased in patients with portal hypertension (Fig. 5). Since splenomegaly is a common feature of CVID, we were interested to assess whether it can still constitute a marker for portal hypertension in this particular patient collective. ROC analysis of the longitudinal diameter of the spleen resulted in an optimal cutoff for determination of portal hypertension of 15.7 cm and an AUC of 0.82 (Fig. 6A). Additionally, the longitudinal diameter of the spleen correlated significantly with the LSM (liver stiffness measurement, FibroScan®) value of the respective patient (R = 0.36, p = 0.0012; Fig. 6B).

Fig. 5.

Fig. 5

Open in a new tab

Abdominal ultrasound of CVID patients with and without portal hypertension. Abdominal ultrasound results of patients with and without portal hypertension were compared. For categorial variables, the last available ultrasound of patients without portal hypertension was compared with the first available ultrasound after diagnosis of portal hypertension of patients with portal hypertension. For continuous variables, values were compared between patients without portal hypertension combined with values of patients before the onset of portal hypertension against values after diagnosis of portal hypertension. A linear mixed model was computed to assess statistical significance

Fig. 6.

Fig. 6

Open in a new tab

Longitudinal diameter of the spleen as marker for portal hypertension. (A) ROC analysis of the longitudinal diameter of the spleen was performed using the values from patients without portal hypertension and from patients after onset of portal hypertension. The optimal cutoff was calculated by the Youden Index (15.7 cm). (B) Correlation of the longitudinal diameter of the spleen as determined by ultrasound with the LSM value as determined by FibroScan®. Statistical significance was assessed with Pearson correlation. (C) ROC analysis of the absolute LSM was performed using the values from patients without portal hypertension and from patients after onset of portal hypertension. The optimal cutoff was calculated by the Youden Index (11.2 kPa)

Transient elastography (FibroScan®) revealed significantly higher liver stiffness measurement (LSM) in CVID patients with portal hypertension when compared to the control cohort. All 15 patients with portal hypertension and elastography had pathological LSM values > 6.5 kPa and LSM > 20 kPa and were only seen in patients with portal hypertension. ROC analysis of the LSM was performed, and the optimal cutoff for determination of portal hypertension was calculated by the Youden Index for 11.2 kPa with an AUC of 0.78 (Fig. 6C).

Analysis of three serum derived biomarkers of liver collagen formation (Pro-C3, Pro-C4, and Pro-C6) [32–34] revealed significant increases in CVID patients with portal hypertension for Pro-C4 and for Pro-C6 (Fig. 7); however, none of these markers correlated with LSM values, diameter or Vmax of the portal vein, or crosswise or longitudinal spleen diameters (data not shown).

Fig. 7.

Fig. 7

Open in a new tab

Serum collagen markers of liver fibrosis and fibrogenesis in patients with CVID. (A) Serum levels of Pro-C3 in CVID patients without portal hypertension (n = 21) compared to patients after diagnosis of portal hypertension (n = 8). (B) Serum levels of Pro-C4 in CVID patients without portal hypertension (n = 21) compared to patients after diagnosis of portal hypertension (n = 9). Statistical significance was assessed with Mann–Whitney test. Serum levels below the detection limit of the ELISA were set to 29.2 ng/ml as this is the lower limit of detection of the ELISA. (C) Serum levels of Pro-C6 in CVID patients without portal hypertension (n = 22) compared to patients after diagnosis of portal hypertension (n = 10). Statistical significance was assessed with Mann–Whitney test

Discussion

In this retrospective study, we characterize the clinical and sonographic appearance as well as blood laboratory values of CVID patients with portal hypertension. Our study shows that clinically significant portal hypertension occurs at a later time point in the disease course of CVID, when compared to other clinical manifestations such as granuloma, interstitial lung disease, lymphadenopathy, and splenomegaly. Patients that suffer from portal hypertension belong to a more severely affected patient collective with an increased mortality that co-displays multiple CVID organ manifestations compared to patients without portal hypertension. Of note, the patients with portal hypertension we identified in this study had a median diagnostic delay of 7 years (time between initial manifestation and diagnosis of CVID), compared to 4.4 years in the control group (p = 0.25) and 4.8–5 years described in the literature [35]. The cause, relevance, and consequences of this delay remain to be seen in larger studies.

In laboratory analysis, CVID patients with portal hypertension show elevated levels of ALT and γ-GT indicating cholestasis, whereas total bilirubin is not elevated in our cohort. Of note, many of the other laboratory parameters indicated a reduced synthesis capacity of the liver, such as lower albumin and Quick when compared to patients without manifest portal hypertension, although values were often still within the normal range. In line with this, only 2/21 biopsies revealed a cirrhosis, and most CVID patients suffer from a non-cirrhotic portal hypertension (NCPH). In sum, patients with CVID and nodular regenerative hyperplasia show a typical pathophysiological phenotype of non-cirrhotic portal hypertension that is characterized by a presinusoidal hepatic resistance due to obliteration of small and medium portal vein branches. These structural changes are not detectable by ultrasound. While there were significant differences between ultrasound measurements of patients with and without portal hypertension, most of them showed largely overlapping results and were of low discriminatory power. Surprisingly, the direction and the velocity of the portal venous flow were not altered, obfuscating the diagnosis of portal hypertension. The best marker in abdominal ultrasound of CVID patients with portal hypertension was the markedly increased spleen diameter compared to the non-portal hypertension CVID patient collective. As splenomegaly is a common phenomenon in more than 25% of patients with CVID [35] and may be caused not only by portal hypertension but also by lymphoproliferation, the presence of splenomegaly itself is highly sensitive, but not specific for portal hypertension. Only a particularly large spleen with a diameter above 16 cm was more strongly associated with portal hypertension and should prompt further evaluation in the affected patient.

As previously reported [20, 28], ultrasound-based transient elastography (FibroScan®) is of diagnostic value in CVID patients, in particular in those at risk for portal hypertension. LSM values above 20 kPa were regularly associated with relevant portal hypertension as suggested previously for non-CVID patients [36], but in our opinion already, all pathological LSM values > 6.5 kPa should prompt evaluation for secondary complications to reach a high sensitivity.

Among the previously suggested serum biomarkers of liver fibrosis and collagen formation (Pro-C3, Pro-C4, and Pro-C6) [32–34], only Pro-C4 and Pro-C6 but not Pro-C3 were elevated in CVID patients with portal hypertension. This may indicate that there is only a minor hepatic de novo synthesis of basement membrane (Pro-C4) and interstitial microfilaments (Pro-C6), but not of interstitial (Pro-C3) collagen in these patients, compatible with the absence of massive fibrotic extracellular matrix in the liver biopsies of most affected CVID patients. Accordingly, these parameters did not prove of additional value compared to sonographic determination of the spleen diameter.

In summary, the early detection of clinically significant portal hypertension in CVID patients remains a challenge. Especially patients with multiorgan disease, elevated γ-GT and a longitudinal spleen diameter greater than 16 cm need an evaluation for portal hypertension and secondary complications including liver elastography and gastroscopy and a close follow up by (semi)annual ultrasound as well as elastography every year to maximum every 2 years. We further suggest routine annual abdominal ultrasounds as useful to diagnose critical splenomegaly and other potential signs of portal hypertension in a timely fashion in all CVID patients. Of note, in our analysis, none of the blood parameters measured during routine follow up allowed for a good prediction of portal hypertension. In this study, the venous pressure gradients were not systematically measured in all patients, and diagnosis of portal hypertension was established clinically. While it was further not possible to identify the primary cause of liver disease in the majority of the patients with portal hypertension identified in this study, this will need to be a focus of future clinical studies on liver disease in CVID patients. There is still a large unmet need for novel biomarkers that allow early identification and monitoring of CVID patients with incipient and manifest portal hypertension so that pharmacological or endoscopic treatments to prevent complications arising from portal hypertension like potentially fatal upper gastrointestinal bleeding can be instituted.

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

10875_2022_1319_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (24.7KB, pdf)

Supplementary file1 IgG Substitution in relation to manifestation of portal hypertension in patients with CVID. Period and application route of immunoglobulin substitution in relationship to time of diagnosis of portal hypertension (red triangle) are depicted for all CVID patients with portal hypertension. (PDF 24.7 KB)

10875_2022_1319_MOESM2_ESM.pdf (883.7KB, pdf)

Supplementary file2 Laboratory parameters of CVID patients before and after diagnosis of portal hypertension. Laboratory values of patients with portal hypertension were compared before and after the onset of portal hypertension. A linear mixed model was computed to assess statistical significance. Blue line indicates the median. Grey shaded area reflects normal range. (PDF 883 KB)

Acknowledgements

We thank the patients who participated in the study. We acknowledge the excellent support by the CCI outpatient clinic, Advanced Diagnostic Unit, and the CCI Clinical Research Unit and FREEZE-Biobank. We thank Dr. Maja von Cube (IMBI Freiburg) for expert statistical advice and Regine Mayer for help with data acquisition.

Author Contribution

Conceptualization–KW and AG.; Methodology–AG; Analysis–AG, VS, and MH; Investigation–AG and VS; Data acquisition–AG, VS, SG, GK, CSM, RM, RS and MP; Resources–KW, RT; Writing–AG and KW; Revision of manuscript–all; Supervision–KW, MS, DB, BB, RT, BG and DS; Funding acquisition KW, DS, and RT.

Funding

Open Access funding enabled and organized by Projekt DEAL. This work was supported by a grant issued by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (grant no. SFB 1160 IMPATH; project A04) to KW. DS, DJL, and MAK received project-related support from EU Horizon 2020 projects under grant agreements no. 634413 (EPoS, European Project on Steatohepatitis) and no. 777377 (LITMUS, Liver Investigation on Marker Utility in Steatohepatitis).

Data Availability

Not applicable.

Declarations

Ethics Approval

The study was approved by the ethics committee of the University of Freiburg (EK No. FR354/19).

Consent to Participate

Informed consent was obtained from all patients.

Consent for Publication

Informed consent was obtained from all patients.

Conflict of Interest

DJL and MAK are employees of Nordic Biosciences. The other authors declare no competing interests.

Footnotes

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

References

  • 1.Bonilla FA, Barlan I, Chapel H, Costa-Carvalho BT, Cunningham-Rundles C, de la Morena MT, et al. International consensus document (ICON): common variable immunodeficiency disorders. J Allergy Clin Immunol Pract. 2016;4(1):38–59. doi: 10.1016/j.jaip.2015.07.025. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Seidel MG, Kindle G, Gathmann B, Quinti I, Buckland M, van Montfrans J, et al. The European Society for Immunodeficiencies (ESID) registry working definitions for the clinical diagnosis of inborn errors of immunity. J Allergy Clin Immunol Pract. 2019;7(6):1763–1770. doi: 10.1016/j.jaip.2019.02.004. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Driessen GJ, van Zelm MC, van Hagen PM, Hartwig NG, Trip M, Warris A, et al. B-cell replication history and somatic hypermutation status identify distinct pathophysiologic backgrounds in common variable immunodeficiency. Blood. 2011;118(26):6814–6823. doi: 10.1182/blood-2011-06-361881. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Kamae C, Nakagawa N, Sato H, Honma K, Mitsuiki N, Ohara O, et al. Common variable immunodeficiency classification by quantifying T-cell receptor and immunoglobulin kappa-deleting recombination excision circles. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2013;131(5):1437–40.e5. doi: 10.1016/j.jaci.2012.10.059. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Warnatz K, Denz A, Drager R, Braun M, Groth C, Wolff-Vorbeck G, et al. Severe deficiency of switched memory B cells (CD27(+)IgM(-)IgD(-)) in subgroups of patients with common variable immunodeficiency: a new approach to classify a heterogeneous disease. Blood. 2002;99(5):1544–1551. doi: 10.1182/blood.V99.5.1544. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Wehr C, Kivioja T, Schmitt C, Ferry B, Witte T, Eren E, et al. The EUROclass trial: defining subgroups in common variable immunodeficiency. Blood. 2008;111(1):77–85. doi: 10.1182/blood-2007-06-091744. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Piqueras B, LavenuBombled C, Galicier L, van der Bergeron Cruyssen F, Mouthon L, Chevret S, et al. Common variable immunodeficiency patient classification based on impaired B cell memory differentiation correlates with clinical aspects. J Clin Immunol. 2003;23(5):385–400. doi: 10.1023/A:1025373601374. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Chapel H, Lucas M, Lee M, Bjorkander J, Webster D, Grimbacher B, et al. Common variable immunodeficiency disorders: division into distinct clinical phenotypes. Blood. 2008;112(2):277–286. doi: 10.1182/blood-2007-11-124545. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Chapel H, Lucas M, Patel S, Lee M, Cunningham-Rundles C, Resnick E, et al. Confirmation and improvement of criteria for clinical phenotyping in common variable immunodeficiency disorders in replicate cohorts. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2012;130(5):1197–8.e9. doi: 10.1016/j.jaci.2012.05.046. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Mouillot G, Carmagnat M, Gerard L, Garnier JL, Fieschi C, Vince N, et al. B-cell and T-cell phenotypes in CVID patients correlate with the clinical phenotype of the disease. J Clin Immunol. 2010;30(5):746–755. doi: 10.1007/s10875-010-9424-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Resnick ES, Moshier EL, Godbold JH, Cunningham-Rundles C. Morbidity and mortality in common variable immune deficiency over 4 decades. Blood. 2012;119(7):1650–1657. doi: 10.1182/blood-2011-09-377945. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Ho HE, Cunningham-Rundles C. Non-infectious complications of common variable immunodeficiency: updated clinical spectrum, sequelae, and insights to pathogenesis. Front Immunol. 2020;11:149. doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2020.00149. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Globig AM, Heeg M, Larsen CS, Ferreira RD, Kindle G, Goldacker S, Strohmeier V, Silva SL, Cunningham-Rundles C, Quinti I, Thimme R, Bettinger D, Schultheiß M, Warnatz K. International multicenter experience of transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt implantation in patients with common variable immunodeficiency. J Allergy Clin Immunol Pract. 2021;9(7):2931–2935.e1. doi: 10.1016/j.jaip.2021.02.056. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Farmer JR, Ong MS, Barmettler S, Yonker LM, Fuleihan R, Sullivan KE, et al. Common variable immunodeficiency non-infectious disease endotypes redefined using unbiased network clustering in large electronic datasets. Front Immunol. 2017;8:1740. doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2017.01740. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Malamut G, Ziol M, Suarez F, Beaugrand M, Viallard JF, Lascaux AS, et al. Nodular regenerative hyperplasia: the main liver disease in patients with primary hypogammaglobulinemia and hepatic abnormalities. J Hepatol. 2008;48(1):74–82. doi: 10.1016/j.jhep.2007.08.011. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.European Association for the Study of the Liver. EASL clinical practice guidelines on the management of ascites, spontaneous bacterial peritonitis, and hepatorenal syndrome in cirrhosis. J Hepatol. 2010;53(3):397–417. [DOI] [PubMed]
  • 17.Cardenas A, Gines P. Management of patients with cirrhosis awaiting liver transplantation. Gut. 2011;60(3):412–421. doi: 10.1136/gut.2009.179937. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Ward C, Lucas M, Piris J, Collier J, Chapel H. Abnormal liver function in common variable immunodeficiency disorders due to nodular regenerative hyperplasia. Clin Exp Immunol. 2008;153(3):331–337. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2249.2008.03711.x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Szablewski V, René C, Costes V. Indolent cytotoxic T cell lymphoproliferation associated with nodular regenerative hyperplasia: a common liver lesion in the context of common variable immunodeficiency disorder. Virchows Arch. 2015 doi: 10.1007/s00428-015-1862-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Crescenzi L, Pecoraro A, Fiorentino A, Poto R, Varricchi G, Rispo A, et al. Liver stiffness assessment by transient elastography suggests high prevalence of liver involvement in common variable immunodeficiency. Dig Liver Dis. 2019;51(11):1599–1603. doi: 10.1016/j.dld.2019.05.016. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Azzu V, Fonseca M, Duckworth A, Kennard L, Moini N, Qurashi M, et al. Liver disease is common in patients with common variable immunodeficiency and predicts mortality in the presence of cirrhosis or portal hypertension. J Allergy Clin Immunol Pract. 2019;7(7):2484–6.e3. doi: 10.1016/j.jaip.2019.04.016. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Fuss IJ, Friend J, Yang Z, He JP, Hooda L, Boyer J, et al. Nodular regenerative hyperplasia in common variable immunodeficiency. J Clin Immunol. 2013;33(4):748–758. doi: 10.1007/s10875-013-9873-6. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Castéra L, Vergniol J, Foucher J, Le Bail B, Chanteloup E, Haaser M, et al. Prospective comparison of transient elastography, Fibrotest, APRI, and liver biopsy for the assessment of fibrosis in chronic hepatitis C. Gastroenterology. 2005;128(2):343–350. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2004.11.018. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Li Y, Huang YS, Wang ZZ, Yang ZR, Sun F, Zhan SY, et al. Systematic review with meta-analysis: the diagnostic accuracy of transient elastography for the staging of liver fibrosis in patients with chronic hepatitis B. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2016;43(4):458–469. doi: 10.1111/apt.13488. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Pavlov CS, Casazza G, Nikolova D, Tsochatzis E, Burroughs AK, Ivashkin VT, et al. Transient elastography for diagnosis of stages of hepatic fibrosis and cirrhosis in people with alcoholic liver disease. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015;1(1):Cd010542. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD010542.pub2. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Wong VW, Vergniol J, Wong GL, Foucher J, Chan HL, Le Bail B, et al. Diagnosis of fibrosis and cirrhosis using liver stiffness measurement in nonalcoholic fatty liver disease. Hepatology. 2010;51(2):454–462. doi: 10.1002/hep.23312. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Hartl J, Denzer U, Ehlken H, Zenouzi R, Peiseler M, Sebode M, et al. Transient elastography in autoimmune hepatitis: timing determines the impact of inflammation and fibrosis. J Hepatol. 2016;65(4):769–775. doi: 10.1016/j.jhep.2016.05.023. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Pecoraro A, Crescenzi L, Varricchi G, Marone G, Spadaro G. Heterogeneity of liver disease in common variable immunodeficiency disorders. Front Immunol. 2020;11:338. doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2020.00338. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Nielsen MJ, Nedergaard AF, Sun S, Veidal SS, Larsen L, Zheng Q, et al. The neo-epitope specific PRO-C3 ELISA measures true formation of type III collagen associated with liver and muscle parameters. Am J Transl Res. 2013;5(3):303–315. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Leeming DJ, Nielsen MJ, Dai Y, Veidal SS, Vassiliadis E, Zhang C, et al. Enzyme-linked immunosorbent serum assay specific for the 7S domain of Collagen Type IV (P4NP 7S): a marker related to the extracellular matrix remodeling during liver fibrogenesis. Hepatol Res. 2012;42(5):482–493. doi: 10.1111/j.1872-034X.2011.00946.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Johnson PJ, Berhane S, Kagebayashi C, Satomura S, Teng M, Reeves HL, et al. Assessment of liver function in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma: a new evidence-based approach-the ALBI grade. J Clin Oncol. 2015;33(6):550–558. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2014.57.9151. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Bel Lassen P, Nori N, Bedossa P, Genser L, Aron-Wisnewsky J, Poitou C, Surabattula R, Juul Nielsen M, Asser Karsdal M, Julie Leeming D, Schuppan D, Clément K. Fibrogenesis marker PRO-C3 Is higher in advanced liver fibrosis and improves in patients undergoing bariatric surgery. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2022;107(4):e1356–e1366. doi: 10.1210/clinem/dgab897. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Nielsen MJ, Veidal SS, Karsdal MA, Ørsnes-Leeming DJ, Vainer B, Gardner SD, et al. Plasma Pro-C3 (N-terminal type III collagen propeptide) predicts fibrosis progression in patients with chronic hepatitis C. Liver Int. 2015;35(2):429–437. doi: 10.1111/liv.12700. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Boyle M, Tiniakos D, Schattenberg JM, Ratziu V, Bugianessi E, Petta S, et al. Performance of the PRO-C3 collagen neo-epitope biomarker in non-alcoholic fatty liver disease. JHEP Rep. 2019;1(3):188–198. doi: 10.1016/j.jhepr.2019.06.004. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Gathmann B, Mahlaoui N, Gérard L, Oksenhendler E, Warnatz K, Schulze I, et al. Clinical picture and treatment of 2212 patients with common variable immunodeficiency. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2014;134(1):116–126. doi: 10.1016/j.jaci.2013.12.1077. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Vuille-Lessard É, Rodrigues SG, Berzigotti A. Noninvasive detection of clinically significant portal hypertension in compensated advanced chronic liver disease. Clin Liver Dis. 2021;25(2):253–289. doi: 10.1016/j.cld.2021.01.005. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Supplementary Materials

10875_2022_1319_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (24.7KB, pdf)

Supplementary file1 IgG Substitution in relation to manifestation of portal hypertension in patients with CVID. Period and application route of immunoglobulin substitution in relationship to time of diagnosis of portal hypertension (red triangle) are depicted for all CVID patients with portal hypertension. (PDF 24.7 KB)

10875_2022_1319_MOESM2_ESM.pdf (883.7KB, pdf)

Supplementary file2 Laboratory parameters of CVID patients before and after diagnosis of portal hypertension. Laboratory values of patients with portal hypertension were compared before and after the onset of portal hypertension. A linear mixed model was computed to assess statistical significance. Blue line indicates the median. Grey shaded area reflects normal range. (PDF 883 KB)

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Articles from Journal of Clinical Immunology are provided here courtesy of Springer

RESOURCES