CD19 + CD21lo/neg cells are increased in systemic sclerosis-associated interstitial lung disease

Interstitial lung disease (ILD) represents a significant cause of morbidity and mortality in systemic sclerosis (SSc). The purpose of this study was to examine recirculating lymphocytes from SSc patients for potential biomarkers of interstitial lung disease (ILD). Peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMCs) were isolated from patients with SSc and healthy controls enrolled in the Vanderbilt University Myositis and Scleroderma Treatment Initiative Center cohort between 9/2017–6/2019. Clinical phenotyping was performed by chart abstraction. Immunophenotyping was performed using both mass cytometry and fluorescence cytometry combined with t-distributed stochastic neighbor embedding analysis and traditional biaxial gating. This study included 34 patients with SSc-ILD, 14 patients without SSc-ILD, and 25 healthy controls. CD21^lo/neg cells are significantly increased in SSc-ILD but not in SSc without ILD (15.4 ± 13.3% vs. 5.8 ± 0.9%, p = 0.002) or healthy controls (5.0 ± 0.5%, p < 0.0001). While CD21^lo/neg B cells can be identified from a single biaxial gate, tSNE analysis reveals that the biaxial gate is comprised of multiple distinct subsets, all of which are increased in SSc-ILD. CD21^lo/neg cells in both healthy controls and SSc-ILD are predominantly tBET positive and do not have intracellular CD21. Immunohistochemistry staining demonstrated that CD21^lo/neg B cells diffusely infiltrate the lung parenchyma of an SSc-ILD patient. Additional work is needed to validate this biomarker in larger cohorts and longitudinal studies and to understand the role of these cells in SSc-ILD.

     

A systematic review of the methodological quality of economic evaluations in genetic screening and testing for monogenic disorders

PurposeUnderstanding the value of genetic screening and testing for monogenic disorders requires high-quality, methodologically robust economic evaluations. This systematic review sought to assess the methodological quality among such studies and examined opportunities for improvement.MethodsWe searched PubMed, Cochrane, Embase, and Web of Science for economic evaluations of genetic screening/testing (2013-2019). Methodological rigor and adherence to best practices were systematically assessed using the British Medical Journal checklist.ResultsAcross the 47 identified studies, there were substantial variations in modeling approaches, reporting detail, and sophistication. Models ranged from simple decision trees to individual-level microsimulations that compared between 2 and >20 alternative interventions. Many studies failed to report sufficient detail to enable replication or did not justify modeling assumptions, especially for costing methods and utility values. Meta-analyses, systematic reviews, or calibration were rarely used to derive parameter estimates. Nearly all studies conducted some sensitivity analysis, and more sophisticated studies implemented probabilistic sensitivity/uncertainty analysis, threshold analysis, and value of information analysis.ConclusionWe describe a heterogeneous body of work and present recommendations and exemplar studies across the methodological domains of (1) perspective, scope, and parameter selection; (2) use of uncertainty/sensitivity analyses; and (3) reporting transparency for improvement in the economic evaluation of genetic screening/testing.     

The case for allele‐specific recognition by the TCR

There is a sharp difference in how one views TCR structure–function–behaviour dependent on whether its recognition of major histocompatibility complex‐encoded restriction elements (R) is germline selected or somatically generated. The generally accepted or Standard model is built on the assumption that recognition of R is by the V regions of the αβ TCR, which is not driven by allele specificity, whereas the competing model posits that recognition of R is allele‐specific. The establishing of allele‐specific recognition of R by the TCR would rule out the Standard model and clear the road to a consideration of a competing construct, the Tritope model. Here, the case for allele‐specific recognition (germline selected) is detailed making it obvious that the Standard model is untenable.