Introduction: Primary immunodeficiencies (PID) are a group of rare genetic disorders with a multitude of clinical symptoms. Characterization of epidemiological and clinical data via national registries has proven to be a valuable tool of studying these diseases. Materials and Methods: The Russian PID registry was set up in 2017, by the National Association of Experts in PID (NAEPID). It is a secure, internet-based database that includes detailed clinical, laboratory, and therapeutic data on PID patients of all ages. Results: The registry contained information on 2,728 patients (60% males, 40% females), from all Federal Districts of the Russian Federation. 1,851/2,728 (68%) were alive, 1,426/1,851 (77%) were children and 425/1,851 (23%) were adults. PID was diagnosed before the age of 18 in 2,192 patients (88%). Antibody defects (699; 26%) and syndromic PID (591; 22%) were the most common groups of PID. The minimum overall PID prevalence in the Russian population was 1.3:100,000 people; the estimated PID birth rate is 5.7 per 100,000 live births. The number of newly diagnosed patients per year increased dramatically, reaching the maximum of 331 patients in 2018. The overall mortality rate was 9.8%. Genetic testing has been performed in 1,740 patients and genetic defects were identified in 1,344 of them (77.2%). The median diagnostic delay was 2 years; this varied from 4 months to 11 years, depending on the PID category. The shortest time to diagnosis was noted in the combined PIDs-in WAS, DGS, and CGD. The longest delay was observed in AT, NBS, and in the most prevalent adult PID: HAE and CVID. Of the patients, 1,622 had symptomatic treatment information: 843 (52%) received IG treatment, mainly IVIG (96%), and 414 (25%) patients were treated with biological drugs. HSCT has been performed in 342/2,728 (16%) patients, of whom 67% are currently alive, 17% deceased, and 16% lost to follow-up. Three patients underwent gene therapy for WAS; all are currently alive. Conclusions: Here, we describe our first analysis of the epidemiological features of PID in Russia, allowing us to highlight the main challenges around PID diagnosis and treatment.

IntroductionThe J Project (JP) physician education and clinical research collaboration program was started in 2004 and includes by now 32 countries mostly in Eastern and Central Europe (ECE). Until the end of 2021, 344 inborn errors of immunity (IEI)-focused meetings were organized by the JP to raise awareness and facilitate the diagnosis and treatment of patients with IEI.ResultsIn this study, meeting profiles and major diagnostic and treatment parameters were studied. JP center leaders reported patients’ data from 30 countries representing a total population of 506 567 565. Two countries reported patients from JP centers (Konya, Turkey and Cairo University, Egypt). Diagnostic criteria were based on the 2020 update of classification by the IUIS Expert Committee on IEI. The number of JP meetings increased from 6 per year in 2004 and 2005 to 44 and 63 in 2020 and 2021, respectively. The cumulative number of meetings per country varied from 1 to 59 in various countries reflecting partly but not entirely the population of the respective countries. Altogether, 24,879 patients were reported giving an average prevalence of 4.9. Most of the patients had predominantly antibody deficiency (46,32%) followed by patients with combined immunodeficiencies (14.3%). The percentages of patients with bone marrow failure and phenocopies of IEI were less than 1 each. The number of patients was remarkably higher that those reported to the ESID Registry in 13 countries. Immunoglobulin (IgG) substitution was provided to 7,572 patients (5,693 intravenously) and 1,480 patients received hematopoietic stem cell therapy (HSCT). Searching for basic diagnostic parameters revealed the availability of immunochemistry and flow cytometry in 27 and 28 countries, respectively, and targeted gene sequencing and new generation sequencing was available in 21 and 18 countries. The number of IEI centers and experts in the field were 260 and 690, respectively. We found high correlation between the number of IEI centers and patients treated with intravenous IgG (IVIG) (correlation coefficient, cc, 0,916) and with those who were treated with HSCT (cc, 0,905). Similar correlation was found when the number of experts was compared with those treated with HSCT. However, the number of patients treated with subcutaneous Ig (SCIG) only slightly correlated with the number of experts (cc, 0,489) and no correlation was found between the number of centers and patients on SCIG (cc, 0,174).Conclusions1) this is the first study describing major diagnostic and treatment parameters of IEI care in countries of the JP; 2) the data suggest that the JP had tremendous impact on the development of IEI care in ECE; 3) our data help to define major future targets of JP activity in various countries; 4) we suggest that the number of IEI centers and IEI experts closely correlate to the most important treatment parameters; 5) we propose that specialist education among medical professionals plays pivotal role in increasing levels of diagnostics and adequate care of this vulnerable and still highly neglected patient population; 6) this study also provides the basis for further analysis of more specific aspects of IEI care including genetic diagnostics, disease specific prevalence, newborn screening and professional collaboration in JP countries.

Anaphylactic shock is a severe life-threatening reaction, that may be caused by medicines, food, hymenoptera and animal poisons, etc. Therefore, anaphylactic shock (anaphylaxis) can develop both in a medical institution and outside it, and physicians of any specialties should be ready to treat this condition. In this regard, clinical guidelines for anaphylactic shock have been developed. These recommendations were approved by the Russian Association of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (Protocol No. 743/12 dated December 30, 2020) and the Federation of Anesthesiologists and Resuscitators (Protocol No. 1 dated January 13, 2021), approved at a meeting of the Scientific and Practical Council of the Ministry of Health of the Russian Federation (Protocol No. .2020 No. 743/12). The guidelines cover a number of nosologies that correspond to the codes of the International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems: T 78.0; T 78.2; T 80.5; T 88.6. The clinical guidelines systematize modern data on etiology, epidemiology, classification, clinical picture, diagnosis, treatment and prevention of anaphylactic shock. An algorithm for managing a patient with anaphylactic shock has been developed. Clinical guidelines for anaphylactic shock are intended for practitioners of all specialties, students and teachers of medical universities, residents, graduate students.

The increase in the frequency and unfavorable outcomes of anaphylactic shock in recent decades determines the need for the development of clear and clear definitions, diagnosis and treatment of both shock and prevention of possible complications associated with it. The article provides options for the course of anaphylactic shock, algorithms for diagnosis and treatment.