Nagaraja, Vivek

Background and Objectives: Interstitial lung disease (ILD) is a common manifestation of connective tissue disease (CTD). (a) Pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) can be utilised to improve dyspnoea and quality of life in patients with chronic lung conditions, including both obstructive and restrictive lung diseases. (b) This study aims to determine if PR can be a useful therapy to improve functional capacity and self-reported measures of dyspnoea in patients with CTD-ILD. Methods: Patients with a diagnosis of CTD-ILD at a tertiary centre were prospectively enrolled to receive PR in this study. The primary outcome was a change in the 6-minute walk test (6MWT) between baseline and 8 weeks after PR. The secondary outcome measures included pulmonary function tests (PFTs) and Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS→) Dyspnoea, St George’s Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ), and Leicester Cough Questionnaire (LCQ), which were collected before and at 8 weeks after PR. P < .05 was considered statistically significant. Results: Twenty-one patients were included in the data analysis. The baseline characteristics are shown in Table 1 . Following PR, there was a statistically significant improvement in the 6MWT ( Figure 1 ). Improvement in scores was observed in LCQ and the symptom domain of the SGRQ. Trends towards improvement were noted in PROMIS → Dyspnoea scores. Conclusion: In CTD-ILD patients, an 8-week course of PR led to improvements in functional capacity (6MWT) and certain quality of life domains (LCQ and symptom domain of SGRQ). Future studies are required to determine the longer-term benefit of PR in CTD-ILD patients and if these improvements are sustained.

AbstractInterstitial lung disorders are a group of respiratory diseases characterized by interstitial compartment infiltration, varying degrees of infiltration, and fibrosis, with or without small airway involvement. Although some are idiopathic (e.g., idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis, idiopathic interstitial pneumonias, and sarcoidosis), the great majority have an underlying etiology, such as systemic autoimmune rheumatic disease (SARD, also called Connective Tissue Diseases or CTD), inhalational exposure to organic matter, medications, and rarely, genetic disorders. This review focuses on diagnostic approaches in interstitial lung diseases associated with SARDs. To make an accurate diagnosis, a multidisciplinary, personalized approach is required, with input from various specialties, including pulmonary, rheumatology, radiology, and pathology, to reach a consensus. In a minority of patients, a definitive diagnosis cannot be established. Their clinical presentations and prognosis can be variable even within subsets of SARDs.

Abstract Objectives To establish a framework by which experts define disease subsets in systemic sclerosis associated interstitial lung disease (SSc-ILD). Methods A conceptual framework for subclinical, clinical and progressive ILD was provided to 83 experts, asking them to use the framework and classify actual SSc-ILD patients. Each patient profile was designed to be classified by at least four experts in terms of severity and risk of progression at baseline; progression was based on 1-year follow-up data. A consensus was reached if ≥75% of experts agreed. Experts provided information on which items were important in determining classification. Results Forty-four experts (53%) completed the survey. Consensus was achieved on the dimensions of severity (75%, 60 of 80 profiles), risk of progression (71%, 57 of 80 profiles) and progressive ILD (60%, 24 of 40 profiles). For profiles achieving consensus, most were classified as clinical ILD (92%), low risk (54%) and stable (71%). Severity and disease progression overlapped in terms of framework items that were most influential in classifying patients (forced vital capacity, extent of lung involvement on high resolution chest CT [HRCT]); risk of progression was influenced primarily by disease duration. Conclusions Using our proposed conceptual framework, international experts were able to achieve a consensus on classifying SSc-ILD patients along the dimensions of disease severity, risk of progression and progression over time. Experts rely on similar items when classifying disease severity and progression: a combination of spirometry and gas exchange and quantitative HRCT.