Allanore, Yannick

Objective Interstitial lung disease (ILD) is an important cause of mortality in some patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Patient-level factors may predict which patients with RA are at the highest risk of developing ILD and are therefore candidates for screening for this complication of the underlying disease. Methods A systematic literature review was performed using PubMed, Embase and Scopus over a 10-year period up to July 2021. Publications reporting patient-level factors in patients with RA with and without ILD that were assessed before development of ILD (or were unchanged over time and therefore could be extrapolated to before development of ILD) were retrieved for assessment of evidence. Genetic variation in MUC5B and treatment with methotrexate were not included in the assessment of evidence because these factors have already been widely investigated for association with ILD. Results We found consistent associations of age, sex, smoking status and autoantibodies with development of ILD. For biomarkers such as Krebs von den Lungen 6, which have been shown to be diagnostic for ILD, there were no publications meeting criteria for this study. Conclusions This analysis provides an initial step in the identification of patient-level factors for potential development of a risk algorithm to identify patients with RA who may be candidates for screening for ILD. The findings represent a useful basis for future research leading to an improved understanding of the disease course and improved care for patients with RA at risk of development and progression of ILD.

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.