Citations

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.

Interstitial lung disease (ILD) is a common and serious complication of systemic autoimmune rheumatic diseases (SARD). The prevalence and prognosis of ILD vary depending on the type and severity of the underlying SARD. Recently, two drugs have been approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for the treatment of ILD in SARD, and the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) has issued guidelines for the screening and monitoring of these patients. Therefore, it is essential to detect and manage ILD in SARDs as early as possible. High-resolution CT of the chest is the current gold standard test for diagnosis of ILD, yet, it is not uniformly performed as an initial diagnostic test. This review discusses the latest advances in imaging techniques for the diagnosis, assessment, and follow-up of SARD-ILDs.

ObjectiveThis study assessed patient‐reported outcomes (PROs) in individuals with persistently positive antiphospholipid antibodies (aPL) to better understand how living with aPL may affect their quality of life.MethodsPatients completed Patient‐Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Physical Function (PF) and Cognitive Function (CF) Short Forms as well as the pain intensity (PI) rating (scale of 1‐10). Patients were characterized for demographics, clinical manifestations of antiphospholipid syndrome (APS), cardiovascular risk factors, laboratory test results, and medication usage. Multivariate modeling was done via linear regression.ResultsOf 139 patients, 89 had primary APS, 21 had secondary APS, and 29 had persistent aPL without meeting clinical criteria for APS. The average T scores (±SD) for PF and CF were 45.4 ± 9.2 and 48.6 ± 11.6, respectively; the average for PI was 3.0 ± 2.6. Approximately half of the patients (47%) endorsed at least mild impairment in PF (T score < 45). Mean PF, CF, and PI did not differ between diagnostic groups. Individuals who endorsed more impairment on one measure also tended to endorse more impairment on another (Pearson r = 0.43‐0.59). In the multivariate models, age, smoking, pain medications, and serotonergic medications were associated with impairment in at least one PRO domain. The Damage Index for APS was significantly correlated with both PF and CF.ConclusionIndividuals living with APS endorsed more impairment in PF (and potentially CF) than expected for the general population. The relationship between certain medications and PROs warrants further study, as does the longitudinal trajectory of these and other PROs.

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.