Citations

Abstract Background Despite advances in diagnosis and management, the interstitial lung disease (ILD) lexicon is plagued by ambiguous and inconsistent terminology that complicates communication and impedes knowledge generation. The objective of this Fleischner Society Consensus Statement was to produce standardized terminology for ILD multidisciplinary diagnoses and major phenotypes. Methods Interviews with 10 experts were used to identify ILD clinical diagnoses and major phenotypes. The preferred terms for each entity and potential alternatives were identified, alongside the rationale for the preferred term. Entities with more than one potential term were the subject of an online modified Delphi survey posed to the 29 committee members, aiming to achieve consensus. Committee members rated their agreement with the initially preferred term—5 (strongly agree), 4 (agree), 3 (neutral/unsure), 2 (disagree), and 1 (strongly disagree)—with the option to provide additional comments. Median score ≥4 and interquartile range ≤1 were considered consensus agreement. Terms not reaching agreement were discussed by video conference, followed by an additional survey that incorporated feedback. Results From the 60 initial terms, there were two root terms that required upfront consensus before survey initiation (ILD and interstitial pneumonia) and another eight terms that had no alternative suggested by the committee or in the literature. Agreement was met by 47/50 terms (94%) in Round 1 of the survey. The three terms (6%) that did not reach agreement met agreement in Round 2. Conclusions This document provides standardized recommended terms for ILD multidisciplinary diagnoses and major phenotypes that will facilitate communication among clinicians, researchers, patients, and other stakeholders.

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.

Patients with systemic sclerosis are at high risk of developing systemic sclerosis–associated interstitial lung disease. Symptoms and outcomes of systemic sclerosis–associated interstitial lung disease range from subclinical lung involvement to respiratory failure and death. Early and accurate diagnosis of systemic sclerosis–associated interstitial lung disease is therefore important to enable appropriate intervention. The most sensitive and specific way to diagnose systemic sclerosis–associated interstitial lung disease is by high-resolution computed tomography, and experts recommend that high-resolution computed tomography should be performed in all patients with systemic sclerosis at the time of initial diagnosis. In addition to being an important screening and diagnostic tool, high-resolution computed tomography can be used to evaluate disease extent in systemic sclerosis–associated interstitial lung disease and may be helpful in assessing prognosis in some patients. Currently, there is no consensus with regards to frequency and scanning intervals in patients at risk of interstitial lung disease development and/or progression. However, expert guidance does suggest that frequency of screening using high-resolution computed tomography should be guided by risk of developing interstitial lung disease. Most experienced clinicians would not repeat high-resolution computed tomography more than once a year or every other year for the first few years unless symptoms arose. Several computed tomography techniques have been developed in recent years that are suitable for regular monitoring, including low-radiation protocols, which, together with other technologies, such as lung ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging, may further assist in the evaluation and monitoring of patients with systemic sclerosis–associated interstitial lung disease. A video abstract to accompany this article is available at: https://www.globalmedcomms.com/respiratory/Khanna/HRCTinSScILD

Abstract Rationale Quantitative computed tomographic (CT) measures of baseline disease severity might identify patients with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) with an increased mortality risk. We evaluated whether quantitative CT variables could act as a cohort enrichment tool in future IPF drug trials. Objectives To determine whether computer-derived CT measures, specifically measures of pulmonary vessel–related structures (VRSs), can better predict functional decline and survival in IPF and reduce requisite sample sizes in drug trial populations. Methods Patients with IPF undergoing volumetric noncontrast CT imaging at the Royal Brompton Hospital, London, and St. Antonius Hospital, Utrecht, were examined to identify pulmonary function measures (including FVC) and visual and computer-derived (CALIPER [Computer-Aided Lung Informatics for Pathology Evaluation and Rating] software) CT features predictive of mortality and FVC decline. The discovery cohort comprised 247 consecutive patients, with validation of results conducted in a separate cohort of 284 patients, all fulfilling drug trial entry criteria. Measurements and Main Results In the discovery and validation cohorts, CALIPER-derived features, particularly VRS scores, were among the strongest predictors of survival and FVC decline. CALIPER results were accentuated in patients with less extensive disease, outperforming pulmonary function measures. When used as a cohort enrichment tool, a CALIPER VRS score greater than 4.4% of the lung was able to reduce the requisite sample size of an IPF drug trial by 26%. Conclusions Our study has validated a new quantitative CT measure in patients with IPF fulfilling drug trial entry criteria—the VRS score—that outperformed current gold standard measures of outcome. When used for cohort enrichment in an IPF drug trial setting, VRS threshold scores can reduce a required IPF drug trial population size by 25%, thereby limiting prohibitive trial costs. Importantly, VRS scores identify patients in whom antifibrotic medication prolongs life and reduces FVC decline.

ABSTRACT Background and objective This study evaluated whether patients with combined pulmonary fibrosis and emphysema (CPFE) have an increased likelihood of pulmonary hypertension (PHT) when compared with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) patients without emphysema. Methods Two consecutive IPF populations having undergone transthoracic echocardiography were examined ( n = 223 and n = 162). Emphysema and interstitial lung disease (ILD) extent were quantified visually; ILD extent was also quantified by a software tool, CALIPER. Echocardiographic criteria categorized PHT risk. Results The prevalence of an increased PHT likelihood was 29% and 31% in each CPFE cohort. Survival at 12 months was 60% across both CPFE cohorts with no significantly worsened outcome identified when compared with IPF patients without emphysema. Using logistic regression models in both cohorts, total computed tomography (CT) disease extent (ILD and emphysema) predicted the likelihood of PHT. After adjustment for total disease extent, CPFE had no stronger association with PHT likelihood than IPF patients without emphysema. Conclusion Our findings indicate that the reported association between CPFE and PHT is explained by the summed baseline CT extents of ILD and emphysema. Once baseline severity is taken into account, CPFE is not selectively associated with a malignant microvascular phenotype, when compared with IPF patients without emphysema.