BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Unclassifiable disease in chronic interstitial lung disease (ILD) is a common and challenging problem but has been insufficiently studied. The 2013 update of the international multidisciplinary classification of the idiopathic interstitial pneumonias presented a classification based on observed disease behaviour with the purpose of providing guidance to clinicians in the management of these patients. The aim of this study was to apply the new disease behaviour classification (DBC) and the previously validated ILD-gender age physiology (GAP) score to a cohort of unclassifiable ILD patients and to assess the prognostic value of these two composite approaches. METHODS: Unclassifiable ILD patients were identified from the population-based ILD registry at Aarhus University Hospital, Denmark, that includes all ILD patients diagnosed at the department from 2003 to 2009. The DBC was assessed retrospectively based on clinical presentation and diagnostic examinations at presentation and short-term follow-up. RESULTS: Unclassifiable ILD was diagnosed in 24% of the cohort (105 of 431). Survival in unclassifiable ILD was intermediate between idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) and non-IPF controls (idiopathic non-specific interstitial pneumonia (NSIP), hypersensitivity pneumonitis and connective tissue disease-associated ILD). The DBC and the ILD-GAP index were strong individual predictors of outcome in a dichotomized regression model (hazard ratio (HR): 6.3 (95% CI: 1.8-21.2) for the DBC and HR: 6.7 (95% CI: 2.2-20.0) for ILD-GAP). Both approaches remained significant in a common regression model (HR: 4.5 (95% CI: 1.3-15.7) for the DBC and HR: 5.1 (95% CI: 1.3-15.7) for ILD-GAP). CONCLUSION: The DBC approach showed strong prognostic value in unclassifiable ILD. The DBC and the ILD-GAP were complementary predictors of outcome in unclassifiable ILD.
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Unclassifiable disease in chronic interstitial lung disease (ILD) is a common and challenging problem but has been insufficiently studied. The 2013 update of the international multidisciplinary classification of the idiopathic interstitial pneumonias presented a classification based on observed disease behaviour with the purpose of providing guidance to clinicians in the management of these patients. The aim of this study was to apply the new disease behaviour classification (DBC) and the previously validated ILD-gender age physiology (GAP) score to a cohort of unclassifiable ILD patients and to assess the prognostic value of these two composite approaches. METHODS: Unclassifiable ILD patients were identified from the population-based ILD registry at Aarhus University Hospital, Denmark, that includes all ILD patients diagnosed at the department from 2003 to 2009. The DBC was assessed retrospectively based on clinical presentation and diagnostic examinations at presentation and short-term follow-up. RESULTS: Unclassifiable ILD was diagnosed in 24% of the cohort (105 of 431). Survival in unclassifiable ILD was intermediate between idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) and non-IPF controls (idiopathic non-specific interstitial pneumonia (NSIP), hypersensitivitypneumonitis and connective tissue disease-associated ILD). The DBC and the ILD-GAP index were strong individual predictors of outcome in a dichotomized regression model (hazard ratio (HR): 6.3 (95% CI: 1.8-21.2) for the DBC and HR: 6.7 (95% CI: 2.2-20.0) for ILD-GAP). Both approaches remained significant in a common regression model (HR: 4.5 (95% CI: 1.3-15.7) for the DBC and HR: 5.1 (95% CI: 1.3-15.7) for ILD-GAP). CONCLUSION: The DBC approach showed strong prognostic value in unclassifiable ILD. The DBC and the ILD-GAP were complementary predictors of outcome in unclassifiable ILD.
Authors: Christopher J Ryerson; Tamera J Corte; Joyce S Lee; Luca Richeldi; Simon L F Walsh; Jeffrey L Myers; Jürgen Behr; Vincent Cottin; Sonye K Danoff; Kevin R Flaherty; David J Lederer; David A Lynch; Fernando J Martinez; Ganesh Raghu; William D Travis; Zarir Udwadia; Athol U Wells; Harold R Collard Journal: Am J Respir Crit Care Med Date: 2017-11-15 Impact factor: 21.405
Authors: Jin Han Park; Ji Hoon Jang; Hyun Kuk Kim; Hang-Jea Jang; Sunggun Lee; Seong-Ho Kim; Ji Yeon Kim; Hee Eun Choi; Ji-Yeon Han; Da Som Kim; Min Kyun Kang; Eunsu Kang; Il Hwan Kim; Jae Ha Lee Journal: Tuberc Respir Dis (Seoul) Date: 2022-08-02
Authors: Maria Molina-Molina; Michael Kreuter; Vincent Cottin; Tamera J Corte; Frank Gilberg; Klaus-Uwe Kirchgaessler; Judit Axmann; Toby M Maher Journal: Front Med (Lausanne) Date: 2022-06-17
Authors: Fayez Kheir; Ala Alkhatib; Gerald J Berry; Philip Daroca; Lisa Diethelm; Reinaldo Rampolla; Shigeki Saito; David L Smith; David Weill; Marjorie Bateman; Ramsy Abdelghani; Joseph A Lasky Journal: Chest Date: 2020-05-25 Impact factor: 9.410
Authors: Toby M Maher; Tamera J Corte; Aryeh Fischer; Michael Kreuter; David J Lederer; Maria Molina-Molina; Judit Axmann; Klaus-Uwe Kirchgaessler; Vincent Cottin Journal: BMJ Open Respir Res Date: 2018-09-04
Authors: J H Fisher; M Kolb; M Algamdi; J Morisset; K A Johannson; S Shapera; P Wilcox; T To; M Sadatsafavi; H Manganas; N Khalil; N Hambly; A J Halayko; A S Gershon; C D Fell; G Cox; C J Ryerson Journal: BMC Pulm Med Date: 2019-11-27 Impact factor: 3.317
Authors: Tinne Goos; Laurens J De Sadeleer; Jonas Yserbyt; Geert M Verleden; Marie Vermant; Stijn E Verleden; Wim A Wuyts Journal: J Clin Med Date: 2021-03-23 Impact factor: 4.241