Heterogeneity in Unclassifiable Interstitial Lung Disease. A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

RATIONALE: Accurate diagnosis of interstitial lung disease is necessary to identify the most appropriate management strategy and to inform prognosis. Many patients cannot be provided a confident diagnosis, despite an exhaustive search for potential etiologies and review in a multidisciplinary conference, and are consequently labeled with unclassifiable interstitial lung disease.
OBJECTIVES: To systematically review and meta-analyze previous studies reporting on the diagnostic criteria, prevalence, clinical features, and outcome of unclassifiable interstitial lung disease.
METHODS: MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases were systematically searched for all studies related to unclassifiable interstitial lung disease published before September 1, 2017. Two authors independently screened each citation for eligibility criteria, serially reviewing the title, abstract, and full-text manuscript, and then abstracted data pertaining to the study objectives from eligible studies. Articles were stratified by risk of selection bias, whether the publication stated that patients were reviewed in a multidisciplinary discussion, and by the frequency of surgical lung biopsy. Meta-analyses and meta-regression were performed to calculate the pooled prevalence of unclassifiable interstitial lung disease within an interstitial lung disease population and within specific subgroups to identify reasons for across-study heterogeneity.
RESULTS: The search identified 10,130 unique citations, 313 articles underwent full-text review, and eligibility criteria were met in 88 articles. Twenty-two studies were deemed low risk of selection bias, including 1,060 patients with unclassifiable interstitial lung disease from a total of 10,174 patients with interstitial lung disease. The terminology and definition of unclassifiable interstitial lung disease varied substantially across publications, with inconsistent diagnostic criteria and evaluation processes. The prevalence of unclassifiable interstitial lung disease was 11.9% (95% confidence interval, 8.5-15.6%), with lower prevalence in centers that reported use of a formal multidisciplinary discussion of cases (9.5% vs. 14.5%). Four articles reported survival of unclassifiable interstitial lung disease, with 1-year, 2-year, and 5-year survival of 84% to 89%, 70% to 76%, and 46% to 70%, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review and meta-analysis shows that unclassifiable interstitial lung disease is common but has substantial heterogeneity and inconsistent definitions across interstitial lung disease cohorts. These findings highlight important limitations in multicenter studies of fibrotic interstitial lung disease and the need for a standardized approach to interstitial lung disease diagnostic classification.