| Literature DB >> 35717210 |
Hee-Young Yoon1, Ho Jeong Kim2, Jin Woo Song3.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Lymphangioleiomyomatosis (LAM) is a rare multisystemic disorder with various clinical manifestations. Despite the recognition of several prognostic factors, the long-term clinical course and prognosis of patients with LAM in the era of sirolimus therapy are not established.Entities:
Keywords: Lymphangioleiomyomatosis; Patient outcome assessment; Prognosis; Rare diseases; Respiratory function test
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35717210 PMCID: PMC9206248 DOI: 10.1186/s12931-022-02079-6
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Respir Res ISSN: 1465-9921
Fig. 1Flow chart of the patient selection. LAM lymphangioleiomyomatosis, PS propensity score
Comparison of baseline characteristics and treatment between the non-survivors and survivors among patients with LAM
| Characteristic | Total | Non-survivors | Survivors | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Number of patients | 104 | 9 | 95 | |
| Age, years | 40.3 ± 10.7 | 45.8 ± 13.0 | 39.8 ± 9.9 | 0.178 |
| Female | 104 (100) | 9 (100) | 95 (100) | > 0.999 |
| Ever-smoker | 10 (9.6) | 1 (11.1) | 9 (9.5) | > 0.999 |
| TSC | 13 (12.5) | 1 (11.1) | 12 (12.6) | > 0.999 |
| Pneumothorax | 44 (42.3) | 4 (44.4) | 40 (42.1) | 0.944 |
| Chylothorax | 2 (1.9) | 0 (0.0) | 2 (2.1) | > 0.999 |
| Extrapulmonary manifestations | 48 (46.2) | 4 (44.4) | 44 (46.3) | > 0.999 |
| Angiomyolipoma | 32 (30.5) | 3 (33.3) | 29 (30.5) | > 0.999 |
| Lymphangioleiomyoma | 18 (17.3) | 1 (11.1) | 17 (17.9) | > 0.999 |
| Lung function, % predicted | ||||
| FEV1 | 77.3 ± 22.2 | 55.4 ± 24.7 | 79.3 ± 19.6 | 0.005 |
| FVC | 88.5 ± 16.8 | 88.1 ± 21.3 | 88.6 ± 13.8 | 0.939 |
| DLCO | 63.5 ± 249 | 40.1 ± 19.7 | 65.7 ± 23.4 | 0.003 |
| TLC | 97.8 ± 16.5 | 104.9 ± 18.0 | 97.3 ± 12.9 | 0.102 |
| FEV1/FVC | 87.3 ± 19.1 | 64.8 ± 25.2 | 89.4 ± 17.1 | 0.003 |
| RV | 102.3 ± 35.5 | 123.9 ± 24.2 | 99.5 ± 28.8 | 0.010 |
| FEF25–75% | 67.3 ± 29.9 | 29.6 ± 21.8 | 71.0 ± 39.5 | 0.448 |
| 6MWT | ||||
| Distance, m | 467.5 ± 114.6 | 320.5 ± 168.9 | 481.0 ± 86.5 | 0.004 |
| Lowest SpO2, % | 94.4 ± 5.8 | 87.4 ± 12.2 | 95.0 ± 4.4 | 0.048 |
| Treatment | ||||
| Medroxyprogesterone | 31 (29.8) | 4 (44.4) | 27 (28.4) | 0.446 |
| LHRH | 2 (1.9) | 0 (0.0) | 2 (2.1) | > 0.999 |
| Bilateral oophorectomy | 5 (4.8) | 0 (0.0) | 5 (5.3) | > 0.999 |
| Sirolimus therapy | 62 (59.6) | 4 (44.4) | 58 (61.1) | 0.480 |
| Dose per day, mg | 1.6 ± 0.6 | 1.4 ± 0.5 | 1.6 ± 0.6 | 0.490 |
| TDM, ng/mL | 5.9 ± 3.0 | 4.3 ± 1.8 | 6.0 ± 3.1 | 0.361 |
| Duration, years | 4.8 (1.5–6.2) | 1.5 (0.3–3.4) | 5.0 (1–6.7) | 0.054 |
Data are expressed as the mean ± standard deviation or as a number (%), unless otherwise indicated
DLCO diffusing capacity of the lung for carbon monoxide, FEV forced expiratory volume in one second, FVC forced vital capacity, RV residual volume, FEF forced expiratory flow between 25 and 75% of FVC, LAM lymphangioleiomyomatosis, SpO oxygen saturation, TLC total lung capacity, TSC tuberous sclerosis complex, 6MWT 6-min walk test, LHRH luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone, TDM therapeutic drug monitoring
Fig. 2Kaplan–Meier curves for overall survival and disease progression in patients with LAM. A Survival curve for overall survival. B Survival curve for disease progression. LAM lymphangioleiomyomatosis
Comparison of clinical course between the non-survivors and survivors among patients with LAM
| Characteristics | Total | Non-survivors | Survivors | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Number of patients | 104 | 9 | 95 | |
| Pneumothorax | 3 (2.9) | 0 (0.0) | 3 (3.2) | > 0.999 |
| Chylothorax | 2 (1.9) | 0 (0.0) | 2 (2.1) | > 0.999 |
| Extrapulmonary manifestations | 3 (2.9) | 0 (0.0) | 3 (3.2) | > 0.999 |
| Angiomyolipoma | 3 (2.9) | 0 (0.0) | 3 (3.2) | > 0.999 |
| Lymphangioleiomyoma | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | > 0.999 |
| Disease progression | 33/92 (35.9) | 4/7 (57.1) | 29/85 (34.1) | 0.245 |
| Lung function decline | N = 92 | N = 7 | N = 85 | |
| FEV1, % predicted/year | − 0.7 ± 4.2 | − 2.0 ± 5.4 | − 0.7 ± 4.1 | 0.448 |
| FVC, % predicted/year | 0.3 ± 3.2 | − 2.2 ± 4.3 | 0.8 ± 3.1 | 0.147 |
| DLCO, % predicted/year | 1.5 ± 4.0 | − 1.1 ± 3.6 | − 1.5 ± 4.1 | 0.929 |
| RV, % predicted/year | − 1.0 ± 9.1 | 2.7 ± 4.9 | − 1.3 ± 9.3 | 0.221 |
| FEF25–75, % predicted/year | − 2.4 ± 7.4 | 1.6 ± 8.8 | − 2.8 ± 7.2 | 0.185 |
| Follow-up period, year | 7.1 (2.8–9.9) | 2.7 (2.5–9.6) | 7.2 (3.0–9.9) | 0.236 |
Data are expressed as the mean ± standard deviation, a number (%) or the median (interquartile range), unless otherwise indicated
DLCO diffusing capacity of the lung for carbon monoxide, FEV forced expiratory volume in one second, FVC forced vital capacity, RV residual volume, FEF forced expiratory flow between 25 and 75% of FVC, LAM lymphangioleiomyomatosis
Prognostic factors for mortality in patients with LAM assessed using the Cox proportional analysis
| Characteristics | Unadjusted | Multivariable model-1 | Multivariable model-2 | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| HR (95% CI) | HR (95% CI) | HR (95% CI) | ||||
| Age | 1.046 (0.993–1.102) | 0.090 | 1.136 (1.016–1.269) | 0.025 | 1.167 (1.036–1.314) | 0.011 |
| Ever-smoker | 1.388 (0.172–11.178) | 0.758 | ||||
| TSC | 0.949 (0.117–7.689) | 0.961 | ||||
| Pneumothorax | 0.920 (0.246–3.439) | 0.902 | ||||
| Angiomyolipoma | 1.149 (0.285–4.627) | 0.845 | ||||
| FEV1 | 0.956 (0.927–0.984) | 0.003 | 0.956 (0.919–0.995) | 0.026 | ||
| FVC | 1.000 (0.954–1.048) | 0.996 | ||||
| DLCO | 0.946 (0.914–0.979) | 0.001 | 0.914 (0.861–0.969) | 0.003 | ||
| FEV1/FVC ratio | 0.947 (0.919–0.976) | < 0.001 | ||||
| RV | 1.007 (0.996–1.019) | 0.214 | ||||
| FEF25–75 | 0.946 (0.936–0.993) | 0.014 | ||||
| 6MWD | 0.992 (0.987–0.996) | < 0.001 | 0.993 (0.987–0.999) | 0.020 | 0.997 (0.992–1.002) | 0.247 |
| 6MWT, the lowest SpO2, % | 0.921 (0.868–0.977) | 0.006 | 1.007 (0.908–1.117) | 0.890 | 0.994 (0.902–1.095) | 0.905 |
| Sirolimus therapy | 0.584 (0.155–2.195) | 0.426 | ||||
FEV1 and DLCO were separately included in the multivariable models due to the high correlation between them (r = 0.705). FEV1/FVC (r = 0.803), and FEF25-75 (r = 0.767) were not included in the multivariable models due to their correlation with FEV1
CI confidence interval, DLCO diffusing capacity of the lung for carbon monoxide, FEV forced expiratory volume in 1 s, FVC forced vital capacity, RV residual volume, FEF forced expiratory flow between 25 and 75% of FVC, HR hazard ratio, LAM lymphangioleiomyomatosis, SpO oxygen saturation, TLC total lung capacity, TSC tuberous sclerosis complex, 6MWD 6-min walk distance, 6MWT 6-min walk test
Comparison of baseline characteristics between the sirolimus and the non-sirolimus groups among patients with LAM
| Characteristic | Sirolimus | Non-sirolimus | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Number of patients | 22 | 22 | |
| Age, years | 42.4 ± 3.2 | 40.8 ± 9.2 | 0.723 |
| Female sex | 22 (100) | 22 (100) | > 0.999 |
| Ever-smoker | 1 (4.5) | 3 (13.6) | 0.607 |
| TSC | 2 (9.1) | 3 (13.6) | > 0.999 |
| Pneumothorax | 12 (54.5) | 9 (40.9) | 0.365 |
| Chylothorax | 0 (0.0) | 2 (9.1) | 0.488 |
| Extrapulmonary manifestations | 7 (31.8) | 10 (45.5) | 0.537 |
| Angiomyolipoma | 7 (31.8) | 7 (31.8) | > 0.999 |
| Lymphangioleiomyoma | 1 (4.5) | 2 (9.1) | > 0.999 |
| Lung function, % predicted | |||
| FEV1 | 75.0 ± 18.0 | 78.1 ± 20.1 | 0.655 |
| FVC | 85.9 ± 12.9 | 87.1 ± 13.6 | 0.796 |
| DLCO | 60.9 ± 18.0 | 62.2 ± 15.5 | 0.655 |
| TLC | 97.5 ± 11.9 | 96.0 ± 12.5 | 0.879 |
| FEV1/FVC | 87.5 ± 16.5 | 90.3 ± 20.0 | 0.348 |
| RV | 98.6 ± 23.3 | 101.4 ± 22.3 | 0.702 |
| FEF25–75% | 75.4 ± 42.8 | 76.7 ± 47.2 | 0.930 |
| 6MWT | |||
| Distance, m | 513.4 ± 79.6 | 508.0 ± 54.2 | 0.496 |
| Lowest SpO2, % | 93.9 ± 4.0 | 95.7 ± 5.0 | 0.047 |
Data are expressed as the mean ± standard deviation or as a number (%), unless otherwise indicated. The index date was set as the date of the first prescription of sirolimus in the sirolimus group and the date of LAM diagnosis in the non-sirolimus group
DLCO diffusing capacity of the lung for carbon monoxide, FEV forced expiratory volume in one second, FVC forced vital capacity, RV residual volume, FEF forced expiratory flow between 25 and 75% of FVC, LAM lymphangioleiomyomatosis, TSC tuberous sclerosis complex, TLC total lung capacity, SpO oxygen saturation, 6MWT 6-min walk test
Comparison of clinical course between the sirolimus and non-sirolimus groups among patients with LAM
| Characteristics | Sirolimus | Non-sirolimus | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Number of patients | 22 | 22 | |
| Death or lung transplantation | 0 (0.0) | 3 (13.6) | 0.233 |
| Disease progression | 4/21 (19.0) | 6/22 (27.3) | 0.721 |
| Lung function decline, % predicted/year | N = 17 | N = 19 | |
| FEV1, % predicted/year | 0.5 ± 3.0 | − 0.3 ± 4.7 | 0.452 |
| FVC, % predicted/year | 0.7 ± 3.1 | 0.0 ± 4.1 | > 0.999 |
| DLCO, % predicted/year | − 1.2 ± 3.9 | 0.6 ± 5.5 | 0.271 |
| RV, % predicted/year | 0.1 ± 5.8 | − 3.4 ± 15.3 | 0.485 |
| FEF25-75%, % predicted/year | − 1.3 ± 4.1 | − 5.7 ± 13.9 | 0.808 |
| Median follow-up period, year | 8.5 (3.8–11.5) | 6.1 (2.4–9.5) | 0.213 |
Data are expressed as the mean ± standard deviation, a number (%) or the median (interquartile range), unless otherwise indicated
DLCO diffusing capacity of the lung for carbon monoxide, FEV forced expiratory volume in one second, FVC forced vital capacity, RV residual volume, FEF forced expiratory flow between 25 and 75% of FVC, IQR interquartile range, LAM lymphangioleiomyomatosis