Outcomes of patients with progressive fibrosing interstitial lung disease (PF-ILD) – data from a prospective ILD registry
Résumé fourni par la source
Background: Real life data on outcome of patients with PF-ILD are scant. Method: The prospective German EXCITING registry was evaluated for patients with PF-ILD, defined as either decline in vital capacity (VC) ≥ 10 % or respiratory hospitalisation within 24 months. Only patients with ≥2 VC measures in 24 months were analysed. Results: Out of 601 patients, 128 patients with PF-ILD were identified. Baseline characteristics were 47% male, age 69 years, 47% ex-/smokers, mean VC 75%, DLCO 40%, 6MWD 371 m, GAP index I 45%, II 31%, III 20%. Patients had non-specific interstitial pneumonia (16%), unclassifiable ILD (15%), hypersensitivity pneumonitis (31%), ILD in connective tissue diseases (21%), asbestos (5%), other ILDs (12%). 5-year survival rates for PF-ILD were 78%, compared to 65% for IPF (n=152, 76% male, 74 years, VC 72%, DLCO 46%) and 85% for non-PF ILD (n=45; 58% male, 67 years, VC 68%, DLCO 49%) (fig.). In a cox regression model (comparator IPF), hazard ratios for death were 0.62 (0.42-0.9) for PF-ILD (p=0.013) and 0.29 (0.13-0.64) for non-PF-ILD (p=0.002). In a supervised learning approach age ≥55 years and BMI < 34 were predictors of PF. An alternative PF definition (VC decline ≥ 5 % in 24 months) was discrepant in patient assignment in 17%. Conclusions: PF-ILD is associated with a significantly impaired survival compared to non-PF ILD patients, but better than IPF.
Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.
Contrôle bibliographique ouvert
DOI retrouvé dans Crossref DOI retrouvé ; titre concordant.
- Titre Crossref
- Outcomes of patients with progressive fibrosing interstitial lung disease (PF-ILD) – data from a prospective ILD registry
- Date Crossref
- 05/09/2021
- Éditeur
- European Respiratory Society
- Type
- proceedings-article
Ce recoupement confirme des métadonnées liées au DOI. Il ne confirme ni la méthode ni les conclusions de l’étude et ne compte pas comme une seconde source scientifique indépendante.
Institutions déclarées
Une affiliation ne permet pas de déduire la nationalité d’un auteur.