PF-ILD and PPF criteria as predictors for mortality in RA-ILD
Rattachement africain : no. Niveau de preuve : code pays fourni par la source.
Le résumé fourni par la source
Background: Progression of interstitial lung disease in rheumatoid arthritis (RA-ILD) can be assessed using different criteria, including progressive fibrosing ILD (PF-ILD) and ATS/ERS-defined progressive pulmonary fibrosis (PPF). The prognostic value of these criteria has not been compared in RA-ILD. Objective: Compare incidence of PF-ILD and PPF and their ability to predict mortality in a RA-ILD cohort. Methods: All RA-ILD patients at our center were eligible for a retrospective cohort study. Occurrence of PF-ILD and PPF were determined using all available lung function tests, HRCT and symptom assessments. Time-dependent effect of PF-ILD and PPF on transplant-free survival was estimated using Kaplan-Meier and Cox proportional hazards models. Results: Of 87 patients, 46 (53%) were female, mean age was 60.3±15.7 years at RA-ILD diagnosis. Mean FVC was 72% predicted and mean DLCO 54% predicted. Over a median follow-up time of 7.9 years, PF-ILD criteria were met at least once in 64 (74%) patients, PPF criteria at least once in 59 (68%) patients, 46 (53%) died and 2 (2%) underwent lung transplantation. PF-ILD and PPF were associated with similar increases in subsequent risk of death adjusted for age and gender (HR 4.4 (95%CI 2.2-8.7, p<0.01 for PF-ILD, 4.4 (95%CI 2.3-8.5, p<0.01 for PPF). Conclusion: Progression is common in RA-ILD regardless of definition. PF-ILD and PPF were associated with a similar, greater than four-fold increase in mortality risk.
Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.
Le contrôle bibliographique ouvert
DOI retrouvé dans Crossref DOI retrouvé ; titre concordant.
- Titre Crossref
- PF-ILD and PPF criteria as predictors for mortality in RA-ILD
- Date Crossref
- 09/09/2023
- 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 il ne compte pas comme une seconde source scientifique indépendante.
Les institutions déclarées
Une affiliation ne permet pas de déduire la nationalité d’un auteur.