Search

Progressive fibrosing interstitial lung disease (ILD) is characterised by parenchymal scar formation, leading to high morbidity and mortality. The ability to predict this phenotype remains elusive. We conducted a proteomic analysis to identify novel plasma biomarkers of progressive fibrosing ILD and developed a proteomic signature to predict this phenotype. Relative plasma concentrations for 368 biomarkers were determined with use of a semi-quantitative, targeted proteomic platform in patients with connective tissue disease-associated ILD, chronic hypersensitivity pneumonitis, or unclassifiable ILD who provided research blood draws at the University of California (discovery cohort) and the University of Texas (validation cohort). Univariable logistic regression was used to identify individual biomarkers associated with 1-year ILD progression, defined as death, lung transplant, or 10% or greater relative forced vital capacity (FVC) decline. A proteomic signature of progressive fibrosing ILD was then derived with use of machine learning in the University of California cohort and validated in the University of Texas cohort. The discovery cohort comprised 385 patients (mean age 63·6 years, 59% female) and the validation cohort comprised 204 patients (mean age 60·7 years, 61% female). 31 biomarkers were associated with progressive fibrosing ILD in the discovery cohort, with 17 maintaining an association in the validation cohort. Validated biomarkers showed a consistent association with progressive fibrosing ILD irrespective of ILD clinical diagnosis. A proteomic signature comprising 12 biomarkers was derived by machine learning and validated in the University of Texas cohort, in which it had a sensitivity of 0·90 and corresponding negative predictive value of 0·91, suggesting that approximately 10% of patients with a low-risk proteomic signature would experience ILD progression in the year after blood draw. Those with a low-risk proteomic signature experienced an FVC change of +85·7 mL (95% CI 6·9 to 164·4) and those with a high-risk signature experienced an FVC change of −227·1 mL (−286·7 to −167·5). A theoretical clinical trial restricted to patients with a high-risk proteomic signature would require 80% fewer patients than one designed without regard to proteomic signature. 17 plasma biomarkers of progressive fibrosing ILD were identified and showed consistent associations across ILD subtypes. A proteomic signature of progressive fibrosing ILD could enrich clinical trial cohorts and avoid the need for antecedent progression when defining progressive fibrosing ILD for clinical trial enrolment. National Heart Lung and Blood Institute. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: A number of genetic markers linked to familial pulmonary fibrosis predict differential survival in interstitial lung disease (ILD) patients. Although genetic testing is not performed routinely for ILD, family history commonly is obtained and may inform outcome risk.Research Question: Does survival vary between patients with and without self-reported familial pulmonary fibrosis?Methods: Family history was acquired systematically for consecutive ILD patients who consented to clinical registry enrollment at the University of Texas Southwestern and the University of California at Davis. Patients were stratified by idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) and non-IPF ILD diagnosis and were substratified by presence or absence of familial pulmonary fibrosis, defined as one or more additional affected family members. Transplant-free survival was compared using multilevel, mixed-effects Cox proportional hazards regression.Results: Of the 1,262 patients included, 534 (42%) had IPF ILD and 728 (58%) had non-IPF ILD. Of those with non-IPF ILD, 18.5% had connective tissue disease, 15.6% had chronic hypersensitivity pneumonitis, and 23.5% had unclassifiable ILD. Familial pulmonary fibrosis was reported in 134 IPF ILD patients (25.1%) and 90 non-IPF ILD patients (12.4%). Those with familial IPF showed an 80% increased risk of death or transplantation compared with those with sporadic IPF (hazard ratio [HR], 1.8; 95% CI, 1.37-2.37; P < .001), whereas those with familial non-IPF ILD showed a twofold increased risk compared with their counterparts with sporadic disease (HR, 2.08; 95% CI, 1.46-2.96; P < .001). Outcome risk among those with familial non-IPF ILD was no different than for those with sporadic IPF ILD (HR, 1.27; 95% CI, 0.89-1.84; P = .19).Interpretation: Patient-reported familial pulmonary fibrosis is predictive of reduced transplant-free survival in IPF and non-IPF ILD patients. Because survival among patients with familial non-IPF ILD approximates that of sporadic IPF ILD, early intervention should be considered for such patients. Until clinical genetic testing is widely available and provides actionable results, family history should be ascertained and considered in risk stratification. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]