Search

Objective: In patients with systemic sclerosis (SSc), we investigated composite serum biomarker panels for the diagnosis and risk stratification of SSc–associated interstitial lung disease (SSc‐ILD). Methods: We analyzed 28 biomarkers in 640 participants: 259 patients with SSc‐ILD and 179 SSc patients without ILD (Australian Scleroderma Cohort Study), 172 patients with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF‐controls) (Australian IPF Registry), and 30 healthy controls. A composite index was developed from biomarkers associated with ILD in multivariable analysis derived at empirical thresholds. We evaluated the performance of the index to identify ILD, and specifically SSc‐ILD, and its association with lung function, disease extent on radiography, and patient health–related quality of life in derivation and validation cohorts. Biomarkers to distinguish SSc‐ILD from IPF‐controls were identified. Results: A composite biomarker index, comprising surfactant protein D (SP‐D), Ca15‐3, and intercellular adhesion molecule 1 (ICAM‐1), was strongly associated with SSc‐ILD diagnosis, independent of age, sex, smoking history, and lung function (for biomarker index score 3, pooled adjusted odds ratio was 12.72 (95% confidence interval 4.59–35.21) (P < 0.001). The composite index strengthened the performance of individual biomarkers for SSc‐ILD identification. In SSc patients, a higher index was associated with worse baseline disease severity (for biomarker index score 3 relative to biomarker index score 0, the adjusted absolute change in forced vital capacity percent predicted was −17.84% and the diffusing capacity for carbon monoxide percent predicted was −20.16%; both P < 0.001). Conclusion: A composite serum biomarker index, comprising SP‐D, Ca15‐3, and ICAM‐1, may improve the identification and risk stratification of ILD in SSc patients at baseline. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and objective: Idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) is one of the most common forms of interstitial lung diseases. While studies have been conducted in other countries to determine the epidemiological burden of IPF, there is limited information in Australia. Our study aimed to address this gap and generate the first estimates for the mortality, incidence and prevalence of IPF in Australia. Methods: Estimates were generated by utilizing the novel Mortality Incidence Analysis Model (MIAMOD) method and software based on the illness–death model. Data inputs included population estimates and mortality data from the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) for the period 1997–2015 and participant data from the Australian IPF Registry (AIPFR). Projections were estimated for a 10‐year period up to 2025. Results: Overall crude and age‐standardized estimates for mortality were 5.9 and 6.3 per 100,000 population; incidence, 10.4 and 11.2 per 100,000 population; and prevalence, 32.6 and 35.1 per 100,000 population. Crude and age‐standardized mortality, incidence and prevalence increased over the study period; however, they demonstrated a decreasing trend over the projected period. Persons older than 70 years constituted 9% of the population; however, they accounted for approximately 82%–83% of all deaths, incident and prevalent cases. All estimates were higher in males than in females. Conclusion: Our study provides the first estimates for incidence, prevalence and mortality of IPF in Australia. By reporting national estimates for IPF, our study addresses an information gap important for policy, planning and to help optimize the allocation of resources for the management of patients with IPF. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and objective: In Australia, little is known about delivery of care for people with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF). This study examined the organization of IPF care across Australia, how it aligns with guidance for best practice, and identified barriers and facilitators to best care. Methods: Data on the organization of IPF care in Australia were collected from public hospitals using a study‐specific questionnaire between February and July 2020. Semi‐structured telephone interviews were conducted with respiratory physicians from around Australia between April and December 2020. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and thematic analysis was undertaken. Results: Almost all hospitals (n = 38, 97%) held multidisciplinary meetings (MDMs) for diagnosing IPF, with 90% of multidisciplinary teams including expert respiratory physicians and radiologists; however, rheumatologists, interstitial lung disease nurses and a histopathologist were often not available. More than 90% of institutions had access to oxygen therapy, pulmonary rehabilitation and advanced care planning, but access to psychological support and clinical trials was limited (53% and 58%, respectively). Fifteen respiratory physicians (27% regional) were interviewed. Approaches to diagnosis, treatment and access to referral services were generally consistent with best practice guidance; however, regional respondents reported barriers related to inadequate staffing, lack of a nurse coordinator, inadequate access to clinical trials and funding models. Telehealth technologies were perceived as facilitators to best care. Conclusion: Clinical management of IPF in Australia generally aligns with best practice guidance, but there may be some inequity of access to specialist services, particularly in regional areas, that should be addressed to ensure optimal care for all. Specialist services for the diagnosis and care of patients with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) are available across Australia and generally align with best practice guidance. Telehealth technologies were perceived as facilitators of best care, but inequities in access to services for patients with IPF in regional areas remained. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and objective: Current guidelines for the diagnosis of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) provide specific criteria for diagnosis in the setting of multidisciplinary discussion (MDD). We evaluate the utility and reproducibility of these diagnostic guidelines, using clinical data from the Australian IPF Registry. Methods: All patients enrolled in the registry undergo a diagnostic review whereby international IPF guidelines are applied via a registry MDD. We investigated the clinical applicability of these guidelines with regard to: (i) adherence to guidelines, (ii) Natural history of IPF diagnostic categories and (iii) Concordance for diagnostic features. Results: A total of 417 participants (69% male, 70.6 ± 8.0 years) with a clinical diagnosis of IPF underwent MDD. The 23% of participants who did not meet IPF diagnostic criteria displayed identical disease behaviour to those with confirmed IPF. Honeycombing on radiology was associated with a worse prognosis and this translated into poorer prognosis in the 'definite' IPF group. While there was moderate agreement for IPF diagnostic categories, agreement for specific radiological features, other than honeycombing, was poor. Conclusion: In clinical practice, physicians do not always follow IPF diagnostic guidelines. We demonstrate a cohort of IPF patients who do not meet IPF diagnostic guideline criteria, based largely on their radiology and lack of lung biopsy, but who have outcomes identical to those with IPF. In clinical practice, physicians may assign a diagnosis of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) in patients who are sufficiently similar in their presentation to IPF but who do not strictly fulfil IPF diagnostic criteria. Our study shows that these patients demonstrate identical disease progression and survival to those who fulfil diagnostic criteria. See related Editorial [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]