ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The highly variable clinical course of interstitial lung disease (ILD) makes it difficult to predict patient prognosis. Serum surfactant protein-A (SP-A) and Krebs von den Lungen-6 (KL-6) are known prognostic biomarkers. However, the clinical or pathophysiological differences in patients with these biomarkers have not been well evaluated. We investigated the clinical and pathophysiological differences through the comparison of SP-A and KL-6 levels before and after treatment. METHODS: This study included retrospective data from 91 patients who were treated for ILD between August 2015 and September 2019. Serum SP-A and KL-6 levels were measured before and after treatment. The patients were followed up for 3 months. RESULTS: Changes in the serum biomarkers (Delta SP-A and Delta KL-6) were found to be significantly correlated (rs = 0.523, P < 0.001); Delta SP-A and Delta KL-6 were inversely correlated with changes in pulmonary function (% predicted values of diffusing capacity for carbon monoxide [DLCO], forced vital capacity [FVC], and forced expiratory volume in 1 s [FEV1]). Patients were divided into four groups based on their Delta SP-A and Delta KL-6 levels in a cluster analysis (G1, G2, G3, and G4). Both SP-A and KL-6 were elevated in the G1 group, with all the patients enrolled classified as progressive or unchanged, and 86.4% of patients showed improved disease activity in the G4 group, where both SP-A and KL-6 levels were reduced. In the G2 group, only SP-A levels decreased post-treatment, indicating an improvement in respiratory function; the patients were not at the end stage of the disease. Only the SP-A levels increased in the G3 group with immunosuppressive treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Reduced serum SP-A and/or KL-6 levels are associated with improved lung function in patients with ILD. Some patients only showed a decrease in SP-A levels could prognosis an improvement in respiratory function. When only SP-A is increased, it may imply that the patients are at an early stage of disease progression. As a result, for proper disease monitoring, measuring both markers is important.
