Prognostic value of serum oncomarkers for patients hospitalized with acute exacerbation of interstitial lung disease.

BACKGROUND: Different types of inflammatory processes and fibrosis have been implicated in the pathogenesis of interstitial lung disease (ILD), a heterogeneous, diffuse, parenchymal lung disease. Acute exacerbation (AE) of ILD is characterized by significant respiratory deterioration and is associated with high mortality rates. Several serum oncomarkers have been used to determine the prognosis of ILD; however, the prognostic value of serum oncomarker levels in patients with AE-ILD remains unclear. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the prognostic value of serum oncomarker levels in patients with AE-ILD and its main subtypes. DESIGN: Retrospective study. METHODS: The serum levels of 8 oncomarkers in 281 patients hospitalized with AE-ILD at our institution between 2017 and 2022 were retrospectively reviewed. The baseline characteristics and serum oncomarker levels were compared between the survival and non-survival groups of AE-ILD and its main subtypes. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was performed to identify independent prognosis-related markers, and the best prognostic predictor was analyzed using receiver operating characteristic curve (ROC) analysis. RESULT: Idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF; n = 65), idiopathic nonspecific interstitial pneumonia (iNSIP; n = 26), and connective tissue disease-associated interstitial lung disease (CTD-ILD; n = 161) were the three main subtypes of ILD. The in-hospital mortality rate among patients with AE-ILD was 21%. The serum oncomarker levels of most patients with AE-ILD and its main subtypes in the non-survival group were higher than those in the survival group. Multivariate analysis revealed that ferritin and cytokeratin 19 fragments (CYFRA21-1) were independent prognostic risk factors for patients hospitalized with AE-ILD or AE-CTD-ILD. CYFRA21-1 was identified as an independent prognostic risk factor for patients hospitalized with AE-IPF or AE-iNSIP. CONCLUSION: CYFRA21-1 may be a viable biomarker for predicting the prognosis of patients with AE-ILD, regardless of the underlying subtype of ILD. Ferritin has a prognostic value in patients with AE-ILD or AE-CTD-ILD.

Clinical manifestations and prognostic factors analysis of patients hospitalised with acute exacerbation of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis and other interstitial lung diseases.

BACKGROUND: Acute exacerbation (AE) is a life-threatening condition taking place not only in idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) but also in interstitial lung diseases (ILD) other than IPF (non-IPF ILD). This study aims to compare the clinical manifestations between patients hospitalised with AE-IPF and AE-non-IPF ILD, and further analyse the risk factors related to in-hospital mortality. METHODS: Clinical data of 406 patients hospitalised with AE-IPF (93 cases) and AE-non-IPF ILD (313 cases) were retrospectively collected. Clinical features were compared between the two groups. Risk factors related to in-hospital mortality in patients with overall AE-ILD, AE-IPF and AE-non-IPF ILD were identified by multiple logistic regression analyses, respectively, and assessed by receiver operating characteristic curve. RESULTS: In addition to having more smokers and males, the AE-IPF group also had more respiratory failure on admission, comorbidities of pulmonary hypertension (PAH) or coronary artery disease/heart failure, a longer history of pre-existing ILD. Comorbidity of coronary heart disease/heart failure, respiratory failure at admission, neutrophil (N)%, serum hydroxybutyrate dehydrogenase (HBDH), lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) and low cholesterol levels were independent risk factors for patients with AE-ILD, while respiratory failure on admission, N%, serum HBDH, urea nitrogen, LDH and low albumin levels were risk factors for the AE-non-IPF ILD group, and fever, N% and PAH were the AE-IPF group's. Among them, HBDH 0.758 (sensitivity 85.5%, specificity 56%, cut-off 237.5 U/L) for patients with AE-ILD; N% 0.838 (sensitivity 62.5%, specificity 91.18%, cut-off 83.55%) for the AE-IPF group and HBDH 0.779 (sensitivity 86.4%, specificity 55.1%, cut-off 243.5 U/L) for the AE-non-IPF ILD group were the risk factors with the highest area under the curve. CONCLUSIONS: Clinical characteristics differ between patients with AE-IPF and AE-non-IPF ILD. HBDH outperformed LDH in predicting the prognosis for patients with AE-ILD and AE-non-IPF ILD. N% was an independent predictor of death in-hospital in all three groups, especially in the AE-IPF group.