RESUMO
Background: Almost one-third of fibrosing ILD (fILDs) have a clinical disease behavior similar to IPF, demonstrating a progressive phenotype (PF-ILD). However, there are no globally accepted criteria on the definition of a progressive phenotype in non-IPF fILD yet. Four different definitions have been used; however, no internationally accepted definition currently exists. Research Question: To compare the clinical and functional characteristics of progressive fILD according to the currently available definitions. Study design and methods: Cases of fILD were identified retrospectively from the database of the tertiary referral center for ILD in Heidelberg. Lung function, clinical signs of progression, and radiological changes were evaluated. Patients with fILD were considered to have progression according to each of the four available definitions: Cottin (CO), RELIEF (RE), INBUILD (IN), and UILD study. Lung function changes, expressed as mean absolute decline of FVC%, were reported every 3 months following diagnosis and analyzed in the context of each definition. Survival was also analyzed. Results: A total of 566 patients with non-IPF fILD were included in the analysis. Applying CO-, RE-, IN-, and UILD-definitions, 232 (41%), 183 (32%), 274 (48%), and 174 (31%) patients were defined as PF-ILD, respectively. RE- and UILD-criteria were the most stringent, with only 32 and 31% patients defined as progressive, while IN- was the most broad, with almost 50% of patients defined as progressive. CO- definition was in-between, classifying 41% as progressive. PF ILD patients with a UILD definition had worse prognosis. Interpretation: Depending on the definition used, the existing criteria identify different groups of patients with progressive fILD, and this may have important prognostic and therapeutic implications.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Fibrosing, non-idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (non-IPF) interstitial lung diseases (fILDs) are a heterogeneous group of diseases characterized by a different amount of inflammation and fibrosis. Therapy is currently based on corticosteroids and/or immunomodulators. However, response to these therapies is highly variable, sometimes without meaningful improvement, especially in more fibrosing forms. Pirfenidone and nintedanib have recently demonstrated to reduce functional decline in patients with IPF. However, their antifibrotic mechanism makes these two drugs an interesting approach for treatment of fibrosing ILDs other than IPF. OBJECTIVES: We here report our experience with antifibrotic drugs in fibrosing non-IPF ILDs patients having a progressive phenotype during immunosuppressive therapy. METHODS: Patients with a multidisciplinary team diagnosis of fibrosing non-IPF ILDs experiencing a progressive phenotype during treatment with corticosteroids and/or immunomodulators between October-2014 and January-2018 at our tertiary referral Center for ILDs were retrospectively analyzed. Antifibrotic therapy was administered after application with the respective health insurance company and after consent by the patient. Pulmonary-function-tests and follow-up visits were performed every 6 ± 1 months. RESULTS: Eleven patients were treated with antifibrotic drugs (8 males, mean age 62 ± 12.8 years, mean FVC% 62.8 ± 22.3, mean DLCO% 35.5 ± 10.7, median follow-up under antifibrotic treatment 11.1 months). Patients had a diagnosis of unclassifiable ILD in 6 cases, pleuroparenchymal fibroelastosis in 2 cases, idiopathic-NSIP in 1 case, asbestos-related ILD in 1 case and Hermansky-Pudlak syndrome in 1 case. Treatment before antifibrotics consisted of corticosteroids in all patients: 5 combined with Azathioprin, 1 with either methotrexate or cyclophosphamide (i.v.). Ten patients were treated with pirfenidone (2403 mg/die) and 1 with nintedanib (300 mg/die). Median FVC was 56, 56, 50%, at time points - 24, - 12, - 6 before initiation, 44% at time of initiation and 46.5% at 6 months after initiation of antifibrotic treatment. Antifibrotic treatment was generally well tolerated with a need of dose reduction in 2 cases (rash and nausea) and early termination in 3 cases. CONCLUSIONS: Antifibrotic treatment may be a valuable treatment option in patients with progressive fibrosing non-IPF ILD if currently no other treatment options exist. However, prospective, randomized clinical trials are urgently needed to assess the real impact of antifibrotic therapy in these patients.
