Background: Diagnostic delays are common in patients with interstitial lung disease (ILD). A substantial percentage of patients experience a diagnostic delay in the primary care setting, but the factors underpinning this observation remain unclear. In this multi-center investigation, we assessed ILD reporting on diagnostic test interpretation and its association with subsequent pulmonology referral by a primary care physician (PCP).Methods: A retrospective cohort analysis of patients referred to the ILD programs at UC-Davis and University of Chicago by a PCP within each institution was performed. Computed tomography (CT) of the chest and abdomen and pulmonary function test (PFT) were reviewed to identify the date ILD features were first present and determine the time from diagnostic test to pulmonology referral. The association between ILD reporting on diagnostic test interpretation and pulmonology referral was assessed, as was the association between years of diagnostic delay and changes in fibrotic features on longitudinal chest CT.Results: One hundred and forty-six patients were included in the final analysis. Prior to pulmonology referral, 66% (n = 97) of patients underwent chest CT, 15% (n = 21) underwent PFT and 15% (n = 21) underwent abdominal CT. ILD features were reported on 84, 62 and 33% of chest CT, PFT and abdominal CT interpretations, respectively. ILD reporting was associated with shorter time to pulmonology referral when undergoing chest CT (1.3 vs 15.1 months, respectively; p = 0.02), but not PFT or abdominal CT. ILD reporting was associated with increased likelihood of pulmonology referral within 6 months of diagnostic test when undergoing chest CT (rate ratio 2.17, 95% CI 1.03-4.56; p = 0.04), but not PFT or abdominal CT. Each year of diagnostic delay was associated with a 1.8% increase in percent fibrosis on chest CT. Patients with documented dyspnea had shorter time to chest CT acquisition and pulmonology referral than patients with documented cough and lung crackles.Conclusions: Determinants of ILD diagnostic delays in the primary care setting include underreporting of ILD features on diagnostic testing and prolonged time to pulmonology referral even when ILD is reported. Interventions to modulate these factors may reduce ILD diagnostic delays in the primary care setting.
Interstitial pneumonia with autoimmune features (IPAF) characterises individuals with interstitial lung disease (ILD) and features of connective tissue disease (CTD) who fail to satisfy CTD criteria. Inclusion of myositis-specific antibodies (MSAs) in the IPAF criteria has generated controversy, as these patients also meet proposed criteria for an anti-synthetase syndrome. Whether MSAs and myositis associated antibodies (MAA) identify phenotypically distinct IPAF subgroups remains unclear.A multi-center, retrospective investigation was conducted to assess clinical features and outcomes in patients meeting IPAF criteria stratified by the presence of MSAs and MAAs. IPAF subgroups were compared to cohorts of patients with idiopathic inflammatory myopathy-ILD (IIM-ILD), idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) and non-IIM CTD-ILDs. The primary endpoint assessed was three-year transplant-free survival. Two hundred sixty-nine patients met IPAF criteria, including 35 (13%) with MSAs and 65 (24.2%) with MAAs. Survival was highest among patients with IPAF-MSA and closely approximated those with IIM-ILD. Survival did not differ between IPAF-MAA and IPAF without MSA/MAA cohorts. Usual interstitial pneumonia (UIP) morphology was associated with differential outcome risk, with IPAF patients with non-UIP morphology approximating survival observed in non-IIM CTD-ILDs. MSAs, but not MAAs identified a unique IPAF phenotype characterised by clinical features and outcomes similar to IIM-ILD. UIP morphology was a strong predictor of outcome in others meeting IPAF criteria. Because IPAF is a research classification without clear treatment approach, these findings suggest MSAs should be removed from the IPAF criteria and such patients should be managed as an IIM-ILD.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.