IntroductionIdiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) is an interstitial lung disease (ILD) with a poor prognosis. Early diagnosis and treatment of IPF may increase lifespan and preserve quality of life. Chest CT is the best test to diagnose IPF, but it is expensive and impractical as a screening test. Fine crackles on chest auscultation may be the only best to screen for IPF.MethodsWe prospectively assessed the presence and type of crackles on chest auscultation in all patients referred to the ILD Clinic at the Kingston Health Sciences Center in Ontario, Canada. Clinicians with varying levels of experience recorded the presence of fine crackles, coarse crackles or both independently and unaware of the final diagnosis. We applied multinomial logistic regression to adjust for ILD severity and factors that could affect the identification of crackles.ResultsWe evaluated 290 patients referred to the ILD Clinic. On initial presentation, 93% of patients with IPF and 73% of patients with non-IPF ILD had fine crackles on auscultation. In patients with IPF, fine crackles were more common than cough (86%), dyspnoea (80%), low diffusing capacity (87%), total lung capacity (57%) and forced vital capacity (50%). There was 90% observer agreement in identifying fine crackles at a subsequent visit. In multiple regression analysis, the identification of fine crackles was unaffected by lung function, symptoms, emphysema, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, obesity or clinician experience (p>0.05).ConclusionsFine crackles on chest auscultation are a sensitive and robust screening tool that can lead to early diagnosis and treatment of patients with IPF.

Introduction: Palliative care (PC) is recommended in idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) patients but poorly implemented. Integration of PC into routine management by pulmonologists may improve overall and end-of-life (EOL) care, but the optimal model of PC delivery is unknown. Objective: To describe three PC care delivery models and their impact on EOL; the Multidisciplinary Collaborative ILD clinic, Edmonton, Canada (EC) and the Bristol ILD Service, UK (BC) that provide primary level PC; and the Queen’s University ILD Clinic, Kingston, Canada (QC), which refers IPF patients to a specialist PC Clinic using specific referral criteria. Methods: A multicenter retrospective observational study of IPF patients receiving care in the identified clinics (2012–2018) was designed. Demographics; PC delivery, including symptom management; advance care planning (ACP); and location of death data were examined. Results: 298 IPF patients were included (EC 95, BC 84, and QC 119). Median age was 71 years with 74% males. Overall, 63% (188) patients received PC. Primary PC approach in EC and BC led to more patients receiving PC (98% EC, 94% BC and 13% QC (p < 0.001/<0.001)) with earlier initiation compared to QC. Associated higher rates of non-pharmacologic dyspnea management [98% EC, 94% BC, and 2% QC (p < 0.001/<0.001); opioids (45% EC and BC, and 23% QC (p < 0.001/<0.001)); and ACP (100% EC and BC, and 13% QC patients (p < 0.001/<0.001))] were observed. Median follow up (IQR) was 16 months (5–28) with 122 deaths (41%). Primary PC model in EC and BC decedents was associated with more PC delivery (91% EC, 92% BC and 19% QC (p < 0.001)) with more symptoms management, oxygen, and opiate use than QC (p < 0.001; p = 0.04; p = 0.01). EOL discussions occurred in 73% EC, 63% BC, and 4% QC decedents (p = 0.001). Fifty-nine% (57) died at home or hospice and 38% (36) in hospitals. Concordance rate between preferred and actual location of death was 58% in EC (0.29 (−0.02–0.51)) and 37% in BC models (−0.11 (−0.20–0.15)). Conclusions: Primary PC approach for IPF is feasible in ILD clinics with concurrent disease management and can improve access to symptom management, ACP, PC and EOL care. Reliance on PC specialist referral for PC initiation outside of the ILD clinic can result in delayed care.

No abstract

No abstract

RationaleThis study was conducted to develop, validate, and compare prediction models for severe disease and critical illness among symptomatic patients with confirmed COVID-19.MethodsFor development cohort, 433 symptomatic patients diagnosed with COVID-19 between April 15th 2020 and June 30th, 2020 presented to Tawam Public Hospital, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates were included in this study. Our cohort included both severe and non-severe patients as all cases were admitted for purpose of isolation as per hospital policy. We examined 19 potential predictors of severe disease and critical illness that were recorded at the time of initial assessment. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses were used to construct predictive models. Discrimination was assessed by the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC). Calibration and goodness of fit of the models were assessed. A cohort of 213 patients assessed at another public hospital in the country during the same period was used to validate the models.ResultsOne hundred and eighty-six patients were classified as severe while the remaining 247 were categorized as non-severe. For prediction of progression to severe disease, the three independent predictive factors were age, serum lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) and serum albumin (ALA model). For progression to critical illness, the four independent predictive factors were age, serum LDH, kidney function (eGFR), and serum albumin (ALKA model). The AUC for the ALA and ALKA models were 0.88 (95% CI, 0.86–0.89) and 0.85 (95% CI, 0.83–0.86), respectively. Calibration of the two models showed good fit and the validation cohort showed excellent discrimination, with an AUC of 0.91 (95% CI, 0.83–0.99) for the ALA model and 0.89 (95% CI, 0.80–0.99) for the ALKA model. A free web-based risk calculator was developed.ConclusionsThe ALA and ALKA predictive models were developed and validated based on simple, readily available clinical and laboratory tests assessed at presentation. These models may help frontline clinicians to triage patients for admission or discharge, as well as for early identification of patients at risk of developing critical illness.