Background: This American Thoracic Society, European Respiratory Society, Japanese Respiratory Society, and Asociaci on Latinoamericana de T orax guideline updates prior idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) guidelines and addresses the progression of pulmonary fibrosis in patients with interstitial lung diseases (ILDs) other than IPF.Methods: A committee was composed of multidisciplinary experts in ILD, methodologists, and patient representatives. 1) Update of IPF: Radiological and histopathological criteria for IPF were updated by consensus. Questions about transbronchial lung cryobiopsy, genomic classifier testing, antacid medication, and antireflux surgery were informed by systematic reviews and answered with evidence-based recommendations using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach.2) Progressive pulmonary fibrosis (PPF): PPF was defined, and then radiological and physiological criteria for PPF were determined by consensus. Questions about pirfenidone and nintedanib were informed by systematic reviews and answered with evidence-based recommendations using the GRADE approach.Results: 1) Update of IPF: A conditional recommendation was made to regard transbronchial lung cryobiopsy as an acceptable alternative to surgical lung biopsy in centers with appropriate expertise. No recommendation was made for or against genomic classifier testing. Conditional recommendations were made against antacid medication and antireflux surgery for the treatment of IPF. 2) PPF: PPF was defined as at least two of three criteria (worsening symptoms, radiological progression, and physiological progression) occurring within the past year with no alternative explanation in a patient with an ILD other than IPF. A conditional recommendation was made for nintedanib, and additional research into pirfenidone was recommended.Conclusions: The conditional recommendations in this guideline are intended to provide the basis for rational, informed decisions by clinicians.

Despite the considerable progress in the classification of the idiopathic interstitial pneumonias (IIPs), the lack of an international standard has resulted in variable and confusing diagnostic criteria and terminology. The advent of high-resolution computerized tomography, the narrowed pathologic definition of usual interstitial pneumonia (UIP) and recognition of the prognostic importance of separating UIP from other IIP patterns have profoundly changed the approach to the IIPs. This is an international Consensus Statement defining the clinical manifestations, pathology, and radiologic features of patients with IIP. The major objectives of this statement are to standardize the classification of the idiopathic interstitial pneumonias (IIPs) and to establish a uniform set of definitions and criteria for the diagnosis of IIPs. The targeted specialties are pulmonologists, radiologists, and pathologists. A multidisciplinary core panel was responsible for review of background articles and writing of the document. In addition, this group reviewed the clinical, radiologic, and pathologic aspects of a wide spectrum of cases of diffuse parenchymal interstitial lung diseases to establish a uniform and consistent approach to these diseases and to clarify the terminology, definitions, and descriptions used in routine clinical practice. The final statement was drafted after a series of meetings of the entire committee. The level of evidence for the recommendations made in this statement is largely that of expert opinion developed by consensus. This classification of IIPs includes seven clinico-radiologic-pathologic entities: idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF), nonspecific interstitial pneumonia, cryptogenic organizing pneumonia, acute interstitial pneumonia, respiratory bronchiolitis-associated interstitial lung disease, desquamative interstitial pneumonia, and lymphoid interstitial pneumonia. The need for dynamic interaction between pathologists, radiologists, and pulmonologists to accurately diagnose these disorders is emphasized. The level of evidence for the recommendations made in this Statement is largely that of expert opinion developed by consensus. This Statement is an integrated clinical, radiologic, and pathologic approach to the classification of the IIPs. Use of this international multidisciplinary classification will provide a standardized nomenclature and diagnostic criteria for IIP. This Statement provides a framework for the future study of these entities. Key Messages * Unclassifiable interstitial pneumonia : Some cases are unclassifiable for a variety of reasons (see text). † This group represents a heterogeneous group with poorly characterized clinical and radiologic features that needs further study. ‡ COP is the preferred term, but it is synonymous with idiopathic bronchiolitis obliterans organizing pneumonia.

Background: The diagnosis of sarcoidosis is not standardized but is based on three major criteria: a compatible clinical presentation, finding nonnecrotizing granulomatous inflammation in one or more tissue samples, and the exclusion of alternative causes of granulomatous disease. There are no universally accepted measures to determine if each diagnostic criterion has been satisfied; therefore, the diagnosis of sarcoidosis is never fully secure. Methods: Systematic reviews and, when appropriate, meta-analyses were performed to summarize the best available evidence. The evidence was appraised using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach and then discussed by a multidisciplinary panel. Recommendations for or against various diagnostic tests were formulated and graded after the expert panel weighed desirable and undesirable consequences, certainty of estimates, feasibility, and acceptability. Results: The clinical presentation, histopathology, and exclusion of alternative diagnoses were summarized. On the basis of the available evidence, the expert committee made 1 strong recommendation for baseline serum calcium testing, 13 conditional recommendations, and 1 best practice statement. All evidence was very low quality. Conclusions: The panel used systematic reviews of the evidence to inform clinical recommendations in favor of or against various diagnostic tests in patients with suspected or known sarcoidosis. The evidence and recommendations should be revisited as new evidence becomes available.

BackgroundStandardization of trans-bronchial lung cryobiopsy in diffuse parenchymal lung diseases is imminent; however, the majority of published series on cryobiopsy include a limited number of patients and are characterized by several differences in procedural technical details.MethodsThis is an observational, retrospective cohort study. Aim of the study was to suggest some sampling strategies related to transbronchial cryobiopsy in the diagnostic work-up of patients with diffuse parenchymal lung diseases.ResultsSix hundred ninety-nine patients with suspected diffuse parenchymal lung disease were recruited. A specific pathological diagnosis was achieved in 614/699 cases (87.8%) and a multidisciplinary diagnosis was obtained in 630/699 cases (90.1%). Diagnostic yield was significantly influenced by the number of samples taken (1 vs ≥ 2 biopsies, p < 0.005). In 60.4% of patients, biopsies were taken from one site and in 39.6% from different sites (in the same lobe or in two different lobes), with a significant increase in diagnostic yield, specifically in patients with fibrotic lung diseases (65.5% vs 93.4%, p < 0.0001). The 2.4 mm or 1.9 mm probes were used, with no differences in terms of diagnostic yield. Regarding safety, pneumothorax occurred in 19.2% and was influenced by baseline lung function; in all patients Fogarty balloon has been used and severe haemorrhage occurred in 0.7% of cases. Three patients (0.4% of cases) died within 30 days after the procedure.ConclusionsWe propose some sampling strategies of cryobiopsy which seem to be associated with a higher diagnostic yield and a favorable risk/benefit ratio: sampling at least two samples in different sites, using either the 2.4 mm or the 1.9 mm probe, intubating the patients and using bronchial blockers/catheters.

Rationale: The impact of COVID-19 on patients with Interstitial Lung Disease (ILD) has not been established. Objectives: To assess outcomes in patients with ILD hospitalized for COVID-19 versus those without ILD in a contemporaneous age, sex and comorbidity matched population. Methods: An international multicenter audit of patients with a prior diagnosis of ILD admitted to hospital with COVID-19 between 1 March and 1 May 2020 was undertaken and compared with patients, without ILD obtained from the ISARIC 4C cohort, admitted with COVID-19 over the same period. The primary outcome was survival. Secondary analysis distinguished IPF from non-IPF ILD and used lung function to determine the greatest risks of death. Measurements and Main Results: Data from 349 patients with ILD across Europe were included, of whom 161 were admitted to hospital with laboratory or clinical evidence of COVID-19 and eligible for propensity-score matching. Overall mortality was 49% (79/161) in patients with ILD with COVID-19. After matching ILD patients with COVID-19 had higher mortality (HR 1.60, Confidence Intervals 1.17-2.18 p=0.003) compared with age, sex and comorbidity matched controls without ILD. Patients with a Forced Vital Capacity (FVC) of <80% had an increased risk of death versus patients with FVC ≥80% (HR 1.72, 1.05-2.83). Furthermore, obese patients with ILD had an elevated risk of death (HR 2.27, 1.39−3.71). Conclusions: Patients with ILD are at increased risk of death from COVID-19, particularly those with poor lung function and obesity. Stringent precautions should be taken to avoid COVID-19 in patients with ILD.