Progressive fibrotic interstitial lung disease

Abstract

Many interstitial lung diseases (ILDs) share mechanisms that result in a progressive fibrosing phenotype. In Brazil, the most common progressive fibrosing interstitial lung diseases (PF-ILDs) are chronic hypersensitivity pneumonitis, idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis, unclassified ILD, and connective tissue diseases. PF-ILD is seen in approximately 30% of patients with ILD. Because PF-ILD is characterized by disease progression after initiation of appropriate treatment, a diagnosis of the disease resulting in fibrosis is critical. Different criteria have been proposed to define progressive disease, including worsening respiratory symptoms, lung function decline, and radiological evidence of disease progression. Although the time elapsed between diagnosis and progression varies, progression can occur at any time after diagnosis. Several factors indicate an increased risk of progression and death. In the last few years, antifibrotic drugs used in patients with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis have been tested in patients with PF-ILD. The effects of nintedanib and placebo have been compared in patients with PF-ILD, a mean difference of 107.0 mL/year being observed, favoring nintedanib. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration and the Brazilian Health Regulatory Agency have approved the use of nintedanib in such patients on the basis of this finding. Pirfenidone has been evaluated in patients with unclassified ILD and in patients with other ILDs, the results being similar to those for nintedanib. More studies are needed in order to identify markers of increased risk of progression in patients with ILD and determine the likelihood of response to treatment with standard or new drugs.

Comparison of Physical Activity Patterns among Three Major Chronic Respiratory Diseases

“…Since there is no global consensus to stratify subjects with IPF according to the disease severity, we based this classification on a study by Antoniou et al [19] which used the FVC in % of predicted values to classify severity, so that subjects with an FVC below 50% of predicted values were classified as severe-to-very-severe IPF, and those above this value as mild-to-moderate disease. These values have been used by other studies, especially because they relate to severe physiological impairments [20] and also the risk for disease progression in this population [21].…”