Sarcoidosis may be affected by sex, race, and age. A Case Control Etiologic Study of Sarcoidosis (ACCESS) enrolled 736 patients with sarcoidosis within 6 mo of diagnosis from 10 clinical centers in the United States. Using the ACCESS sarcoidosis assessment system, we determined organ involvement for the whole group and for subgroups differentiated by sex, race, and age (less than 40 yr or 40 yr and older). The study population was heterogeneous in terms of race (53% white, 44% black), sex (64% female, 36% male), and age (46% < 40 yr old, 54% ⩾ 40 yr old). Women were more likely to have eye and neurologic involvement (χ2 = 4.74, p < 0.05 and χ2 = 4.60, p < 0.05 respectively), have erythema nodosum (χ2 = 7.28, p < 0.01), and to be age 40 yr or over (χ2 = 6.07, p < 0.02) whereas men were more likely to be hypercalcemic (χ2 = 7.38, p < 0.01). Black subjects were more likely to have skin involvement other than erythema nodosum (χ2 = 5.47, p < 0.05), and eye (χ2 = 13.8, p < 0.0001), liver (χ2 = 23.3, p < 0.0001), bone marrow (χ2 = 18.8, p < 0.001), and extrathoracic lymph node involvement (χ2 = 7.21, p < 0.01). We conclude that the initial presentation of sarcoidosis is related to sex, race, and age.

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.

Background: The major reasons to treat sarcoidosis are to lower the morbidity and mortality risk or to improve quality of life (QoL). The indication for treatment varies depending on which manifestation is the cause of symptoms: lungs, heart, brain, skin or other manifestations. While glucocorticoids remain the first choice for initial treatment of symptomatic disease, prolonged use is associated with significant toxicity. Glucocorticoid-sparing alternatives are available. The presented treatment guidelines aim to provide guidance to physicians treating the very heterogenous sarcoidosis manifestations. Methods: A European Respiratory Society Task Force committee composed of clinicians, methodologists and patients with experience in sarcoidosis developed recommendations based on the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations) methodology. The committee developed eight PICO (Patients, Intervention, Comparison, Outcomes) questions and these were used to make specific evidence-based recommendations. Results: The Task Force committee delivered 12 recommendations for seven PICOs. These included treatment of pulmonary, cutaneous, cardiac and neurologic disease as well as fatigue. One PICO question regarding small-fibre neuropathy had insufficient evidence to support a recommendation. In addition to the recommendations, the committee provided information on how they use alternative treatments, when there was insufficient evidence to support a recommendation. Conclusions: There are many treatments available to treat sarcoidosis. Given the diverse nature of the disease, treatment decisions require an assessment of organ involvement, risk for significant morbidity, and impact on QoL of the disease and treatment.

Rationale: Evidence suggests that tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-α plays an important role in the pathophysiology of sarcoidosis. Objectives: To assess the efficacy of infliximab in sarcoidosis. Methods: A phase 2, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study was conducted in 138 patients with chronic pulmonary sarcoidosis. Patients were randomized to receive intravenous infusions of infliximab (3 or 5 mg/kg) or placebo at Weeks 0, 2, 6, 12, 18, and 24 and were followed through Week 52. Measurements and Main Results: The primary endpoint was the change from baseline to Week 24 in percent of predicted FVC. Major secondary efficacy parameters included Saint George's Respiratory Questionnaire, 6-min walk distance, Borg's CR10 dyspnea score, and the proportion of Lupus Pernio Physician's Global Assessment responders for patients with facial skin involvement. Patients in the combined infliximab groups (3 and 5 mg/kg) had a mean increase of 2.5% from baseline to Week 24 in the percent of predicted FVC, compared with no change in placebo-treated patients (p = 0.038). No significant differences between the treatment groups were observed for any of the major secondary endpoints at Week 24. Results of post hoc exploratory analyses suggested that patients with more severe disease tended to benefit more from infliximab treatment. Conclusions: Infliximab therapy resulted in a statistically significant improvement in % predicted FVC at Week 24. The clinical importance of this finding is not clear. The results of this Phase 2 clinical study support further evaluation of anti–TNF-α therapy in severe, chronic, symptomatic sarcoidosis.

This is an update on sarcoidosis, focusing on etiology, diagnosis, and treatment. In the area of etiopathogenesis, we now have a better understanding of the immune response that leads to the disease as well as genetic factors that modify both the risk for the disease and its clinical outcome. Several groups have also identified possible agents as a cause for sarcoidosis. Although none of these potential causes has been definitely confirmed, there is increasing evidence to support that one or more infectious agents may cause sarcoidosis, although this organism may no longer be viable in the patient. The diagnosis of sarcoidosis has been significantly aided by new technology. This includes the endobronchial ultrasound, which has been shown to increase the yield of needle aspiration of mediastinal and hilar lymph nodes. The positive emission tomography scan has proven useful for selecting possible biopsy sites by identifying organ involvement not appreciated by routine methodology. It has also helped in assessing cardiac involvement. The biologic agents, such as the anti–tumor necrosis factor antibodies, have changed the approach to refractory sarcoidosis. There is increasing evidence that the clinician can identify which patient is most likely to benefit from such therapy. As new and more potent antiinflammatory agents have been developed, it is clear that there are other factors that burden the patient with sarcoidosis, including fatigue and sarcoidosis-associated pulmonary hypertension. There have been several recent studies demonstrating treatment options for these problems.