Background: This guideline addresses the diagnosis of hypersensitivity pneumonitis (HP). It represents a collaborative effort among the American Thoracic Society, Japanese Respiratory Society, and Asociación Latinoamericana del Tórax. Methods: Systematic reviews were performed for six questions. The evidence was discussed, and then recommendations were formulated by a multidisciplinary committee of experts in the field of interstitial lung disease and HP using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) approach. Results: The guideline committee defined HP, and clinical, radiographic, and pathological features were described. HP was classified into nonfibrotic and fibrotic phenotypes. There was limited evidence that was directly applicable to all questions. The need for a thorough history and a validated questionnaire to identify potential exposures was agreed on. Serum IgG testing against potential antigens associated with HP was suggested to identify potential exposures. For patients with nonfibrotic HP, a recommendation was made in favor of obtaining bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL) fluid for lymphocyte cellular analysis, and suggestions for transbronchial lung biopsy and surgical lung biopsy were also made. For patients with fibrotic HP, suggestions were made in favor of obtaining BAL for lymphocyte cellular analysis, transbronchial lung cryobiopsy, and surgical lung biopsy. Diagnostic criteria were established, and a diagnostic algorithm was created by expert consensus. Knowledge gaps were identified as future research directions. Conclusions: The guideline committee developed a systematic approach to the diagnosis of HP. The approach should be reevaluated as new evidence accumulates.
15 September 2017 in American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine
Hypersensitivity pneumonitis (HP) is an immune-mediated interstitial lung disease caused by recurrent exposure to one or more offending inducers in genetically susceptible individuals. It mimics other acute and chronic pulmonary diseases and is often misdiagnosed as idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) or another idiopathic interstitial pneumonia if the history of exposure to the inducer is not elicited. We propose a new classification of HP based not only on clinical data but also radiologic and histopathologic findings which might have potential to serve as predictors of disease behaviour and therefore guide management. Two primary clinical manifestations of HP, acute and chronic HP, correspond to the 2 primary histopathologic patterns, inflammatory and fibrotic. We place particular emphasis on cryptogenic HP, where the underlying inducer/s remain occult despite thorough investigation. The need for identification of the offending antigen is crucial not only for diagnosis and management but also for assessing prognosis. Direct or indirect proof of causality between a trigger and the disease can provide supportive evidence (e.g. serum specific IgGs, lymphocyte proliferation tests and specific inhalation challenge tests). Biomarkers (in blood and from lung) might aid in prognostication in the near future. With increased awareness of the knowledge gaps in HP, further investigations are warranted, most importantly targeting epidemiology, pathogenesis, genetic susceptibility factors, validation of proposed diagnostic criteria. Clinical trials with new drugs, especially antifibrotic treatment for CHP are warranted.
A proportion of patients with certain types of interstitial lung disease (ILD), including chronic hypersensitivity pneumonitis and ILDs associated with autoimmune diseases, develop a progressive fibrosing phenotype that shows similarities in clinical course to idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis. Irrespective of the clinical diagnosis, these progressive fibrosing ILDs show commonalities in the underlying pathogenetic mechanisms that drive a self-sustaining process of pulmonary fibrosis. The natural history of progressive fibrosing ILDs is characterized by decline in lung function, worsening of symptoms and health-related quality of life, and early mortality. Greater impairment in forced vital capacity or diffusion capacity of the lungs for carbon monoxide, and a greater extent of fibrotic changes on a computed tomography scan, are predictors of mortality in patients with fibrosing ILDs. However, the course of these diseases is heterogenous and cannot accurately be predicted for an individual patient. Data from ongoing clinical trials and patient registries will provide a better understanding of the clinical course and impact of progressive fibrosing ILDs.
Pirfenidone, an antifibrotic drug, slows-down the disease progression in idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) over 12 months, however limited data on the decline of lung function and overall survival (OS) in real-world cohorts on longer follow-up exists. Of the enrolled Czech IPF patients (n = 841) from an EMPIRE registry, 383 (45.5%) received pirfenidone, 218 (25.9%) no-antifibrotic treatment and 240 (28.5%) were excluded (missing data, nintedanib treatment). The 2- and 5-yrs OS and forced vital capacity (FVC) and diffusing lung capacity for carbon monoxide (DLCO) were investigated at treatment initiation and 6, 12, 18 and 24 months’ follow-up. During a 2-yr follow-up, less than a quarter of the patients progressed on pirfenidone as assessed by the decline of ≥10% FVC (17.0%) and ≥ 15% DLCO (14.3%). On pirfenidone, the DLCO (≥10%) declines at 6, 12, 18 and 24 months’ and DLCO (≥15%) declines at 6, 18 and 24 months’ follow-up were associated with increased mortality. The DLCO decline showed higher predictive value for mortality than FVC decline. In patients with no-antifibrotics, FVC and DLCO declines were not predictive for mortality. Pirfenidone increased 5-yrs OS over no-antifibrotic treatment (55.9% vs 31.5% alive, P = 0.002). Our study observed the 2-yrs sustained effect of pirfenidone on the decline of lung function and survival in the real-world patient’s IPF cohort. DLCO decline of ≥10% shows a potential as a mortality predictor in IPF patients on pirfenidone, and should be routinely evaluated during follow-up examinations.
1 December 2020 in Annals of the American Thoracic Society
This report is based on proceedings from the Exposure Assessment Tools for Hypersensitivity Pneumonitis (HP) Workshop, sponsored by the American Thoracic Society, that took place on May 18, 2019, in Dallas, Texas. The workshop was initiated by members from the Environmental, Occupational, and Population Health and Clinical Problems Assemblies of the American Thoracic Society. Participants included international experts from pulmonary medicine, occupational medicine, radiology, pathology, and exposure science. The meeting objectives were to 1) define currently available tools for exposure assessment in evaluation of HP, 2) describe the evidence base supporting the role for these exposure assessment tools in HP evaluation, 3) identify limitations and barriers to each tool's implementation in clinical practice, 4) determine which exposure assessment tools demonstrate the best performance characteristics and applicability, and 5) identify research needs for improving exposure assessment tools for HP. Specific discussion topics included history-taking and exposure questionnaires, antigen avoidance, environmental assessment, specific inhalational challenge, serum-specific IgG testing, skin testing, lymphocyte proliferation testing, and a multidisciplinary team approach. Priorities for research in this area were identified.
Background: Several registries of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) have been established to better understand its natural history, though their size and duration of follow-up are limited. Here, we describe the large European MultiPartner IPF Registry (EMPIRE) and validate predictors of long-term survival in IPF. Methods: The multinational prospective EMPIRE registry enrolled IPF patients from 48 sites in 10 Central and Eastern European countries since 2014. Survival from IPF diagnosis until death was estimated, accounting for left-truncation. The Cox proportional hazards regression model was used to estimate adjusted hazard ratios (HR) of death for prognostic factors, using restricted cubic splines to fit continuous factors. Results: The cohort included 1620 patients (mean age at diagnosis 67.6 years, 71% male, 63% smoking history), including 75% enrolled within 6 months of diagnosis. Median survival was 4.5 years, with 45% surviving 5 years post-diagnosis. Compared with GAP stage I, mortality was higher with GAP stages II (HR 2.9; 95% CI: 2.3–3.7) and III (HR 4.0; 95% CI: 2.8–5.7) while, with redefined cut-offs, the corresponding HRs were 2.7 (95% CI: 1.8–4.0) and 5.8 (95% CI: 4.0–8.3) respectively. Mortality was higher with concurrent pulmonary hypertension (HR 2.0; 95% CI: 1.5–2.9) and lung cancer (HR 2.6; 95% CI: 1.3–4.9). Conclusions: EMPIRE, one of the largest long-term registries of patients with IPF, provides a more accurate confirmation of prognostic factors and co-morbidities on longer term five-year mortality. It also suggests that some fine-tuning of the indices for mortality may provide a more accurate long-term prognostic profile for these patients.