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.

Background: Idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) is a progressive debilitating lung disease with considerable morbidity. Heterogeneity in epidemiologic studies means the full impact of the disease is unclear. Methods: A targeted literature search for population-based, observational studies reporting incidence and/or prevalence of IPF from January 2009 to April 2020 was conducted. Identified studies were aggregated by country. For countries with multiple publications, a weighted average was determined. Incidence and prevalence data were adjusted for between-study differences where possible. The final model included adjusted estimates of incidence and prevalence per 10,000 of the population with 95% confidence intervals. As prevalence estimates vary depending on the definitions used, estimates were based on a specific case definition of IPF. Results: Overall, 22 studies covering 12 countries met the inclusion criteria, with 15 reporting incidence and 18 reporting prevalence estimates. The adjusted incidence estimates (per 10,000 of the population) ranged from 0.35 to 1.30 in Asia–Pacific countries, 0.09 to 0.49 in Europe, and 0.75 to 0.93 in North America. Unadjusted and adjusted incidence estimates were consistent. The adjusted prevalence estimates ranged from 0.57 to 4.51 in Asia–Pacific countries, 0.33 to 2.51 in Europe, and 2.40 to 2.98 in North America. South Korea had the highest incidence and prevalence estimates. When prevalence estimates were compared to country-specific rare disease thresholds, IPF met the definition of a rare disease in all countries except South Korea. There were notable geographic gaps for IPF epidemiologic data. Conclusions: Due to differences in study methodologies, there is worldwide variability in the reported incidence and prevalence of IPF. Based on the countries included in our analysis, we estimated the adjusted incidence and prevalence of IPF to be in the range of 0.09–1.30 and 0.33–4.51 per 10,000 persons, respectively. According to these prevalence estimates, IPF remains a rare disease. For consistency, future epidemiologic studies of IPF should take age, sex, smoking status, and the specificity of case definitions into consideration.

Objectives To compare mortality risks in patients with rheumatoid arthritis-associated interstitial lung disease (RA-ILD) and patients with RA without ILD. Design Matched cohort study. Setting The study was conducted in Denmark, using nationwide, prospectively collected data. Participants Among patients with RA diagnosed between 2004 and 2016, 679 patients with RA-ILD were matched for birth year, gender and age at RA diagnosis with 11 722 patients with RA but without ILD. Main outcome measures Mortality risks were assessed using Kaplan-Meier mortality curves, and hazard rate ratios (HRRs) for death were estimated using Cox proportional hazards regression models. Results The number of prevalent RA patients more than doubled from 15 352 to 35 362 individuals during the study period. RA-ILD was seen in 2.2% of incident RA patients. 34.0% of RA-ILD cases were diagnosed within 1 year prior to and 1 year after the RA diagnosis. One-year mortality was 13.9% (95% CI, 11.4% to 16.7%) in RA-ILD and 3.8% (95% CI, 3.5% to 4.2%) in non-ILD RA, 5-year mortality was 39.0% (34.4% to 43.5%) and 18.2% (17.3% to 19.1%) and 10-year mortality was 60.1% (52.9% to 66.5%) and 34.5% (32.8% to 36.1%), respectively. The HRRs for death were 2 to 10 times increased for RA-ILD compared with non-ILD RA, irrespective of follow-up period. Stratified analysis showed that the HRR for death was highest in the first months after the diagnosis of RA-ILD was made, especially in patients diagnosed with RA before diagnosis of ILD. HRR was higher in males and in patients without comorbidity as assessed by the Charlson Comorbidity Index. Conclusions ILD is a serious complication in RA, with a significantly increased mortality compared with a large matched cohort of RA comparisons without ILD.

Diffuse parenchymal lung disease represents a diverse and challenging group of pulmonary disorders. A consistent diagnostic approach to diffuse parenchymal lung disease is crucial if clinical trial data are to be applied to individual patients. We aimed to evaluate inter-multidisciplinary team agreement for the diagnosis of diffuse parenchymal lung disease. We did a multicentre evaluation of clinical data of patients who presented to the interstitial lung disease unit of the Royal Brompton and Harefield NHS Foundation Trust (London, UK; host institution) and required multidisciplinary team meeting (MDTM) characterisation between March 1, 2010, and Aug 31, 2010. Only patients whose baseline clinical, radiological, and, if biopsy was taken, pathological data were undertaken at the host institution were included. Seven MDTMs, consisting of at least one clinician, radiologist, and pathologist, from seven countries (Denmark, France, Italy, Japan, Netherlands, Portugal, and the UK) evaluated cases of diffuse parenchymal lung disease in a two-stage process between Jan 1, and Oct 15, 2015. First, the clinician, radiologist, and pathologist (if lung biopsy was completed) independently evaluated each case, selected up to five differential diagnoses from a choice of diffuse lung diseases, and chose likelihoods (censored at 5% and summing to 100% in each case) for each of their differential diagnoses, without inter-disciplinary consultation. Second, these specialists convened at an MDTM and reviewed all data, selected up to five differential diagnoses, and chose diagnosis likelihoods. We compared inter-observer and inter-MDTM agreements on patient first-choice diagnoses using Cohen's kappa coefficient (κ). We then estimated inter-observer and inter-MDTM agreement on the probability of diagnosis using weighted kappa coefficient (κw). We compared inter-observer and inter-MDTM confidence of patient first-choice diagnosis. Finally, we evaluated the prognostic significance of a first-choice diagnosis of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) versus not IPF for MDTMs, clinicians, and radiologists, using univariate Cox regression analysis. 70 patients were included in the final study cohort. Clinicians, radiologists, pathologists, and the MDTMs assigned their patient diagnoses between Jan 1, and Oct 15, 2015. IPF made up 88 (18%) of all 490 MDTM first-choice diagnoses. Inter-MDTM agreement for first-choice diagnoses overall was moderate (κ=0·50). Inter-MDTM agreement on diagnostic likelihoods was good for IPF (κw=0·71 [IQR 0·64-0·77]) and connective tissue disease-related interstitial lung disease (κw=0·73 [0·68-0·78]); moderate for non-specific interstitial pneumonia (NSIP; κw=0·42 [0·37-0·49]); and fair for hypersensitivity pneumonitis (κw=0·29 [0·24-0·40]). High-confidence diagnoses (>65% likelihood) of IPF were given in 68 (77%) of 88 cases by MDTMs, 62 (65%) of 96 cases by clinicians, and in 57 (66%) of 86 cases by radiologists. Greater prognostic separation was shown for an MDTM diagnosis of IPF than compared with individual clinician's diagnosis of this disease in five of seven MDTMs, and radiologist's diagnosis of IPF in four of seven MDTMs. Agreement between MDTMs for diagnosis in diffuse lung disease is acceptable and good for a diagnosis of IPF, as validated by the non-significant greater prognostic separation of an IPF diagnosis made by MDTMs than the separation of a diagnosis made by individual clinicians or radiologists. Furthermore, MDTMs made the diagnosis of IPF with higher confidence and more frequently than did clinicians or radiologists. This difference is of particular importance, because accurate and consistent diagnoses of IPF are needed if clinical outcomes are to be optimised. Inter-multidisciplinary team agreement for a diagnosis of hypersensitivity pneumonitis is low, highlighting an urgent need for standardised diagnostic guidelines for this disease. National Institute of Health Research, Imperial College London.

Progressive fibrotic interstitial lung diseases (ILDs) are characterised by major reductions in quality of life and survival and have similarities to certain malignancies. However, palliative care expertise is conspicuously inaccessible to many patients with ILD. Unmet patient and caregiver needs include effective pharmacological and psychosocial interventions to improve quality of life throughout the disease course, sensitive advanced care planning, and timely patient-centred end-of-life care. The incorrect perception that palliative care is synonymous with end-of-life care, with no role earlier in the course of ILD, has created a culture of neglect. Interventions that aim to improve life expectancy are often prioritised without rigorous assessment of the individual's health and psychosocial needs, thereby inadvertently reducing quality of life. As in malignant disorders, radical interventions to slow disease progression and palliative measures to improve quality of life should both be prioritised. Efficient patient-centred models of palliative care must be validated, taking into account religious and cultural differences, as well as variability of resources. Effective implementation of palliative care for ILD will require multidisciplinary participation from clinicians, specialist nurses, psychologists, social workers, and, in some countries, non-governmental faith and community-based organisations with access to palliative care expertise.

Objective: Some patients with interstitial lung diseases (ILDs) other than idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) develop a progressive fibrosing phenotype. We investigated the diagnosis and management of non-IPF ILDs using data from a survey of physicians and from US insurance claims. Methods: Pulmonologists, rheumatologists and internists in France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Spain, UK and US who had managed ≥10 patients with non-IPF ILDs in the past year, including those with progressive fibrosing ILDs, completed an online survey. Data on US insurance and prescription claims were obtained from a repository that aggregates data on claims routed from providers or pharmacies to payers. Results: In May–June 2017, 243 pulmonologists, 203 rheumatologists and 40 internists completed an online survey. Respondents estimated that 18–32% of patients diagnosed with non-IPF ILDs develop progressive fibrosis and that time from symptom onset to death in these patients was 61–80 months. Drug treatment was given to 50–75% of patients with non-IPF progressive fibrosing ILDs. Reasons for patients not being treated included that physicians considered patients to have mild or slowly progressing disease, or did not believe that available treatments are effective or well tolerated. Corticosteroids were the preferred first-line treatment for all types of non-IPF ILD. There was considerable heterogeneity in preferences for second- and third-line treatments. US insurance claims data from 3823 patients indicated that, in 2016, 50–75% of patients with ILDs received drug treatment (mostly corticosteroids) for their ILD. Conclusions: Physicians estimate that 18–32% of patients diagnosed with non-IPF ILDs develop a progressive fibrosing phenotype and that these patients experience significant delays in the diagnosis of ILD and the detection of progressive fibrosis. Between 25% and 50% of patients with progressive fibrosing ILDs do not receive drug therapy. There is an unmet need for effective and well tolerated treatments for progressive fibrosing ILDs.