ILD Roundup 7/8/22

ILD Roundup (7/8/22) 

1. Interstitial pneumonia with autoimmune features (IPAF) was favored as a differential consideration in a patient who presented to NMH for a third opinion for her ILD 

ERS/ATS research statement (Eur Respiratory Journal 2015;46:976-987) 

On the spectrum between idiopathic interstitial pneumonias (IIP) and connective-tissue disease associated ILDs (CT-ILD) are patients with IPAF. Oftentimes patients with an “autoimmune flavor” of ILD do not meet criteria for CTD diagnosis. 

Why does the distinction matter?  

  • Identifying underlying etiology impacts treatment and prognosis 
  • Expedites linkage to rheumatology care, potentially facilitating CTD diagnosis 
  • Accurate disease epidemiology depends on it 
  • May aid in elucidation of pathophysiologic mechanism of disease 
  • Defined criteria facilitate clinical trial design for future research 

What are the consensus criteria?  

All of the following must be fulfilled: 

  1. Presence of interstitial pneumonia (HRCT/SLB) 
  2. Exclusion of alternative etiologies 
  3. Does not meet criteria for defined connective tissue disease 
  4. At least one feature from 2/3 domains: 
  • Clinical 
  • Serologic 
  • Morphologic 

Pearl from case discussion: If histopathology pattern does not fit expectation but another criterion in this  domain is met (histopathology predominantly UIP pattern, however, there was presence of lymphoid aggregates), the diagnostic criteria for IPAF may still be satisfied!

2. In the same patient as above, we discussed and ultimately decided against use of azathioprine, because she had some HRCT features suggestive of a UIP pattern 

We know that nintedanib (INPULSIS – 2014) and pirfenidone (ASCEND – 2014) are associated with decreased rate of FVC decline in patients with IPF, hence the rationale for their use. Before the advent of antifibrotics, immunosuppressive agents had been used in patients with IPF. Several retrospective studies and small RCTs suggested mortality benefit with combination of steroid + AZA or cyclophosphamide though they were confounded by inclusion of patients who did not meet diagnostic criteria for IPF. Guidelines thus differed: the British Thoracic Society weakly recommended N-acetylcysteine (NAC), prednisolone, and azathioprine based on results from IFIGENIA (decreased decline in FVC and DLCO); whereas, the ATS/ERS recommended lung transplantation and participation in clinical trials. The IFIGENIA trial was limited by substantial drop-out and lack of “no treatment” arm.

Why do we now avoid the use of immunosuppressive medications – and azathioprine in particular – in suspected IPF? 

PANTHER-IPF (NEJM 2012;366:1968-1977) 

  • A double blind RCT wherein a commonly used cocktail of prednisone/azathioprine/NAC was used in 1:1:1 fashion with placebo and NAC alone 
  • A previous study had shown that triple therapy performed superiorly with regards to VC and DLco preservation compared with prednisone/azathioprine alone, but no placebo-controlled data existed 
  • Stopped at interim analysis when control group was found to have significant increase in death and hospitalization rates compared to placebo 

 

3. In another patient, the presenter mentioned that hypersensitivity pneumonitis had not been considered in a patient because he did not have any “clear exposure history”.  

How often is a diagnosis of HP arrived upon without a clear exposure history? Does identification of an exposure matter in patients with HP? 

CHEST 2013;144(5):1644-1651 

  • In a retrospective review of a longitudinal ILD database, 134 consecutive patients with clinico-radiologic diagnosis of HP found that inciting antigen was not identified in 53% of cases.  
  • Inability to identify target antigen was associated with significantly shorter survival (HR 1.76; 1.01-3.07) in this same cohort.  

 

“Incidence, predictors, and outcomes of new-onset atrial fibrillation in critically ill patients with sepsis,” AJRCCM, 2017, Netherlands

“Incidence, predictors, and outcomes of new-onset atrial fibrillation in critically ill patients with sepsis,” AJRCCM, 2017, Netherlands

Question: What is the incidence of new-onset atrial fibrillation/atrial flutter (AF) in ICU patients with sepsis and is the development of AF associated with mortality?

Study Type: Sub-study of a prospective cohort study at two hospitals in the Netherlands

Study Population: Adults admitted to the ICU with sepsis over a two-year period were included.  Exclusion criteria included a history of AF, recent cardiotomy, or cardiac arrest.

Study Groups: AF detection based on hourly recordings of the rhythm observed by the bedside nurse.  AF needed to be sustained for 1 hour or require pharmacologic treatment or cardioversion to be included.

Primary Outcome: Incidence of new-onset AF

Results: 1,782 patients included in analysis.  Notable patient characteristics: Age (»62), immunosuppression (26%), malignancy (10%), lung as source of infection (62%), mechanical ventilation (83%), surgical admission (23%), 90-day mortality (34%).  The overall incidence of AF was 23%.  For patients with septic shock, the risk of AF was 40%.  The most common treatments administered were amiodarone (71%), magnesium (69%), electrical cardioversion (11%), and sotalol (8%).  After multivariable regression, AF remained associated with ICU mortality (HR 2.10; 95% CI, 1.61-2.73).  An AF risk score was developed (the “SAFE” score) and validated in an independent cohort.  The score can be accessed here: https://safescore.shinyapps.io/safe/.

Caveats: Unmeasured confounding a concern in observational studies, unable to prove AF has causal role in poor outcomes, relied on identification and classification of arrhythmia by bedside nurse so possible missed or misclassified episodes, data collected from only two centers.

Take-home Point: New-onset AF is common in ICU patients with sepsis and may lead to increased mortality.

Commentary 

–        Part of a growing body of literature helping to describe the incidence and significance of new-onset AF in critical illness.  Certainly notable that the incidence of AF in septic shock approaches 50%

–        The SAFE score still needs to be independently validated, but it is an interesting attempt by the authors to come up with a way to predict the development of sepsis-induced AF (and, in doing so, potentially identify a group of septic patients to enroll in trials of AF prophylaxis).​