If you don't remember your password, you can reset it by entering your email address and clicking the Reset Password button. You will then receive an email that contains a secure link for resetting your password
If the address matches a valid account an email will be sent to __email__ with instructions for resetting your password
The present study revealed clinically important characteristics of idiopathic pleuroparenchymal fibroelastosis (iPPFE) by comparison with those in idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF).
•
Patients with iPPFE had similar frequencies of acute exacerbations and lower incidences of lung cancer than those with IPF.
•
The most common cause of death in patients with iPPFE were chronic respiratory failure.
•
Subsequently, patients with iPPFE exhibited significantly worse survivals than those with IPF.
Abstract
Background
Idiopathic pleuroparenchymal fibroelastosis (iPPFE) is a rare interstitial lung disease characterized by unique radiological and pathological findings. However, pathological evaluations are available only in a limited number of patients. Therefore, several clinical diagnostic criteria have been proposed. Nevertheless, the applicability of these criteria has not yet been validated. Moreover, the clinical course of iPPFE and its prognosis have not yet been completely elucidated.
Methods
The present study assessed previously proposed clinical diagnostic criteria by comparing the clinical features between pathologically diagnosed iPPFE (p-iPPFE) and clinically diagnosed iPPFE (c-iPPFE). Subsequently, the clinical features of iPPFE were characterized and compared with those of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF, n = 323).
Results
Clinical characteristics of c-iPPFE (n = 27) and p-iPPFE (n = 35) were similar. No significant difference was observed in terms of prognosis between c-iPPFE and p-iPPFE. The number of patients with iPPFE (both c-iPPFE and p-iPPFE) who developed lung cancer was significantly lower than that of patients with IPF. However, acute exacerbation (AE) showed similar incidence in patients with iPPFE and IPF. Survival of patients with iPPFE was significantly worse than that of patients with IPF (5-year survival rate: 38.5% vs. 63.5%, p < 0.0001), and the most common cause of death was chronic respiratory failure (73.8%), followed by AE (14.3%). Male gender was the only poor prognostic factor of iPPFE.
Conclusion
The present study demonstrated efficiency of clinical diagnosis and also revealed clinically important characteristics of iPPFE that should be considered for management of iPPFE.
diffusing capacity of the lung for carbon monoxide
1. Introduction
Idiopathic pleuroparenchymal fibroelastosis (iPPFE), a rare interstitial lung disease (ILD), was recently considered as a type of idiopathic interstitial pneumonia in the European Respiratory Society (ERS)/American Thoracic Society (ATS) guidelines [
An official American Thoracic Society/European Respiratory Society statement: update of the international multidisciplinary classification of the idiopathic interstitial pneumonias.
]. A definitive iPPFE diagnosis requires histologic confirmation following surgical lung biopsy (SLB). However, in clinical practice, SLB is not performed in substantial numbers of cases owing to the lack of curative treatment, presence of poor pulmonary function and risk of prolonged postoperative pneumothorax [
]. Therefore, clinical criteria that did not include SLB are required for iPPFE diagnosis. In relation to this context, several clinical diagnostic criteria for iPPFE have been proposed [
Although increasing evidences have recently emerged for iPPFE, each evidence is based on relatively small number of patients and large discrepancies noted among these studies. For example, prognoses of iPPFE reported widely vary, with 5-year survival rates and median survival durations ranging from 29% to 58% and 2.0–8.0 years, respectively [
Clinical significance of lower-lobe interstitial lung disease on high-resolution computed tomography in patients with idiopathic pleuroparenchymal fibroelastosis.
]. The prognostic factors for iPPFE have not been completely assessed. Further, it has become evident that patients with iPPFE develop acute exacerbation (AE), as observed in those with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) [
]. Moreover, the actual incidence and risk factors of AE in individuals with iPPFE have not yet been completely elucidated. These results indicate that the clinical characteristics of iPPFE have not yet been completely assessed.
Therefore, the present study aimed to validate the applicability of clinical diagnostic criteria that were previously proposed. Moreover, clinical characteristics of iPPFE, such as AE incidence and prognosis, in the largest cohort of patients with iPPFE were assessed and compared with those of IPF.
2. Methods
2.1 Subjects
This retrospective study was conducted on cohorts of 62 patients with iPPFE and 323 patients with IPF from Nationwide-cohort [
]; 18 biopsy-proven iPPFE and 195 biopsy-proven IPF from Nationwide-cohort, and 44 iPPFE (n = 9, biopsy-proven iPPFE; n = 35, clinically diagnosed iPPFE) and 128 IPF (n = 44, biopsy-proven IPF; n = 84, clinically diagnosed IPF [cIPF]) from Hamamatsu-cohort. IPF and biopsy-proven iPPFE diagnosis was based on the ATS/ERS/Japanese Respiratory Society (JRS)/Latin American Thoracic Association (ALAT) criteria, whereas clinical iPPFE diagnosis was based on the following previously proposed criteria [
]: 1) PPFE radiographic pattern on chest computed tomography (CT; defined as bilateral subpleural dense consolidation with or without pleural thickening in the upper lobes, less marked or absent involvement of lower lobes according to Reddy's radiological criteria [
]); 2) radiological confirmation of disease progression (defined as an increase in upper-lobe consolidation with or without pleural thickening and/or a decrease in upper-lobe volume on serial radiological assessments) and 3) exclusion of other lung diseases with identifiable etiologies (e.g., connective tissue disease-related ILDs, chronic hypersensitivity pneumonitis, pulmonary sarcoidosis, pneumoconiosis and active pulmonary infection).
The study protocol was approved by the Ethical Committee of Hamamatsu University School of Medicine (E14-360), and was conducted in accordance with the approved guidelines. The need for patient approval and/or informed consent was waived owing to the retrospective study design.
2.2 Data collection
Clinical data of the Nationwide and Hamamatsu cohorts were collected from the cloud-based integrated database [
Chest HRCT images obtained at the time of ILD diagnosis and/or within 3 months prior to SLB were analysed. The presence of lower-lobe ILD in patients with iPPFE was assessed on HRCT according to the ATS/ERS/JRS/ALAT guidelines [
American thoracic society ERSJRS, Latin American thoracic S. Diagnosis of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis. An official ATS/ERS/JRS/ALAT clinical practice guideline.
Discrete variables were expressed as total number (percentages) and continuous variables as median (interquartile range). Continuous and categorical variables were compared using the Mann–Whitney and Fisher's exact tests, respectively, for independence. Overall survival duration and AE-free period were assessed from the date of iPPFE and IPF diagnosis. The Kaplan–Meier method was used to examine cumulative survival probabilities and AE incidences, and differences were evaluated using the log-rank and Gray's tests, respectively. Propensity score matching was performed using the following algorithm: 1:1 optional match with a ±0.05 calliper and no replacement. To predict mortality and AE incidence, univariate and multivariate analyses were performed using the Cox proportional hazards regression model and Fine-Gray proportional hazards model, respectively. All analyses were two-tailed, and P-values of <0.05 were considered significant.
3. Results
3.1 Clinical characteristics of patients with pathologically and clinically diagnosed iPPFE
First, to validate the clinical diagnostic criteria for iPPFE, we compared the clinical characteristics between pathologically diagnosed iPPFE (p-iPPFE) and clinically diagnosed iPPFE (c-iPPFE) (Table 1). All cases of p-iPPFE met the diagnostic criteria for c-iPPFE. Patients of both iPPFE groups were aged approximately 70 years. Moreover, most patients were men, and approximately 60%–70% were never smokers. Most patients showed severe-to-moderate restrictive spirometric impairment and decreased lung diffusion capacity for carbon monoxide (DLCO). No significant differences were observed in terms of sex, smoking habits, pulmonary function test results and laboratory and bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL) findings. Lower-lobe ILD was observed in 88.9% and 82.9% of patients with p-iPPFE and c-iPPFE, respectively, with no significant difference in incidence. Moreover, the proportion of patients with p-iPPFE and c-iPPFE having HRCT pattern was similar (Table S1). These observations suggested that clinical characteristics are similar between patients with c-iPPFE and p-iPPFE.
Table 1Clinical characteristics of 62 iPPFE patients and 323 IPF patients.
p-iPPFE (n = 27)
c-iPPFE (n = 35)
p-iPPFE vs c-iPPFE p-values
iPPFE (n = 62)
IPF (239 IPF/UIP, 84 cIPF) (n = 323)
iPPFE vs IPF p-values
Age, yr
68.0 [63.0–72.0]
70.0 [65.0–77.0]
0.0443
69.0 [63.0–74.0]
67.0 [62.0–72.0]
0.0562
Sex, male/female
19 (70.4%)/8 (29.6%)
19 (54.3%)/16 (45.7%)
0.2931
38 (61.3%)/24 (38.7%)
253 (78.3%)/70 (21.7%)
0.0060
Observation period, mo
32.0 [14.2–56.6]
40.3 [21.0–70.0]
0.2774
34.6 [18.4–63.3]
53.3 [30.0–79.5]
0.0059
Smoking; never/former
17 (63.0%), 10 (37.0%)
24 (68.6%), 11 (31.4%)
0.7876
41 (66.1%), 21 (33.9%)
74 (22.9%), 249 (77.1%)
<0.0001
Smoking pack-year
0 [0–22.5]
0 [0–10.0]
0.6433
0 [0–12.5]
30.0 [1.4–52.5]
<0.0001
Acute exacerbation, yes
11 (40.7%)
5 (14.3%)
0.0386
16 (25.8%)
94 (29.4%)
0.6471
Lung cancer development
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
1.000
0 (0%)
50 (15.5%)
<0.0001
CTD development
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
1.000
0 (0%)
8 (2.5%)
0.3644
Family history, yes
2 (7.4%)
5 (14.3%)
0.4550
7 (11.3%)
16 (5.0%)
0.0738
Pulmonary Function Test
FVC, %-pred
65.7 [45.4–79.8] (n = 26)
53.0 [45.3–67.8] (n = 32)
0.2110
57.5 [46.4–72.0] (n = 58)
82.0 [68.5–93.8] (n = 308)
<0.0001
FVC, L
1.86 [1.48–2.42] (n = 26)
1.54 [1.05–2.12] (n = 32)
0.0632
1.68 [1.24–2.29] (n = 57)
2.63 [2.07–3.16] (n = 308)
<0.0001
FEV1, %-pred
79.0 [55.7–94.5] (n = 26)
66.6 [54.3–84.4] (n = 32)
0.2841
73.1 [54.6–88.6] (n = 58)
84.5 [72.4–93.5] (n = 290)
0.0005
FEV1, L
1.81 [1.32–2.11] (n = 26)
1.44 [1.01–1.91] (n = 32)
0.1326
1.63 [1.16–2.08] (n = 58)
2.16 [1.72–2.57] (n = 308)
<0.0001
FEV1/FVC, %
93.5 [88.0–96.7] (n = 26)
98.3 [92.0–100] (n = 32)
0.0145
95.8 [90.1–100] (n = 58)
83.1 [79.0–87.9] (n = 309)
<0.0001
DLCO, %
75.1 [68.5–90.0] (n = 16)
66.0 [42.7–111.6] (n = 18)
0.3979
69.7 [53.3–93.4] (n = 34)
67.8 [54.9–86.2] (n = 214)
0.5942
CT images
Presence of lower lobe ILD, yes
24 (88.9%)
29 (82.9%)
0.7192
53 (85.5%)
–
–
Laboratory
PaO2, Torr
82.0 [72.1–92.8] (n = 26)
80.2 [72.2–87.0] (n = 30)
0.5057
80.6 [72.4–89.8] (n = 56)
83.8 [75.7–90.7] (n = 290)
0.1529
PaCO2, Torr
46.3 [39.0–49.8] (n = 26)
46.8 [41.8–49.1] (n = 30)
0.5820
46.6 [40.0–49.2] (n = 56)
41.3 [39.0–43.9] (n = 290)
<0.0001
KL-6, U/ml
485 [425.-770] (n = 27)
499 [333-636] (n = 34)
0.2635
487 [368.-644] (n = 61)
969 [610-1470] (n = 299)
<0.0001
SP-D ng/ml
204 [98-343] (n = 25)
167 [130-243] (n = 33)
0.6264
168 [111-288] (n = 58)
200 [130-318] (n = 271)
0.2054
LDH, IU/l
200 [168-233] (n = 27)
199 [182-234] (n = 34)
0.6578
200 [178-233] (n = 61)
225 [199-254] (n = 314)
<0.0001
BAL
MAC, (%)
90.0 [80.8–95.9] (n = 21)
86.2 [74.7–92.0] (n = 16)
0.2439
88.0 [76.7–92.9] (n = 37)
88.2 [75.0–95.0] (n = 237)
0.6141
Ly, (%)
8.0 [2.4–13.8] (n = 21)
8.7 [5.1–19.3] (n = 16)
0.3416
8.3 [4.4–14.9] (n = 37)
6.3 [2.4–14.0] (n = 236)
0.3305
Neut, (%)
0.9 [0.5–2.2] (n = 21)
1.9 [1.0–5.1] (n = 16)
0.0626
1.0 [0.6–3.8] (n = 37)
1.0 [0.2–2.5] (n = 233)
0.4089
Eos, (%)
1.0 [0–3.9] (n = 21)
1.0 [0.1–1.6] (n = 16)
0.7200
1.0 [0–2.0] (n = 37)
1.0 [0.2–2.3] (n = 230)
0.4610
CD4/CD8
2.1 [1.3–3.4] (n = 20)
1.9 [1.0–3.0] (n = 13)
0.2171
1.9 [1.3–3.2] (n = 33)
1.8 [0.9–3.5] (n = 219)
0.5514
Treatment
Anti-fibrotic agents
10 (37.0%)
5 (14.3%)
0.0706
15 (24.2%)
127 (39.3%)
0.0305
FVC; forced vital capacity, FEV1.0; forced expiratory volume in 1.0 s, DLCO; diffuse capacity of the lung for carbon monoxide, KL-6; Krebs von den Lunge-6, SP-D; surfactant protein-D, LDH; lactate dehydrogenase, BAL; broncho alveolar lavage, MAC; macrophage, Ly; lymphocyte, Neyt; neutrophil, Eos; eosinophil.
3.2 Prognosis of patients with p-iPPFE and c-iPPFE
Among 62 patients, 20 patients with p-iPPFE and 22 with c-iPPFE died during the observation period. The most common cause of death was chronic respiratory failure, followed by AE, in both groups (Table 2). The cause of deaths and prognosis were not significantly differed between both iPPFE groups (p = 0.4439, Fig. 1A); the median survival duration and 5-year survival rate were 34.6 months and 34.3% in patients with p-iPPFE and 47.8 months and 41.3% in those with c-iPPFE, respectively. Because male gender and lower percentage of forced vital capacity (%FVC) are associated with worse survival in patients with iPPFE [
Clinical significance of lower-lobe interstitial lung disease on high-resolution computed tomography in patients with idiopathic pleuroparenchymal fibroelastosis.
], propensity score matching for sex and %FVC was performed. We established 14 well-matched pairs between patients with p-iPPFE and c-iPPFE (Table S2). Despite adjusting for sex and %FVC, the prognosis of patients with c-iPPFE did not significantly differ from that of patients with p-iPPFE; the median survival duration and 5-year survival rate were 30.5 months and 27.3% in patients with p-iPPFE and 37.1 months and 28.6% in those with c-iPPFE (Fig. 1B).
Table 2Cause of Death in patients with 62 PPFE patients and 323 IPF patients.
3.3 Characteristic differences between patients with iPPFE and those with IPF
On comparing patients with iPPFE (both p-iPPFE and c-iPPFE) and those with IPF, the former showed less male predominance and smoking habit than the latter (Table 1). During the observation period, lung cancer (LC) incidence was significantly higher in patients with IPF than that in those with iPPFE. The pulmonary function tests revealed that patients with iPPFE had significantly lower %FVC and forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) than those with IPF. %DLCO was not significantly different. However, a tendency for greater impairment was noted in patients with IPF. Additionally, patients with iPPFE exhibited significantly higher PaCO2 and lower KL-6 levels than those with IPF. SP-D level and BAL findings were similar between the iPPFE and IPF groups.
3.4 AE incidence in iPPFE and IPF groups
Among 62 patients with iPPFE and 323 with IPF, 16 (25.8%) and 94 (29.4%) had experienced AE, respectively. There were no AE associated with surgical lung biopsy. The median time of AE incidences and 2- and 5-year AE incidences in patients with iPPFE were 46.4 (18.0–78.5) months and 8.1% and 17.7%, respectively, whereas those in patients with IPF were 39.3 (19.5–59.2) months and 8.4% and 22.0%, respectively. The cumulative AE incidence in patients with iPPFE was slightly lower, although not significant, than that in patients with IPF (Fine-Gray test, p = 0.3490, Fig. 2).
Fig. 2Cumulative incidences of AE in patients with iPPFE and IPF.
Further, we attempted to assess the predictive factors for AE in patients with iPPFE and IPF. The univariate analysis showed that lower %FVC, lower %FEV1 and higher KL-6 levels were associated with AE in patients with iPPFE (Table 3).
Table 3Prediction of acute exacerbation in patients with PPFE and IPF by univariate Gray's tests.
iPPFE
IPF
Univariate analysis
HR
95% CI
p-value
HR
95% CI
p-value
Age, yr
0.9892
0.9512–1.0290
0.590
0.996
0.9745–1.018
0.71
Gender, male
1.411
0.2567–1.9560
0.510
1.072
0.6409–1.792
0.79
FVC, %-pred
1.018
0.9988–1.0370
0.067
0.9844
0.9749–0.994
0.0016
FEV, %-pred
1.018
1.003–1.033
0.022
0.9895
0.9797–0.9995
0.039
DLCO, %
1.012
0.9948–1.0300
0.170
0.9876
0.9777–0.9976
0.016
KL-6, U/ml
1.001
1.0000–1.0020
0.0032
0.9985
0.9959–1.001
0.25
SP-D, ng/ml
1.001
0.9985–1.0030
0.530
1.000
0.9967–1.004
0.91
LDH, IU/l
1.007
0.9921–1.0220
0.370
1.006
1.002–1.010
0.0013
Anti-fibrotic agents, yes
0.6229
0.1799–2.1560
0.450
1.182
0.7877–1.773
0.42
Presence of lower lobe ILD
1.7980
0.2310–14.0
0.580
–
–
–
BMI; body mass index, ESMCSA; cross-sectional area of elector spine muscles, ESMMA; muscle attenuation of elector spine muscles, FVC; forced vital capacity, FEV1.0; forced expiratory volume in 1.0 s, DLCO; diffuse capacity of the lung for carbon monoxide.
3.5 Differences in prognosis between iPPFE and IPF groups and their prognostic factors
During the observation period, 42 (67.4%) patients with iPPFE and 152 (47.1%) with IPF died. The most common cause of death in patients with iPPFE were chronic respiratory failure (73.8%), followed by AE (14.3%); none of the patients with iPPFE developed LC. Further, 69 (45.4%), 45 (29.6%) and 19 (12.5%) patients with IPF presented with chronic respiratory failure, fatal AE and LC, respectively. These results indicated that patients with iPPFE had a significantly higher frequency of chronic respiratory failure and lower fatal AE and LC incidence (Table 2); these patients significantly worse survival than those with IPF (p < 0.0001; median survival duration: 47.2 vs. 81.2 months; 5-year survival rate: 38.5% vs. 63.5%; Fig. 3A). In patients with iPPFE and those with IPF, significant differences were observed in terms of sex and %FVC, which are the prognostic factors of IPF; therefore, a propensity-matched analysis with these two variables was performed using 44 well-matched pairs between iPPFE and IPF (Table S3). Despite adjusting for sex and %FVC, patients with iPPFE exhibited a worse prognosis than those with IPF (p = 0.0110, Fig. 3B).
Next, we explored prognostic factors in patients with iPPFE and IPF using Cox-hazard regression analyses. Age, male gender, and SP-D levels were significant by univarate analyses. Multivariate analysis, including age, gender, and SP-D levels, revealed that male gender was an independent prognostic factor in patients with iPPFE (Table 4). By contrast, age, AE incidence, lower %FVC and higher SP-D level were independently associated with poor prognosis in patients with IPF (Table S4).
Table 4Prediction of Mortality in Patients with 62 iPPFE by Univariate and Multivariate Cox-proportion Analyses.
Predictor
HR
95% CI
p-value
Predictor
HR
95% CI
p-value
Univariate analysis
Multivariate analysis
Age, yr
1.0263
0.9930–1.0656
0.1509
1.0290
0.9911–1.0773
0.1795
Gender, male
2.2926
1.1828–4.7254
0.0178
2.3340
1.0982–5.3134
0.0332
AE, yes
1.0495
0.5521–2.1025
0.8864
FVC, %-pred
0.9925
0.9769–1.0071
0.3335
FEV, %-pred
0.9925
0.9793–1.0049
0.2497
DLCO, %
0.9896
0.9772–1.0016
0.0972
KL-6, U/ml
1.0001
0.9998–1.0016
0.1005
SP-D, ng/ml
1.0013
1.0002–1.0021
0.0088
1.0009
0.9996–1.0018
0.1135
LDH, IU/l
1.0076
0.9994–1.0148
0.0497
Anti-fibrotic agents, yes
1.4938
0.7268–2.8941
0.2502
Presence of lower lobe ILD
1.0065
0.3998–3.380
0.9903
Lower lobe ILD: UIP pattern
1.5623
0.5861–3.500
0.3189
BMI; body mass index, ESMCSA; cross-sectional area of elector spine muscles, ESMMA; muscle attenuation of elector spine muscles, FVC; forced vital capacity, FEV1.0; forced expiratory volume in 1.0 s, DLCO; diffuse capacity of the lung for carbon monoxide.
In the present study, we demonstrated clinical important characteristics of iPPFE by comparison with those in IPF using largest cohort. The patients with iPPFE exhibited similar frequencies of AE, lower incidences of LC and died of chronic respiratory failure. Subsequently, patients with iPPFE exhibited significantly worse survivals than those with IPF. Additionally, this study first validated the previously proposed clinical diagnostic criteria for iPPFE, and showed clinical and prognostic concordance between c-iPPFE and p-IPPFE. Collectively, these observations confirmed the efficiency of the clinical diagnostic criteria for iPPFE and revealed clinically important characteristics of iPPFE.
Currently, histologic confirmation is required to obtain a definite iPPFE diagnosis. However, several challenges, such as persistent post-operative pneumothorax and severe pulmonary function impairment, inhibit the performance of SLB in clinical practice. Therefore, several clinical diagnostic criteria excluding SLB for iPPFE have been proposed [
]. The present study demonstrated that patients with c-iPPFE and p-iPPFE shared similar clinical features in terms of gender predominance, smoking habits, lower-lobe ILD incidence, pulmonary function test results and laboratory and BAL findings. Moreover, the prognosis of patients with c-iPPFE did not differ from that of patients with p-iPPFE. These data collectively suggest that our clinical diagnostic criteria for iPPFE extract similar population to that of p-iPPFE and are highly feasible in clinical practice.
Further, the clinical characteristics, prognosis and prognostic factors of iPPFE were compared with those of IPF. To the best of our knowledge, this study included the largest number of patients with iPPFE. Beside the characteristic radiologic features, there were several differences between iPPFE and IPF. Remarkably, LC incidence was extremely lower in the iPPFE group than in the IPF group (overall incidence, p < 0.0001). Indeed, none of the patients with iPPFE developed LC during a median observation period of 34.6 months. Interestingly, spirometric impairment and increased PaCO2 levels were observed in patients with iPPFE. Consistent with previous studies [
Clinical significance of lower-lobe interstitial lung disease on high-resolution computed tomography in patients with idiopathic pleuroparenchymal fibroelastosis.
], the present study showed that serum KL-6 levels in these patients remained around the upper limit of the normal range, whereas the serum SP-D levels increased approximately twice than the upper limit.
Importantly, we observed that AE occurred in iPPFE, with similar incidence to that of IPF. Recently, patients with iPPFE developed AE in several case studies [
]. However, its annual incidence and risk factors as well as its impact on the clinical course of iPPFE remain unknown. Considering this, the present study first showed that AE incidence between patients with iPPFE and those with IPF was similar. In addition, higher serum KL-6 levels and lower %FVC and %FEV1 were considered risk factors for AE in patients with iPPFE.
Notably, patients with iPPFE had significantly worse survival than those with IPF, and this prognostic difference remained significant despite adjusting for propensity score matching. To date, only few studies have compared the prognosis between patients with iPPFE and IPF. Our previous study, including only 18 patients with p-iPPFE, showed that these patients have poorer prognosis than those with IPF [
]; the present study confirmed this result in a larger cohort with iPPFE. Importantly, significant differences were observed in terms of the causes of death between patients with iPPFE and those with IPF. The proportion of patients with chronic respiratory failure was significantly higher in the iPPFE group than in the IPF group. Meanwhile, fatal AE development was higher in patients with IPF than in those with iPPFE, although AE incidence was similar. LC accounted for 12.5% of deaths in patients with IPF and in none of the patients with iPPFE. Collectively, our data indicate the typical features of iPPFE, with approximately 80% patients presenting with rapid disease progression, thereby making iPPFE the worst type of ILD.
Furthermore, we explored the prognostic factors of iPPFE and IPF. Interestingly, different factors were associated with mortality among patients with iPPFE and IPF. The multivariate analysis revealed that only male gender was the independent prognostic factor in iPPFE and age and lower %FVC, besides SP-D levels and AE incidence, were independently correlated to poor prognosis in IPF. To date, several prognostic factors have reportedly been associated with iPPFE. Consistent with this study, Khiroya et al. have reported that only male sex was correlated to an increased mortality risk in 43 p-iPPFE cases [
]. Moreover, we have previously found that male gender and low elector spinae muscle attenuation, as determined via CT scan, were independent poor prognostic factors in patients with iPPFE [
Clinical significance of lower-lobe interstitial lung disease on high-resolution computed tomography in patients with idiopathic pleuroparenchymal fibroelastosis.
Clinical significance of lower-lobe interstitial lung disease on high-resolution computed tomography in patients with idiopathic pleuroparenchymal fibroelastosis.
] were reported as significant prognostic determinants of iPPFE. However, these factors were not significant in our cases. The causes of these discrepancies are not fully elucidated, and the differences in the cohort characteristics might cause such discrepancies. Regarding the presence of lower-lobe ILD, Kono et al. recently revealed that patients with iPPFE having lower-lobe ILD, particularly lower-lobe UIP pattern, exhibited significantly worse survival than those without lower-lobe ILD [
Clinical significance of lower-lobe interstitial lung disease on high-resolution computed tomography in patients with idiopathic pleuroparenchymal fibroelastosis.
]. By contrast, Enomoto et al. showed no significant difference in prognosis between patients with iPPFE who presented with lower-lobe UIP/possible UIP pattern and those without [
]. In the present study, because most patients with iPPFE (88.7%) had lower-lobe ILD, conducting a statistical analysis between patients with and without lower-lobe ILD was challenging.
The present study had several limitations. Although a relatively large number of patients with iPPFE and IPF were enrolled, the number of patients is small, and a retrospective analysis was performed. Additionally, this study only used one series of criteria among several proposed clinical diagnostic criterias [
]. Third, composition of the subjects was unbalanced; approximately 70% of patients with IPF were pathologically confirmed IPF/UIP, the frequencies were relatively higher than those in clinical setting. Fourth, the present study evaluated AE incidence and prognosis in patients with iPPFE, but detailed clinical course of iPPFE, such as lower-lobe ILD development and insidious spirometric decline before iPPFE diagnosis, were not assessed. Therefore, further population-based studies must be conducted to examine these issues.
In conclusion, the present study first validated efficiency of the clinical diagnostic criteria for iPPFE, and showed clinical and prognostic similarities between c-iPPFE and p-iPPFE. Moreover, we found crucial features of iPPFE in practice. The occurrence of LC was lower in patients with iPPFE than in those with IPF, although AE incidence was similar. Over 70% of patients with iPPFE died from chronic respiratory failure, and AE only accounted for 10% of the deaths. Importantly, the prognosis of iPPFE was significantly worse than that of IPF. Collectively, the present study provided novel knowledge for iPPFE in the context of diagnosis and disease courses. These clinically important characteristics of iPPFE should be considered for its diagnosis and management.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Yuzo Suzuki: Conceptualization, Methodology, Data curation, Investigation, Formal analysis, Writing - original draft. Tomoyuki Fujisawa: Conceptualization, Data curation. Hiromitsu Sumikawa: Conceptualization, Data curation. Tomonori Tanaka: Conceptualization, Data curation. Chikatoshi Sugimoto: Conceptualization, Data curation. Masato Kono: Data curation, Supervision. Hironao Hozumi: Supervision, Data curation. Masato Karayama: Data curation, Supervision. Kazuki Furuhashi: Data curation, Supervision. Noriyuki Enomoto: Data curation, Supervision. Yutaro Nakamura: Data curation, Supervision. Naoki Inui: Data curation, Supervision. Takafumi Suda: Conceptualization, Methodology, Writing - original draft, Project administration.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.
Appendix A. Supplementary data
The following is the Supplementary data to this article:
This work is supported by a grant-in-aid for scientific research (19K17632 to Y.S.) from the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science.
Data availability statement
The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding authors upon reasonable request.
References
Travis W.D.
Costabel U.
Hansell D.M.
King T.E.
Lynch D.A.
Nicholson A.G.
Ryerson C.J.
Ryu J.H.
Selman M.
Wells A.U.
Behr J.
Bouros D.
Brown K.K.
Colby T.V.
Collard H.R.
Cordeiro C.R.
Cottin V.
Crestani B.
Drent M.
Dudden R.F.
Egan J.
Flaherty K.
Hogaboam C.
Inoue Y.
Johkoh T.
Kim D.S.
Kitaichi M.
Loyd J.
Martinez F.J.
Myers J.
Protzko S.
Raghu G.
Richeldi L.
Sverzellati N.
Swigris J.
Valeyre D.
Pneumonias A.E.
An official American Thoracic Society/European Respiratory Society statement: update of the international multidisciplinary classification of the idiopathic interstitial pneumonias.
Clinical significance of lower-lobe interstitial lung disease on high-resolution computed tomography in patients with idiopathic pleuroparenchymal fibroelastosis.
American thoracic society ERSJRS, Latin American thoracic S. Diagnosis of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis. An official ATS/ERS/JRS/ALAT clinical practice guideline.
30218-3&id=fx1.jpg){kind=link}
30218-3&id=gr1.jpg){kind=link}
30218-3&id=gr2.jpg){kind=link}
30218-3&id=gr3.jpg){kind=link}