Focus on Sarcoidosis
- We have read the very interesting article titled “Clinical epidemiology of familial sarcoidosis: a systematic literature review” by Drs. Terwiel and van Moorsel published recently in Respiratory medicine . The work was based on the very stringent selection of 27 articles out of a total of 459 published on sarcoidosis in order to obtain a high level of statistical quality in the evaluation of the prevalence of familial forms. This review took into account all articles published until March 2018, date of submission to Respiratory Medicine.
- It is with great interest that we read the article titled “Clinical epidemiology of familial sarcoidosis: A systematic literature review” by Drs. Terwiel and van Moorsel published recently in Respiratory Medicine . Their systematic review on familial sarcoidosis highlights the great heterogeneity in familial disease prevalence and in familial relative risks among published studies. They also emphasize the high heritability (>60%) of sarcoidosis.
- We thank Drs. Valentin, Hyde, Gomez and Patel for commenting on our recently published article “Sarcoidosis and IPF in the same patient-a coincidence, an association or a phenotype?” . Indeed, one of our objectives in reporting our observations was to provoke further interest in the scientific community regarding such patients and conduct of clinical studies in such cohorts.
- It was with great interest we read the article by Dr. Collins and colleagues published in the August 2018 edition of Respiratory Medicine, titled “Sarcoidosis and IPF in the same patient-a coincidence, an association or a phenotype?” The authors describe the characteristics of a disease entity they coined “combined sarcoidosis and idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (CSIPF)” . We appreciate the authors’ efforts to shed light on this clinical entity, which to date has sparked debate in terms of proper classification of patients who share radiographic and histopathologic features of sarcoidosis and idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF).
- Without adequate attention to the incidence and prevalence of surveillance with diagnostic technology, and without suitable consideration of the technologic effects on what becomes detected or left unidentified, the rates of reported diseases simply represent the rates of diagnostic detection and cannot be accepted as scientific enumeration of the true incidence and prevalence of those diseases. .