4.5 Article

Cluster analysis-based clinical phenotypes of idiopathic interstitial pneumonias: associations with acute exacerbation and overall survival

Journal

BMC PULMONARY MEDICINE
Volume 21, Issue 1, Pages -

Publisher

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/s12890-021-01428-3

Keywords

Idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis; Interstitial lung disease; Interstitial pneumonia; IPAF; IPF

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Cluster analysis identified four clinical phenotypes of IIPs, which may be useful for predicting the risk of acute exacerbation and overall survival.
BackgroundThe precise classification of idiopathic interstitial pneumonia (IIP) is essential for selecting treatment as well as estimating clinical outcomes; however, this is sometimes difficult in clinical practice. Therefore, cluster analysis was used to identify the clinical phenotypes of IIPs, and its usefulness for predicting clinical outcomes was evaluated.MethodsCluster analysis was performed using clinical features including patients' demographics; histories; pulmonary function test data; and laboratory, physical and radiological findings.ResultsIn 337 patients with IIPs, four clusters were identified: Cluster I, in which>80% of the patients had autoimmune features; Cluster II, which had the lowest rate of smoking, the lowest percent predicted forced vital capacity (%FVC) and the lowest body mass index (BMI); Cluster III, which had the highest rate of smoking, the highest rate of dust exposure, the second lowest %FVC and normal BMI; and Cluster IV, which exhibited maintenance of %FVC and normal BMI. Cluster IV had significantly longer overall survival than Clusters II and III. Clusters I and III had significantly longer overall survival than Cluster II. Clusters II and III had a significantly higher cumulative incidence of acute exacerbation than Cluster IV.ConclusionCluster analysis using clinical features identified four clinical phenotypes of IIPs, which may be useful for predicting the risk of acute exacerbation and overall survival.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available