4.3 Review

Pulmonary hypertension in patients with interstitial lung disease

Journal

PULMONARY PHARMACOLOGY & THERAPEUTICS
Volume 50, Issue -, Pages 38-46

Publisher

ACADEMIC PRESS LTD- ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.pupt.2018.03.002

Keywords

Interstitial lung disease; Pulmonary fibrosis; Pulmonary hypertension; Treatment; Survival

Funding

  1. Bayer
  2. Actelion
  3. United Therapeutics

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Interstitial lung diseases (ILDs) comprise a broad and heterogeneous group of more than two hundred diseases with common functional characteristics. Their diagnosis and management require a multidisciplinary approach. This multidisciplinary approach involves the assessment of comorbid conditions including pulmonary hypertension (PH) that exerts a dramatic impact on survival. The current World Health Organization (WHO) classification of PH encompasses many of the interstitial lung diseases into WHO Group 3, while sarcoidosis, Pulmonary Langerhans Cell Histiocytosis and lymphangioleiomyomatosis are placed into WHO Group 5 as diseases with unclear or multifactorial mechanisms. Connective tissue diseases could span any of the 5 WHO groups based on the primary phenotype into which they manifest. Interestingly, several challenging phenotypes present with features that overlap between two or more WHO PH groups. Currently, PH-specific treatment is recommended only for patients classified into WHO Group 1 PH. The lack of specific treatment for other groups, including PH in the setting of ILD, reflects the poor outcomes of these patients. Thus, identification of the optimal strategy for ILD patients with PH remains an amenable need. This review article provides a brief overview of biomarkers indicative of vascular remodeling in interstitial lung disease, summarizes the current state of knowledge regarding patients with PH and ILD and highlights future perspectives that remain to be addressed.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available