4.5 Article

A cohort study of interstitial lung diseases in central Denmark

期刊

RESPIRATORY MEDICINE
卷 108, 期 5, 页码 793-799

出版社

W B SAUNDERS CO LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.rmed.2013.09.002

关键词

Interstitial lung disease; Epidemiology; Idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis; Diagnosis; Classification

资金

  1. Actelion Pharmaceuticals Ltd.

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Introduction: Interstitial lung diseases (ILDs) form a heterogeneous group of diseases with varying degrees of inflammation and fibrosis. Epidemiological data based on the current diagnostic criteria are sparse. Objectives: To characterize the incidence rate of ILDs and idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) in Danish patients diagnosed at a referral hospital, to evaluate disease severity and survival in these ILD patients and to compare the use of the 2001 and 2011 guidelines to diagnosis of IPF. Methods: Single-centre, retrospective, observational cohort study including incident patients diagnosed with ILD at Aarhus University Hospital between 2003 and 2009. All diagnoses were re-evaluated according to current diagnostic criteria. Disease severity in IPF was assessed using the GAP index. Results: The ILD incidence was 4.1 per 100,000 inhabitants/year. IPF was the most common diagnosis (28%) followed by connective tissue disease-related ILD (14%), hypersensitivity pneumonitis (7%) and non-specific interstitial pneumonia (NSIP) (7%). The GAP index was a strong predictor of survival in IPF. Twenty-three patients who had IPF based on the 2001 criteria had a possible UIP HRCT pattern but no lung biopsy, and IPF could therefore not be diagnosed based on the 2011 criteria. Conclusion: ILD and IPF incidence was 4.1 and 1.3 per 100,000 inhabitants/year. The diagnostic re-evaluation raised the number of IPF diagnoses, but a diagnostic grey zone was still evident in patients with UIP features not qualifying the patients to be diagnosed with IPF. The GAP index was valuable as a measure of IPF severity in this cohort. (C) 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据