4.6 Article

Telomere-related lung fibrosis is diagnostically heterogeneous but uniformly progressive

期刊

EUROPEAN RESPIRATORY JOURNAL
卷 48, 期 6, 页码 1710-1720

出版社

EUROPEAN RESPIRATORY SOC JOURNALS LTD
DOI: 10.1183/13993003.00308-2016

关键词

-

资金

  1. US National Institutes of Health
  2. US National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute [5T32HL098040, UL1TR001105, R01HL093096]
  3. National Centre for Advancing Translational Science

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Heterozygous mutations in four telomere-related genes have been linked to pulmonary fibrosis, but little is known about similarities or differences of affected individuals. 115 patients with mutations in telomerase reverse transcriptase (TERT) (n=75), telomerase RNA component (TERC) (n=7), regulator of telomere elongation helicase 1 (RTELI) (n=14) and poly(A)specific ribonuclease (PARN) (n=19) were identified and clinical data were analysed. Approximately one-half (46%) had a multidisciplinary diagnosis of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF); others had unclassifiable lung fibrosis (20%), chronic hypersensitivity pneumonitis (12%), pleuroparenchymal fibroelastosis (10%), interstitial pneumonia with autoimmune features (7%), an idiopathic interstitial pneumonia (4%) and connective tissue disease-related interstitial fibrosis (3%). Discordant interstitial lung disease diagnoses were found in affected individuals from 80% of families. Patients with TERC mutations were diagnosed at an earlier age than those with PARN mutations (51 11 years versus 64 8 years; p=0.03) and had a higher incidence of haematological comorbidities. The mean rate of forced vital capacity decline was 300 mL.year(-1) and the median time to death or transplant was 2.87 years. There was no significant difference in time to death or transplant for patients across gene mutation groups or for patients with a diagnosis of IPF versus a non-IPF diagnosis. Genetic mutations in telomere related genes lead to a variety of interstitial lung disease (ILD) diagnoses that are universally progressive.

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

4.6
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