4.7 Article

Interstitial Lung Disease in the Elderly

期刊

CHEST
卷 151, 期 4, 页码 838-844

出版社

AMER COLL CHEST PHYSICIANS
DOI: 10.1016/j.chest.2016.11.003

关键词

aging; elderly; idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis; interstitial lung disease

资金

  1. Bristol- Myers Squibb
  2. Sanofi
  3. InterMune
  4. Medimmune
  5. Gilead Sciences

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BACKGROUND: Despite the relationship between idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) and advancing age, little is known about the epidemiology of interstitial lung disease (ILD) in the elderly. We describe the diagnoses, clinical characteristics, and outcomes of patients who were elderly at the time of ILD diagnosis. METHODS: Among subjects from a prospective cohort study of ILD, elderly was defined as age >= 70 years. Diagnoses were derived from a multidisciplinary review. Differences between elderly and nonelderly groups were determined using the chi(2) test and analysis of variance. RESULTS: Of the 327 subjects enrolled, 80 (24%) were elderly. The majority of elderly subjects were white men. The most common diagnoses were unclassifiable ILD (45%), IPF (34%), connective tissue disease (CTD)-ILD (11%), and hypersensitivity pneumonitis (8%). Most elderly subjects (74%) with unclassifiable ILD had an imaging pattern inconsistent with usual interstitial pneumonia (UIP). There were no significant differences in pulmonary function or 3-year mortality between nonelderly and elderly subjects combined or in a subgroup analysis of those with IPF. CONCLUSIONS: Although IPF was the single most common diagnosis, the majority of elderly subjects had non-IPF ILD. Our findings highlight the need for every patient with new-onset ILD, regardless of age, to be surveyed for exposures and findings of CTD. Unclassifiable ILD was common among the elderly, but for most, the radiographic pattern was inconsistent with UIP. Although the effect of ILD may be more pronounced in the elderly due to reduced global functionality, ILD was not more severe or aggressive in this group.

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

4.7
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