Skip to main navigation Skip to search Skip to main content

Systemic sclerosis associated interstitial lung disease: a conceptual framework for subclinical, clinical and progressive disease

  • David Roofeh
  • , Kevin K Brown
  • , Ella A Kazerooni
  • , Donald Tashkin
  • , Shervin Assassi
  • , Fernando Martinez
  • , Athol U Wells
  • , Ganesh Raghu
  • , Christopher P Denton
  • , Lorinda Chung
  • , Anna-Maria Hoffmann-Vold
  • , Oliver Distler
  • , Kerri A Johannson
  • , Yannick Allanore
  • , Eric L Matteson
  • , Leticia Kawano-Dourado
  • , John D Pauling
  • , James R Seibold
  • , Elizabeth R Volkmann
  • , Simon L F Walsh
  • Chester V Oddis, Eric S White, Shaney L Barratt, Elana J Bernstein, Robyn T Domsic, Paul F Dellaripa, Richard Conway, Ivan Rosas, Nitin Bhatt, Vivien Hsu, Francesca Ingegnoli, Bashar Kahaleh, Puneet Garcha, Nishant Gupta, Surabhi Khanna, Peter Korsten, Celia Lin, Stephen C Mathai, Vibeke Strand, Tracy J Doyle, Virginia Steen, Donald F Zoz, Juan Ovalles-Bonilla, Ignasi Rodriguez-Pinto, Padmanabha D Shenoy, Andrew Lewandoski, Elizabeth Belloli, Alain Lescoat, Vivek Nagaraja, Wen Ye, Suiyuan Huang, Toby Maher, Dinesh Khanna*
*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article (Academic Journal) › peer-review

16 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: Establish a framework by which experts define disease subsets in systemic sclerosis associated interstitial lung disease (SSc-ILD).

METHODS: A conceptual framework for subclinical, clinical, and progressive ILD was provided to eighty-three experts, asking them to use the framework and classify actual SSc-ILD patients. Each patient profile was designed to be classified by at least 4 experts in terms of severity and risk of progression at baseline; progression was based on 1-year follow-up data. A consensus was reached if ≥ 75% of experts agreed. Experts provided information on which items were important in determining classification.

RESULTS: Forty-four experts (53%) completed the survey. Consensus was achieved on the dimensions of severity (75%, 60 of 80 profiles), risk of progression (71%, 57 of 80 profiles) and progressive ILD (60%, 24 of 40 profiles). For profiles achieving consensus, most were classified as clinical ILD (92%), low risk (54%), and stable (71%). Severity and disease progression overlapped in terms of framework items that were most influential in classifying patients (forced vital capacity, extent of lung involvement on high resolution chest CT (HRCT)); risk of progression was influenced primarily by disease duration.

CONCLUSIONS: Using our proposed conceptual framework, international experts were able to achieve a consensus on classifying SSc-ILD patients along the dimensions of disease severity, risk of progression, and progression over time. Experts rely on similar items when classifying disease severity and progression: a combination of spirometry and gas exchange and quantitative HRCT.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)1877–1886
Number of pages10
JournalRheumatology
Volume62
Issue number5
Early online date29 Sept 2022
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 1 May 2023

Bibliographical note

© The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the British Society for Rheumatology. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: [email protected].

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Systemic sclerosis associated interstitial lung disease: a conceptual framework for subclinical, clinical and progressive disease'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this