POINT: Does Interstitial Pneumonia With Autoimmune Features Represent a Distinct Class of Patients With Idiopathic Interstitial Pneumonia? Yes

Krebs von den Lungen-6 and surfactant protein-A in interstitial pneumonia with autoimmune features

Interstitial pneumonia with autoimmune features (IPAF) is a special subtype of interstitial lung disease that has received worldwide attention. Krebs von den Lungen-6 (KL-6) and surfactant protein-A (SP-A) can be used as an important biomarker of interstitial lung disease, but its exact relationship with IPAF is poorly understood.A total of 65 IPAF patients were included in the study and were followed up for 52 weeks. The KL-6 and SP-A were evaluated by chemiluminescence enzyme immunoassay. The above indicators were tested at 2 time points, baseline (the first admission of patients) and 52 weeks. We also collected the indicators of antinuclear antibodies and rheumatoid factor. Based on high-resolution computed tomography evaluations, patients were divided into: aggravation, stable, and improvement group. At same time, 30 age-matched normal people as normal control were recruited, the same information was collected. Correlations among the groups were compared and analyzed.The KL-6 and SP-A level in IPAF patients were significantly higher than normal controls (fold increase = 11.35 and 1.39, both P < .001) and differed significantly at baseline and 52 weeks in IPAF (difference ratio = 37.7% and 21.3%, P < .05, both). There were significant differences at baseline and 52 weeks (r values of aggravation, improvement, and stable groups for KL-6 were 0.705, 0.770, and 0.344, P = .001, .001, and .163, and for SP-A the r value were 0.672, 0.375, and 0.316, P = .001, .126, and .152). In aggravation group, KL-6 and SP-A were correlated with CT scores (both P < .05). Diffusing capacity of the lung for carbon monoxide (DLCO) and forced vital capacity (FVC), % predicted showed a progressive downward trend, with a significant difference at baseline and 52 weeks in IPAF patients (difference ratio = 23.8% and 20.6%, both P < .05). There was a significant correlation between KL-6 and FVC % predicted and DLCO (both P < .05), SP-A showed negatively correlated with DLCO, but not significantly correlated with FVC % predicted (P < .05 and .47).This study demonstrated that KL-6 and SP-A can reflect disease progression, and both 2 play a key role at reflection of lung epithelial cell injury and fibrosis degree in IPAF.

Interstitial Pneumonia with Autoimmune Features: Why Rheumatologist-Pulmonologist Collaboration Is Essential

In 2015 the European Respiratory Society (ERS) and the American Thoracic Society (ATS) “Task Force on Undifferentiated Forms of Connective Tissue Disease-associated Interstitial Lung Disease” proposed classification criteria for a new research category defined as “Interstitial Pneumonia with Autoimmune Features” (IPAF), to uniformly define patients with interstitial lung disease (ILD) and features of autoimmunity, without a definite connective tissue disease. These classification criteria were based on a variable combination of features obtained from three domains: a clinical domain consisting of extra-thoracic features, a serologic domain with specific autoantibodies, and a morphologic domain with imaging patterns, histopathological findings, or multicompartment involvement. Features suggesting a systemic vasculitis were excluded. Since publication of ERS/ATS IPAF research criteria, various retrospective studies have been published focusing on prevalence; clinical, morphological, and serological features; and prognosis of these patients showing a broad heterogeneity in the results. Recently, two prospective, cohort studies were performed, confirming the existence of some peculiarities for this clinical entity and the possible progression of IPAF to a defined connective tissue disease (CTD) in about 15% of cases. Moreover, a non-specific interstitial pneumonia pattern, an anti-nuclear antibody positivity, and a Raynaud phenomenon were the most common findings. In comparison with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF), IPAF patients showed a better performance in pulmonary function tests and less necessity of oxygen delivery. However, at this stage of our knowledge, we believe that further prospective studies, possibly derived from multicenter cohorts and through randomized control trials, to further validate the proposed classification criteria are needed.

Myositis-specific Antibodies Identify A Distinct Interstitial Pneumonia with Autoimmune Features Phenotype

Interstitial pneumonia with autoimmune features (IPAF) characterises individuals with interstitial lung disease (ILD) and features of connective tissue disease (CTD) who fail to satisfy CTD criteria. Inclusion of myositis-specific antibodies (MSAs) in the IPAF criteria has generated controversy, as these patients also meet proposed criteria for an anti-synthetase syndrome. Whether MSAs and myositis associated antibodies (MAA) identify phenotypically distinct IPAF subgroups remains unclear.A multi-center, retrospective investigation was conducted to assess clinical features and outcomes in patients meeting IPAF criteria stratified by the presence of MSAs and MAAs. IPAF subgroups were compared to cohorts of patients with idiopathic inflammatory myopathy-ILD (IIM-ILD), idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) and non-IIM CTD-ILDs. The primary endpoint assessed was three-year transplant-free survival. Two hundred sixty-nine patients met IPAF criteria, including 35 (13%) with MSAs and 65 (24.2%) with MAAs. Survival was highest among patients with IPAF-MSA and closely approximated those with IIM-ILD. Survival did not differ between IPAF-MAA and IPAF without MSA/MAA cohorts. Usual interstitial pneumonia (UIP) morphology was associated with differential outcome risk, with IPAF patients with non-UIP morphology approximating survival observed in non-IIM CTD-ILDs. MSAs, but not MAAs identified a unique IPAF phenotype characterised by clinical features and outcomes similar to IIM-ILD. UIP morphology was a strong predictor of outcome in others meeting IPAF criteria. Because IPAF is a research classification without clear treatment approach, these findings suggest MSAs should be removed from the IPAF criteria and such patients should be managed as an IIM-ILD.