Evidence Hub

Progressive pulmonary fibrosis in myositis-specific antibody-positive interstitial pneumonia: a retrospective cohort study

Huijuan Wang, Yuan-Ying Wang, Di Sun, Shiwen Yu, Xu-Qin Du, Qiao Ye

Frontiers in Medicine, 2024

307 participants · 8 citations

Abstract

Objectives Idiopathic inflammatory myopathy (IIM) frequently coexists with interstitial pneumonia (IP) and is commonly the initial or sole manifestation accompanied by positive myositis-specific autoantibodies (MSAs), even in the absence of meeting diagnostic criteria. This study aims to evaluate the proportion of progressive pulmonary fibrosis (PPF) and identify potential predictors influencing the progression of pulmonary fibrosis in patients with MSA-IP. Methods This descriptive study employed a retrospective cohort design, enrolling patients diagnosed with interstitial pneumonia and positive MSAs at Beijing Chao-Yang Hospital in a sequential manner. Clinical data were systematically collected from the patients’ medical records during regular follow-up visits conducted every 3 to 6 months. Cox regression analysis was utilized to identify independent predictors of PPF in patients with positive MSAs and interstitial pneumonia. Results A total of 307 patients were included in the study, with 30.6% of them developing PPF during a median follow-up period of 22 months. Kaplan–Meier survival curves demonstrated a significantly lower survival in the PPF patients compared to the non-PPF patients (median 11.6 months vs. 31 months, p = 0.000). An acute/subacute onset of interstitial pneumonia (HR 3.231, 95%CI 1.936–5.392, p = 0.000), lower diffusing capacity of the lungs for carbon monoxide (DLCO) % predicted (HR 6.435, 95%CI 4.072–10.017, p = 0.001), and the presence of diffuse…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a cohort study, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 307 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free