SciELO - Scientific Electronic Library Online

 
vol.47 issue1Multimorbidity and geriatric syndromes. Their effect on mortality in older adults with sepsis author indexsubject indexarticles search
Home Pagealphabetic serial listing  

Services on Demand

Journal

Article

Indicators

Related links

  • On index processCited by Google
  • Have no similar articlesSimilars in SciELO
  • On index processSimilars in Google

Share


Acta Medica Colombiana

Print version ISSN 0120-2448

Acta Med Colomb vol.47 no.1 Bogotá Jan./Mar. 2022  Epub May 06, 2022

 

Original works

Clinical impact of a multidisciplinary discussion group on the diagnosis of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis in Colombia

MAURICIO GONZÁLEZ-GARCÍAa  * 

EMILY RINCÓN-ÁLVAREZb 

CAROLINA PÉREZ-ALVARADOc 

JACQUELINE MUGNIER-QUIJANOd 

LESLIE VARGAS-RAMÍREZe 

CAMILO RODRÍGUEZ-CORTÉSf 

MARÍA FERNANDA LINARES-CONTRERASg 

MAURICIO DURÁN SILVAh 

a Internista, Neumólogo, Epidemiólogo Clínico. Departamento de Investigación; Fundación Neumológica Colombiana. Bogotá, D.C. (Colombia)

b Internista, Neumóloga; Fundación Neumológica Colombiana. Bogotá, D.C. (Colombia)

c Radióloga, Departamento de Radiología e Imágenes Diagnósticas; Fundación Neumológica Colombiana. Bogotá, D.C. (Colombia)

d Patóloga, Departamento de Patología. Fundación Cardioinfantil. Bogotá, D.C. (Colombia)

e Internista, Neumóloga. Fundación Neumológica Colombiana, Bogotá, D.C., Instituto Neumológico del Oriente, Bucaramanga. Colombia.

f Internista, Neumólogo; Fundación Neumológica Colombiana. Bogotá, D.C. (Colombia)

g Internista, Reumatóloga; Fundación Neumológica Colombiana. Bogotá, D.C. (Colombia)

h Neumólogo. Fundación Neumológica Colombiana. Bogotá, D.C. (Colombia)


Abstract

Introduction:

idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) is an interstitial lung disease (ILD) with a poor prognosis, considered an orphan disease in Colombia. An accurate diagnosis has implications for the patient and healthcare costs. Multidisciplinary discussion groups (MDGs) are considered the gold standard for diagnosis. There are no prior studies in Colombia on the experience of an MDG.

Objectives:

to evaluate the impact of an MDG in a quaternary care institution in Bogotá on the change in the diagnosis of patients with ILD and the concordance between the initial and final diagnosis of IPF.

Materials and methods:

patents with ILD evaluated from 2015-2018 by the MDG made up of pulmonologists, a radiologist, a pathologist and rheumatologists. The ATS/ERS/JRS/ALAT diagnostic criteria for IPF. A description of changes in the diagnosis and the agreement between the initial diagnosis and the MDG diagnosis of IPF.

Results:

out of 165 patients with ILD, the diagnosis was changed in 32.5%. The MDG confirmed IPF in 77.3% of patients with an initial diagnosis of ILD and 6.7% of those with a different initial diagnosis. When IPF was ruled out, the main diagnoses were chronic hypersensitivity pneumonitis (24.8%) and nonspecific interstitial pneumonia (23.5%). The Kappa index between the initial and final IPF diagnoses was 0.71 (0.60-0.82).

Conclusions:

the MDG on ILD had a significant clinical impact evidenced by a high percentage of change in the referral diagnosis. The initial diagnosis of IPF was ruled out in a significant percentage of patients and confirmed in a smaller group which did not have this initial clinical suspicion. (Acta Med Colomb 2022; 47. DOI:https://doi.org/10.36104/amc.2022.2017).

Key words: idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis; interstitial lung disease; multidisciplinary discussion; orphan disease; diagnosis; hypersensitivity pneumonitis

Resumen

Introducción:

la fibrosis pulmonar idiopática (FPI) es una enfermedad pulmonar intersticial (EPID) de mal pronóstico, considerada huérfana en Colombia. Un diagnóstico correcto tiene implicaciones para el paciente y los costos de atención. Los grupos de discusión multidisciplinaria (GDM) se consideran el estándar de oro en el diagnóstico. No hay estudios previos en Colombia de la experiencia de un GDM.

Objetivos:

evaluar el impacto de un GDM en una institución de cuarto nivel en Bogotá en cambio de diagnóstico de pacientes con EPID y la concordancia entre el diagnóstico inicial y final de FPI.

Material y métodos:

pacientes con EPID evaluados entre 2015-2018 por el GDM conformado por neumólogos, radiólogo, patólogo y reumatólogos. Criterios ATS/ERS/JRS/ALAT de diagnóstico de FPI. Descripción del cambio en el diagnóstico y concordancia entre el diagnóstico inicial y del GDM en FPI.

Resultados:

de 165 pacientes con EPID se cambió el diagnóstico en 35.2%. En 77.3% pacientes con diagnóstico inicial de FPI y en 6.7% con diagnóstico inicial diferente a FPI el GDM confirmó FPI. Al descartar FPI, los principales diagnósticos fueron neumonitis de hipersensibilidad en fase crónica (29.4%) y neumonía intersticial no específica (23.5%). El índice kappa entre el diagnóstico inicial y final de FPI fue 0.71 (0.60-0.82).

Conclusiones:

el GDM en EPID tuvo un importante impacto clínico demostrado por un alto porcentaje de cambió del diagnóstico de remisión. Se descartó el diagnóstico inicial de FPI en un porcentaje significativo de pacientes y se ratificó en un grupo menor sin esta sospecha clínica inicial. (Acta Med Colomb 2022; 47. DOI:https://doi.org/10.36104/amc.2022.2017).

Palabras clave: fibrosis pulmonar idiopática; enfermedad pulmonar intersticial; discusión multidisciplinaria; enfermedad huérfana; diagnóstico; neumonitis de hipersensibilidad

Introduction

Interstitial lung disease (ILD) includes more than 150 conditions that may have similar signs, symptoms and radiological presentations, but a different clinical approach and prognosis, requiring a correct diagnosis and treatment. Interstitial lung disease may be divided into conditions with an underlying disorder (such as collagen diseases) or a known exposure (hypersensitivity pneumonitis, asbestosis, silicosis), and idiopathic interstitial pneumonias (IIPs) 1,2.

The IIPs are a heterogenous group of diseases with diverse courses and prognoses, with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) being the most common and having the worst prognosis. Idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis is a specific form of chronic progressive fibrosing interstitial pneumonia of unknown etiology which occurs mainly in older adults, is limited to the lungs, and is associated with the histopathological or radiological pattern of usual interstitial pneumonia (UIP) 3. The natural history is a progressive decline in pulmonary function until death from respiratory failure or secondary to comorbidities, with a mean survival of three to five years from diagnosis 1,2,4,5.

Since 2002, the international scientific societies have recommended an integrated and dynamic approach to diagnosing IIPs in multidisciplinary discussion groups (MDGs) including pulmonologists, radiologists and pathologists 1-3,6. The MDG's diagnosis is associated with higher levels of diagnostic confidence and better interobserver agreement compared with each individual group component, and thus is considered the "gold standard" for diagnosing ILD 3,6-9. Although the yield of the MDGs may be evaluated in terms of diagnostic precision, the participants' experience and cost-effectiveness studies, diagnostic agreement is accepted as a substitute for diagnostic precision 10.

Idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis is accepted as an orphan disease in Colombia 11 and its accurate diagnosis has implications for the patient and for healthcare costs. As there are no studies in Colombia, our objective was to evaluate the impact of an MDG in a quaternary care institution in Bogotá on the change in diagnosis of patients with ILD and IPF.

Materials and methods

Patients and diagnostic criteria

All patients with ILD evaluated by the MDG between January 2015 and 2018 were included consecutively. The American Thoracic Society (ATS) and European Respiratory Society (ERS) criteria were used for diagnosing and classifying the ILDs 1,2, and the joint criteria of the ATS, ERS, Japanese Respiratory Society (JRS) and Latin American Thoracic Society (ALAT) were used for diagnosing IPF 3. This study was approved by the institutional Ethics and Research Committee and all patients signed consent for clinical information use.

Muldisciplinary discussion group

The MDG was created in 2014 according to the international guideline recommendations 3,6,12. It is composed of medical specialists in pulmonology, radiology, pathology and rheumatology with experience in ILD, and meets two to four times per month. The medical chart is reviewed, looking especially for risk factors for pulmonary disease, environmental exposure, and possible systemic illness. At a minimum, there must be ILD-related immunological tests, pulmonary function tests (spirometry and carbon monoxide diffusion) and a chest tomography performed within the last three months. Complementary tests such as arterial gases, the six-minute walking test, prior tomographies for comparison or bronchoscopy results are also presented. If there are pulmonary biopsies, the pathology findings are reviewed. If new tests are ordered by the MDG, a new presentation is conducted to determine the final diagnosis. The attending physician's diagnosis prior to the MDG is recorded, along with the definitive consensus diagnosis.

Statistical analysis

The percentage change in the diagnosis of overall ILD and IPF was described. The clinical and functional characteristics of IPF patients were described using averages and standard deviation for quantitative variables and proportions for qualitative variables. For IPF, the concordance between the diagnosis prior to the MDG and the definitive diagnosis by the MDG was evaluated using the kappa coefficient, as is customary in this type of studies. The SPSS 15.0 statistical software was used.

Results

A total of 165 patients with ILD were included, 55.2% of whom were males, with an average age of 69.0 ± 12.4 years. The frequency of the MDG referral diagnoses is shown in Table 1.

Table 1 ILD MDG referral diagnoses (N=165). 

Age, years 69.0 ± 12.4
Males, % 91 (55.2)
• MDG referral diagnoses:
• Idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis 75 (45.5)
• Nonspecific interstitial pneumonia 29 (17.6)
• Collagen disease-associated ILD 22 (13.3)
• Hypersensitivity pneumonitis 12 (7.3)
• Sarcoidosis 6(3.6)
• Organizing pneumonia 3 (1.8)
• Lymphoid interstitial pneumonia 3 (1.8)
• Pneumoconiosis 3 (1.8)
• Drug-induced pneumonitis 3 (1.8)
• Pulmonary ossification 3 (1.8)
• Others 8 (4.8)
MGD: multidisciplinary discussion group. Values given as average ± SD or N (%).

The MDG changed the diagnosis in 58 of the total 165 patients evaluated for ILD (35.2%), and in 17 of the 75 (22.7%) who had an initial diagnosis of IPF. In six of the 90 patients (6.7%) without an initial diagnosis of IPF, this diagnosis was confirmed by the MDG. The most common final diagnoses were IPF, connective tissue disease-associated interstitial lung disease (CTD-ILD), chronic hypersensitivity pneumonitis (HSP) and nonspecific interstitial pneumonia (NSIP) (Figure 1).

Figura 1 Diagnósticos finales por el GDM. GMD: grupo de discusión multidisciplinaria; NINE: neumonía intersticial no específica: NH: neumonitis de hipersensibilidad; ETC: enfermedad pulmonar intersticial asociada a enfermedad del tejido conectivo. 

The concordance between the initial and final MDG diagnosis of IPF using the kappa index was 0.71 (0.600.82) (Table 2). Of the 165 patients, 64 (38.8%) had a final diagnosis by the MDG of IPF. In the 17 patients in whom IPF was ruled out, the most common final diagnosis was chronic hypersensitivity pneumonitis in five (29.4%), NSIP in four (23.5%) and unclassifiable interstitial pneumonia (UIP) in three (17.6%).

Table 2 Agreement between the initial diagnosis and final MDG diagnosis. 

MDG Diagnosis Total
IPF No IPF
Initial diagnosis IPF 58 17 75
No IPF 6 84 90
Total 64 102 165
MGD: multidisciplinary discussion group; IPF: idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis. Kappa=0.71 (0.60-082).

Patients with a final MDG diagnosis of IPF were mostly males (75.0%) with a history of smoking (75%). A pulmonary biopsy was performed on 13 of these 64 patients (20.3%). Functionally, they had decreased forced vital capacity and carbon monoxide diffusion, hypoxemia and a high alveolar-arterial oxygen gradient (Table 3).

Table 3 Characteristics of patients with IPF (N=64). 

Age, years 68.4 ± 10.9
Males 48 (75.0)
BMI, kg/m2 26.8 ± 4.1
Smoking 47 (73.4)
Lung biopsy 13 (20.3)
FVC, % predicted 76.0 ± 17.2
FEV1, % predicted 78.8 ± 18.3
FEV1/FVC 82.0 ± 8.7
LDCO, % predicted 50.8 ± 13.9
PaCO2, mmHg 34.5 ± 3.8
PaO2, mmHg 53.4 ± 9.3
SaO2, % 87.2 ± 5.3
P(A-a)O2, mmHg 16.0 ± 8.3
IPF: idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis. BMI: body mass index; FVC: forced vital capacity; FEV 1 : forced expiratory volume in the first second; LD cO : carbon monoxide diffusion; PaCO 2 : partial pressure of carbon dioxide; PaO 2 : partial pressure of oxygen; SaO 2 : arterial oxygen saturation: P(A-a)O 2 : alveolar-arterial oxygen gradient. Values given as average ±SD or N (%).

Discussion

This ILD-focused MDG had a significant clinical impact shown by the change in diagnosis of a high percentage of evaluated patients. Specifically for IPF, this diagnosis was ruled out in a significant percentage of patients and confirmed in a smaller group without this initial clinical suspicion, which entails a change of medical conduct for the appropriate care of these patients.

Previous studies have shown that the MDG changes the diagnosis in a high percentage of cases. A study in two ILD specialized centers which included 90 patients reported a change in the ILD diagnosis in 53% of all cases and in 37% of patients referred with an IPF diagnosis 13. In another study, the MDG reached an accurate diagnosis in 88% of the cases and the diagnosis was changed in 58 patients (64%) 14. In a retrospective study of 938 cases, the MDG reached a definitive diagnosis in 80.5% of the cases and the diagnosis was changed in 41.9% 15.

In this study, we showed that the MDG changed the diagnosis in 35% of the cases which, while high, was less than what is reported in the literature 13-15; and that the concordance between the diagnosis prior to the MDG and the final MDG diagnosis was not so low (0.71). This lower percentage change in the diagnosis, and the concordance shown, could be explained by the fact that the diagnosis prior to the MDG was made by a pulmonologist rather than by internal medicine or general physicians, as in several of the mentioned studies.

In the total ILD group, the most common final MDG diagnoses were IPF, CTD-ILD and HSP, similar to what has been described in large studies 9,16. Both CTD and HSP are differential diagnoses of IPF, and it is recommended that these conditions be ruled out during the evaluation of patients with suspected IPF 3,6,16,17. In 3.6% of the patients in our study, the final diagnosis was UIP, less than the 5-15% reported in other studies 9,18. Unlike other ILD series, in this study we had few pneumoconiosis cases, which is explained by the fact that, in our institution, these patients are presented to the Occupational Pulmonology Board rather than the ILD MDG.

In a high percentage (22.7%), the initial diagnosis of IPF was ruled out, which has a high impact on the prognosis, clinical and therapeutic approach and, therefore, the healthcare costs of these patients. Idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis is a disease with a high health and cost burden 19,20 and a multidisciplinary approach to these patients with a more precise and early diagnosis is known to lead to better clinical outcomes 13,21,22.

In the Latin American context, with social, economic and healthcare system differences between our countries, the importance of applying the IPF guidelines is recognized. The importance of strengthening MDGs and ILD reference centers has been highlighted, recognizing that the diagnostic yield of these diseases is determined by the experience of these medical groups, which should ultimately lead to an optimization of healthcare resources and the rational use of high-cost treatments for these diseases 23.

In the 17 patients in whom the IPF diagnosis was ruled out, the most common final diagnoses were HSP (29.4%) and nonspecific interstitial pneumonia, as reported previously. It is important to highlight that three (17.6%) of these patients in whom IPF was ruled out had a final diagnosis of UIP, despite complete imaging studies, an exhaustive history of exposure and complementary studies to rule out CTD.

As has been described in other studies, the patients with a final MDG diagnosis of IPF were mainly males, with a history of smoking, and a characteristic functional behavior of decreased forced vital capacity and carbon monoxide diffusion, as well as hypoxemia. The performance of a lung biopsy in 20.3% of the patients was similar to what was described in the pivotal studies with which pirfenidone and nintedanib were approved for use in IPF 24,25 and is in line with the international recommendations which state that, in the presence of a suggestive clinical picture, a chest tomography can be used to diagnose the disease 3,6.

The composition of our MDG is similar to what has been suggested and reported in the literature 3,6,26. In a survey of 10 expert ILD centers in Europe, North America and Australia, 100% of the groups reported pulmonologists, radiologists and pathologists in attendance 27. In this same survey, the attendance of rheumatologists was only reported in 30% of these centers. In another study involving more centers, the attendance of the radiologist and pulmonologist was a common characteristic of all the groups, while the attendance of the rheumatologist and pathologist was more probable in academic center groups 28.

Although several articles consider that rheumatologists should participate more in the clinical evaluation of the patients and not directly in the MDGs, some studies highlight the importance of their participation in the MDGs. Expert groups have reported making new CTD-ILD diagnoses in approximately 10% of the patients 9, reclassifying patients initially considered to have IPF, or needing fewer additional invasive tests once the diagnosis of a possible CTD has been determined 29-31. In our experience, 15 new CTD-ILD diagnoses were made, and the CTD-ILD diagnosis was the second most frequent definitive diagnosis (22.4%) after IPF, highlighting the importance of including a rheumatologist in the diagnosis of these diseases.

Comparing the organization and structure of our MDG, we have similar characteristics to other multidisciplinary groups. That is, it is an exclusive group for ILD cases, meeting once or twice a week for 60 minutes each time, and requiring that case presentations include a minimum of a chest tomography, pulmonary function tests, blood tests for CTD studies, or lung biopsies or bronchoalveolar lavage, if needed 27.

Although MDGs are thought to be the "gold standard" for diagnosing ILD, the performance of these groups has some limitations. A study evaluating interobserver agreement on tomography criteria for UIP using the scientific societies' guidelines 3 reported only moderate agreement among the radiologists, regardless of their level of experience 32. It has also been shown that physicians with more experience at academic centers have a greater agreement in the diagnosis of IPF than those at nonacademic centers 33. Additionally, the degree of agreement in diagnosing IPF is reportedly greater than that of other common diseases such as HSP and NSIP, conditions which are often included in the differential diagnosis along with IPF 9.

As a strength of this study, we point out that it is the first paper showing the experience of an MDG on ILD in Colombia, with a high percentage of changes in diagnosis, which has a high clinical impact on the management of these patients. Our MDG has a clearly defined structure including professionals from different medical specialties with expertise in the approach to ILD patients and a minimum requirement for case presentations which allows the complete study of the patients. As ILD, and especially IPF, are low-prevalence diseases, we believe that the study sample is significant and supports the conclusions reached in the study.

The main weakness, similar to what has been reported in the literature on MDGs, is the lack of verification of the MDG results, which would require medium and long-term follow up of the patients with clinical outcomes to better confirm the final MDG diagnoses. In addition, it is important to perform cost studies to determine the economic outcome of the changes in diagnosis and management of these patients, which was not assessed in this paper.

In conclusion, our MDG had a significant clinical impact shown by a change in diagnosis of a high percentage of ILD patients evaluated. Specifically for IPF, this diagnosis was ruled out in a significant percentage of patients and was confirmed in a smaller group without this initial clinical suspicion, which entails a change in medical treatment for the appropriate care of these patients.

Referencias

1. American Thoracic Society/European Respiratory Society International Multidisciplinary Consensus Classification of the Idiopathic Interstitial Pneumonias. This joint statement of the American Thoracic Society (ATS), and the European Respiratory Society (ERS) was adopted by the ATS board of directors, June 2001 and by the ERS Executive Committee, June 2001. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2002; 165(2): 277-304. [ Links ]

2. Travis WD, Costabel U, Hansell DM, King TE, Jr., Lynch DA, Nicholson AG, et al. An official American Thoracic Society/European Respiratory Society statement: Update of the international multidisciplinary classification of the idiopathic interstitial pneumonias. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2013;188(6):733-48. [ Links ]

3. Raghu G, Collard HR, Egan JJ, Martinez FJ, Behr J, Brown KK, et al. An official ATS/ERS/JRS/ALAT statement: idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis: evidence-based guidelines for diagnosis and management. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2011;183(6):788-824. [ Links ]

4. American Thoracic Society. Idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis: diagnosis and treatment. International consensus statement. American Thoracic Society (ATS), and the European Respiratory Society (ERS). Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2000; 161(2 Pt 1):646-64. [ Links ]

5. Gonzalez-Garcia M, Chamorro J, Jaramillo C, Casas A, Maldonado D. Survival of patients with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis at the altitude of Bogota (2640 m). Acta Med Colomb. 2014;39(1):15-20. [ Links ]

6. Raghu G, Remy-Jardin M, Myers JL, Richeldi L, Ryerson CJ, Lederer DJ, et al. Diagnosis of Idiopathic Pulmonary Fibrosis. An Official ATS/ERS/JRS/ALAT Clinical Practice Guideline. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2018;198(5):e44-e68. [ Links ]

7. Flaherty KR, King TE, Jr., Raghu G, Lynch JP, 3rd, Colby TV, Travis WD, et al. Idiopathic interstitial pneumonia: what is the effect of a multidisciplinary approach to diagnosis? Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2004;170(8):904-10. [ Links ]

8. Thomeer M, Demedts M, Behr J, Buhl R, Costabel U, Flower CD, et al. Multidisciplinary interobserver agreement in the diagnosis of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis. The European Respiratory Journal. 2008;31(3):585-91. [ Links ]

9. Walsh SLF, Wells AU, Desai SR, Poletti V, Piciucchi S, Dubini A, et al. Multicentre evaluation of multidisciplinary team meeting agreement on diagnosis in diffuse parenchymal lung disease: a case-cohort study. Lancet Respir Med. 2016;4(7):557-65. [ Links ]

10. Walsh SLF. Multidisciplinary evaluation of interstitial lung diseases: current insights: Number 1 in the Series "Radiology" Edited by Nicola Sverzellati and Sujal Desai. European respiratory review: an official journal of the European Respiratory Society. 2017;26(144). [ Links ]

11. Ministerio de Salud y Protección Social. Resolución 2048 de 2015 Bogota 2015: https://www.minsalud.gov.co/Normatividad_Nuevo/Resoluci%C3%B3n%20 2048%20de%202015.pdf. [ Links ]

12. NICE. Idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis in adults: diagnosis and management. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence: Clinical Guidelines. London: National Institute of Health and Care Excellence; 2017. [ Links ]

13. Jo HE, Glaspole IN, Levin KC, McCormack SR, Mahar AM, Cooper WA, et al. Clinical impact of the interstitial lung disease multidisciplinary service. Respirology. 2016;21(8): 1438-44. [ Links ]

14. Guler SA, Berezowska SA, Christe A, Geiser T, Funke-Chambour M. Multi-disciplinary discussion for diagnosis of interstitial lung disease in real life. Swiss medical weekly. 2016;146:w14318. [ Links ]

15. De Sadeleer LJ, Meert C, Yserbyt J, Slabbynck H, Verschakelen JA, Verbeken EK, et al. Diagnostic Ability of a Dynamic Multidisciplinary Discussion in Interstitial Lung Diseases: A Retrospective Observational Study of 938 Cases. Chest. 2018;153(6):1416-23. [ Links ]

16. Lederer DJ, Martinez FJ. Idiopathic Pulmonary Fibrosis. N Engl J Med. 2018;378(19):1811-23. [ Links ]

17. Richeldi L, Collard HR, Jones MG. Idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis. Lancet. 2017;389(10082): 1941-52. [ Links ]

18. Skolnik K, Ryerson CJ. Unclassifiable interstitial lung disease: A review. Respirology. 2016;21(1):51-6. [ Links ]

19. Collard HR, Chen SY, Yeh WS, Li Q, Lee YC, Wang A, et al. Health care utilization and costs of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis in U.S. Medicare beneficiaries aged 65 years and older. Annals of the American Thoracic Society. 2015;12(7):981-7. [ Links ]

20. Raimundo K, Chang E, Broder MS, Alexander K, Zazzali J, Swigris JJ. Clinical and economic burden of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis: a retrospective cohort study. BMC PulmMed. 2016;16:2. [ Links ]

21. Aiello M, Bertorelli G, Bocchino M, Chetta A, Fiore-Donati A, Fois A, et al. The earlier, the better: Impact of early diagnosis on clinical outcome in idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis. Pulm Pharmacol Ther. 2017;44:7-15. [ Links ]

22. Molina-Molina M, Aburto M, Acosta O, Ancochea J, Rodriguez-Portal JA, Sauleda J, et al. Importance of early diagnosis and treatment in idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis. Expert Rev Respir Med. 2018;12(7):537-9. [ Links ]

23. Castillo D, Enghelmayer JI. Can Clinical Guidelines on Idiopathic Pulmonary Fibrosis be Applied in Ibero-America? The Need to Establish Centers of Reference. Archivos de bronconeumologia. 2020;56(3): 135-6. [ Links ]

24. Richeldi L, du Bois RM, Raghu G, Azuma A, Brown KK, Costabel U, et al. Efficacy and safety of nintedanib in idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis. N Engl J Med. 2014;370(22):2071-82. [ Links ]

25. King TE, Jr., Bradford WZ, Castro-Bernardini S, Fagan EA, Glaspole I, Glassberg MK, et al. A phase 3 trial of pirfenidone in patients with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis. NEngl J Med. 2014;370(22):2083-92. [ Links ]

26. Prasad JD, Mahar A, Bleasel J, Ellis SJ, Chambers DC, Lake F, et al. The interstitial lung disease multidisciplinary meeting: A position statement from the Thoracic Society of Australia and New Zealand and the Lung Foundation Australia. Respirology. 2017;22(7): 1459-72. [ Links ]

27. Jo HE, Corte TJ, Moodley Y, Levin K, Westall G, Hopkins P, et al. Evaluating the interstitial lung disease multidisciplinary meeting: a survey of expert centres. BMC Pulm Med. 2016;16:22. [ Links ]

28. Richeldi L, Launders N, Martinez F, Walsh SLF, Myers J, Wang B, et al. The characterisation of interstitial lung disease multidisciplinary team meetings: a global study. ERJ Open Res. 2019;5(2). [ Links ]

29. Chartrand S, Swigris JJ, Peykova L, Chung J, Fischer A. A Multidisciplinary Evaluation Helps Identify the Antisynthetase Syndrome in Patients Presenting as Idiopathic Interstitial Pneumonia. J Rheumatol. 2016;43(5):887-92. [ Links ]

30. Ferri C, Manfredi A, Sebastiani M, Colaci M, Giuggioli D, Vacchi C, et al. Interstitial pneumonia with autoimmune features and undifferentiated connective tissue disease: Our interdisciplinary rheumatology-pneumology experience, and review of the literature. Autoimmun Rev. 2016;15(1):61-70. [ Links ]

31. Levi Y, Israeli-Shani L, Kuchuk M, Epstein Shochet G, Koslow M, Shitrit D. Rheumatological Assessment Is Important for Interstitial Lung Disease Diagnosis. J Rheumatol. 2018;45(11):1509-14. [ Links ]

32. Walsh SL, Calandriello L, Sverzellati N, Wells AU, Hansell DM, Consort UIPO. Interobserver agreement for the ATS/ERS/JRS/ALAT criteria for a UIP pattern on CT. Thorax. 2016;71(1):45-51. [ Links ]

33. Walsh SLF, Maher TM, Kolb M, Poletti V, Nusser R, Richeldi L, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of a clinical diagnosis of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis: an international case-cohort study. The European Respiratory Journal. 2017;50(2). [ Links ]

Received: September 18, 2020; Accepted: July 02, 2021

* Correspondencia: Dr. Mauricio González-García. Bogotá, D.C. (Colombia). E-Mail: mgonzalez@neumologica.org

Creative Commons License This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License