Dataset Information

Gremlin-1 for the Differential Diagnosis of Idiopathic Pulmonary Fibrosis Versus Other Interstitial Lung Diseases: A Clinical and Pathophysiological Analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Purpose

The differential diagnosis of interstitial lung diseases (ILDs), particularly idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) versus other non-IPF ILDs, is important for selecting the appropriate treatment. This retrospective study aimed to explore the utility of gremlin-1 for the differential diagnosis.

Methods

Serum gremlin-1 concentrations were measured using an ELISA in 50 patients with IPF, 42 patients with non-IPF ILD, and 30 healthy controls. The baseline clinical data, including pulmonary functions, prognosis, and three serum biomarkers (Krebs von den Lungen-6 [KL6], surfactant protein-D [SP-D], and lactate dehydrogenase [LDH]), were obtained through a medical record review for analyzing their associations with serum gremlin-1 concentrations. To evaluate the origin of gremlin-1, we performed immunostaining on lung sections.

Results

Serum gremlin-1 concentrations were significantly higher in patients with IPF (mean concentration, 14.4 ng/mL), followed by those with non-IPF ILD (8.8 ng/mL) and healthy controls (1.6 ng/mL). The area under the curve for IPF versus non-IPF ILDs was 0.759 (95% confidence interval, 0.661-0.857), which was superior to that of KL6/SP-D/LDH. The sensitivity and specificity for gremlin-1 (cutoff, 10.4 ng/mL) was 72 and 69%, respectively. By contrast, serum gremlin-1 concentrations were not associated with the pulmonary functions nor the prognosis in all patients with ILDs. In immunostaining, the gremlin-1 was broadly upregulated in IPF lungs, particularly at myofibroblasts, bronchiolar/alveolar epithelium, and CD163-positive M2-like macrophages.

Conclusions

Gremlin-1 may be a useful biomarker to improve the diagnostic accuracy for IPF compared to non-IPF ILDs, suggesting a role of this molecule in the pathogenesis of IPF.

SUBMITTER: Aoshima Y

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8203516 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionDifferences in the organisation of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) and interstitial lung diseases (ILDs) in the Nordic countries are not well described. Diagnostic setups, treatment modalities and follow-up plans may vary due to national, cultural and epidemiological features. The aim of the present study was to describe the different organisation of diagnostics and treatment of IPF and ILD in the Nordic countries.MethodsAll university and regional hospitals with respiratory physicians were invited to respond to a questionnaire collecting data on the number of physicians, nurses, patients with ILD/IPF, the presence of and adherence to disease-specific national and international guidelines, diagnosis and treatment including ILD-specific palliation and rehabilitation programmes.ResultsTwenty-four university and 22 regional hospitals returned the questionnaire. ILD and IPF incidence varied between 1.4 and 20/100,000 and 0.4 and 10/100,000, respectively. Denmark and Estonia have official national plans for the organisation of ILD. The majority of patients are managed at the university hospitals. The regional hospitals each manage 46 (5-200) patients with ILD and 10 (0-20) patients with IPF. There are from one to four ILD centres in each country with a median of two ILD specialists employed. Specialised ILD nurses are present in nine hospitals. None of the Nordic countries have national guidelines made by health authorities. The respiratory societies in Sweden, Norway and Denmark have developed national guidelines. All hospitals except two use the ATS/ERS/JRS/ALAT IPF guidelines from 2011. The limited number of ILD specialists, ILD-specialised radiologists and pathologists and the low volume of ILD centres were perceived as bottlenecks for implementation of guidelines. Twenty of the 24 university hospitals have multidisciplinary conferences (MDCs). Pulmonologists and radiologists take part in all MDCs while pathologists only participate at 17 hospitals. Prescription of pirfenidone is performed by all university hospitals except in Estonia. Triple therapy with steroid, azathioprine and N-acetylcysteine is not used. No hospitals have specific palliation programmes for patients with ILD/IPF, but 36 hospitals have the possibility of referring patients for palliative care, mostly based on existing oncology palliative care teams; seven hospitals have rehabilitation programmes for ILD.ConclusionThere are obvious differences between the organisations of ILD patients in the Nordic countries. We call for national plans that consider the challenge of cultural and geographical differences and suggest the establishment of national reference centres and satellite collaborative hospitals to enable development of common guidelines for diagnostics, therapy and palliation in this patient group.

Project description:The presence of rare comorbidities in patients with cardiovascular disease (CVD) presents a diagnostic challenge to cardiologists. In evaluating these patients, cardiologists are faced with a unique opportunity to shorten diagnosis times and direct patients towards correct treatment pathways. Idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF), a type of interstitial lung disease (ILD), is an example of a rare disease where patients frequently demonstrate comorbid CVD. Both CVD and IPF most commonly affect a similar patient demographic: men over the age of 60 years with a history of smoking. Moreover, IPF and heart failure (HF) share a number of symptoms. As a result, patients with IPF can be misdiagnosed with HF and vice versa. This article aims to increase awareness of IPF among cardiologists, providing an overview for cardiologists on the differential diagnosis of IPF from HF, and describing the signs and symptoms that would warrant referral to a pulmonologist with expertise in ILD. Once patients with IPF have received a diagnosis, cardiologists can have an important role in managing patients who are candidates for a lung transplant or those who develop pulmonary hypertension (PH). Group 3 PH is one of the most common cardiovascular complications diagnosed in patients with IPF, its prevalence varying between reports but most often cited as between 30% and 50%. This review summarizes the current knowledge on Group 3 PH in IPF, discusses data from clinical trials assessing treatments for Group 1 PH in patients with IPF, and highlights that treatment guidelines recommend against these therapies in IPF. Finally, this article provides the cardiologist with an overview on the use of the two approved treatments for IPF, the antifibrotics pirfenidone and nintedanib, in patients with IPF and CVD comorbidities. Conversely, the impact of treatments for CVD comorbidities on patients with IPF is also discussed.Funding: F. Hoffmann-La Roche, Ltd.Plain Language Summary: Plain language summary available for this article.

Project description:Background and objectiveIdiopathic Pulmonary Fibrosis (IPF) is a progressive disease of unknown etiology. The diagnosis is based on the identification of a pattern of usual interstitial pneumonia either by high resolution computed tomography and/or histology. However, a similar pattern can be observed in other fibrotic lung disorders, and precise diagnosis remains challenging. Studies on biomarkers contributing to the differential diagnosis are scanty, and still in an exploratory phase. Our aim was to evaluate matrix metalloproteinase (MMP)-28, which has been implicated in abnormal wound healing, as a biomarker for distinguishing IPF from fibrotic non-IPF patients.MethodsThe cell localization of MMP28 in lungs was examined by immunohistochemistry and its serum concentration was measured by ELISA in two different populations. The derivation cohort included 82 IPF and 69 fibrotic non-IPF patients. The validation cohort involved 42 IPF and 41 fibrotic non-IPF patients.ResultsMMP28 was detected mainly in IPF lungs and localized in epithelial cells. In both cohorts, serum concentrations of MMP28 were significantly higher in IPF versus non-IPF (mostly with lung fibrosis associated to autoimmune diseases and chronic hypersensitivity pneumonitis) and healthy controls (ANOVA, p<0.0001). The AUC of the derivation cohort was 0.718 (95%CI, 0.635-0.800). With a cutoff point of 4.5 ng/mL, OR was 5.32 (95%CI, 2.55-11.46), and sensitivity and specificity of 70.9% and 69% respectively. The AUC of the validation cohort was 0.690 (95%CI, 0.581-0.798), OR 4.57 (95%CI, 1.76-12.04), and sensitivity and specificity of 69.6% and 66.7%. Interestingly, we found that IPF patients with definite UIP pattern on HRCT showed higher serum concentrations of MMP28 than non-IPF patients with the same pattern (7.8±4.4 versus 4.9±4.4; p = 0.04). By contrast, no differences were observed when IPF with possible UIP-pattern were compared (4.7±3.2 versus 3.9±3.0; p = 0.43).ConclusionThese findings indicate that MMP28 might be a useful biomarker to improve the diagnostic certainty of IPF.