Frontiers in immunology · 2023
Diagnostic testing for interstitial lung disease in common variable immunodeficiency: a systematic review.
Систематический обзорПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Bintalib Heba M, van de Ven Annick, Jacob Joseph, Davidsen Jesper Rømhild, Fevang Børre, Hanitsch Leif G, Malphettes Marion, van Montfrans Joris, Maglione Paul J, Milito Cinzia, Routes John, Warnatz Klaus, Hurst John R
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: Common variable immunodeficiency related interstitial lung disease (CVID-ILD, also referred to as GLILD) is generally considered a manifestation of systemic immune dysregulation occurring in up to 20% of people with CVID. There is a lack of evidence-based guidelines for the diagnosis and management of CVID-ILD.
AIM: To systematically review use of diagnostic tests for assessing patients with CVID for possible ILD, and to evaluate their utility and risks.
METHODS: EMBASE, MEDLINE, PubMed and Cochrane databases were searched. Papers reporting information on the diagnosis of ILD in patients with CVID were included.
RESULTS: 58 studies were included. Radiology was the investigation modality most commonly used. HRCT was the most reported test, as abnormal radiology often first raised suspicion of CVID-ILD. Lung biopsy was used in 42 (72%) of studies, and surgical lung biopsy had more conclusive results compared to trans-bronchial biopsy (TBB). Analysis of broncho-alveolar lavage was reported in 24 (41%) studies, primarily to exclude infection. Pulmonary function tests, most commonly gas transfer, were widely used. However, results varied from normal to severely impaired, typically with a restrictive pattern and reduced gas transfer.
CONCLUSION: Consensus diagnostic criteria are urgently required to support accurate assessment and monitoring in CVID-ILD. ESID and the ERS e-GLILDnet CRC have initiated a diagnostic and management guideline through international collaboration.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/, identifier CRD42022276337.
AIM: To systematically review use of diagnostic tests for assessing patients with CVID for possible ILD, and to evaluate their utility and risks.
METHODS: EMBASE, MEDLINE, PubMed and Cochrane databases were searched. Papers reporting information on the diagnosis of ILD in patients with CVID were included.
RESULTS: 58 studies were included. Radiology was the investigation modality most commonly used. HRCT was the most reported test, as abnormal radiology often first raised suspicion of CVID-ILD. Lung biopsy was used in 42 (72%) of studies, and surgical lung biopsy had more conclusive results compared to trans-bronchial biopsy (TBB). Analysis of broncho-alveolar lavage was reported in 24 (41%) studies, primarily to exclude infection. Pulmonary function tests, most commonly gas transfer, were widely used. However, results varied from normal to severely impaired, typically with a restrictive pattern and reduced gas transfer.
CONCLUSION: Consensus diagnostic criteria are urgently required to support accurate assessment and monitoring in CVID-ILD. ESID and the ERS e-GLILDnet CRC have initiated a diagnostic and management guideline through international collaboration.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/, identifier CRD42022276337.