Impact of an interstitial lung disease service in the diagnosis and management of interstitial lung disease in Singapore

The current gold standard for diagnosing interstitial lung disease (ILD) involves an ILD clinic evaluation, followed by discussion in a multidisciplinary meeting (MDM). However, there is a paucity of data on the impact of ILD MDMs on the diagnosis and management of ILDs in Southeast Asia. We studied...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Singapore medical journal 2020-06, Vol.61 (6), p.302-307
Hauptverfasser: Chai, Gin Tsen, Tan, Teck Choon, Lee, Yeong Shyan, Kaw, Gregory Jl, Chuah, Khoon Leong, Lim, Yi Jing, Abisheganaden, John Arputhan, Thong, Bernard Yh
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:The current gold standard for diagnosing interstitial lung disease (ILD) involves an ILD clinic evaluation, followed by discussion in a multidisciplinary meeting (MDM). However, there is a paucity of data on the impact of ILD MDMs on the diagnosis and management of ILDs in Southeast Asia. We studied the clinical impact of the ILD service on the diagnosis and management of ILDs at a university-affiliated tertiary hospital in Singapore. A single-centre retrospective review was done on 97 consecutive patients referred for evaluation to the ILD service from March 2016 to August 2017. Mean age of the patients was 67 ± 11 years. Gender distribution was almost equal (52% male), with a majority of never-smokers (63%). Mean forced vital capacity (FVC) was 1.81 ± 0.66 L (66% ± 20% predicted). The three commonest referral diagnoses were ILD of uncertain classification (n = 38, 39%), connective tissue disease-associated ILD (CTD-ILD) (n = 24, 25%) and idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) (n = 16, 17%). Following evaluation by the ILD service, there was a change of diagnosis in 60 (62%) patients and a change of management in 71 (73%) patients. The majority of consensus MDM diagnoses were IPF (n = 35, 36%), CTD-ILD (n = 30, 30%) and others (n = 15, 15%). There was a significant prognostic separation between the IPF and non-IPF diagnoses made following evaluation by the ILD service. The ILD service allowed for more precise subtyping of various ILDs. This is particularly useful for IPF patients, who can benefit from antifibrotic therapies.
ISSN:0037-5675
DOI:10.11622/smedj.2019069