RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Therapeutic strategies in patients with interstitial pneumonia with autoimmune features (IPAF) and histological usual interstitial pneumonia (UIP) pattern (IPAF-UIP) have not been thoroughly evaluated. We compared the therapeutic efficacy of anti-fibrotic therapy with that of immunosuppressive treatment for patients with IPAF-UIP. METHODS: In this retrospective case series, we identified consecutive IPAF-UIP patients treated with anti-fibrotic therapy or immunosuppressive therapy. Clinical characteristics, one-year treatment response, acute exacerbation, and survival were studied. We performed a stratified analysis by the pathological presence or absence of inflammatory cell infiltration. RESULTS: Twenty-seven patients with anti-fibrotic therapy and 29 with immunosuppressive treatment were included. There was a significant difference in one-year forced vital capacity (FVC) change between patients with anti-fibrotic treatment (4 in 27 improved, 12 stable, and 11 worsened) and those with immunosuppressive treatment (16 in 29 improved, eight stable, and five worsened) (p = 0.006). There was also a significant difference in one-year St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) change between patients with anti-fibrotic therapy (2 in 27 improved, ten stable, and 15 worsened) and those with immunosuppressive treatment (14 in 29 improved, 12 stable, and worsened) (p < 0.001). There was no significant difference in survival between the groups (p = 0.32). However, in the subgroup with histological inflammatory cell infiltration, survival was significantly better with immunosuppressive therapy (p = 0.02). CONCLUSION: In IPAF-UIP, immunosuppressive therapy seemed to be superior to anti-fibrotic treatment in terms of therapeutic response, and provided better outcomes in the histological inflammatory subgroup. Further prospective studies are needed to clarify the therapeutic strategy in IPAF-UIP.