Disease Behaviour Classification: A pragmatic model for predicting outcomes in Interstitial Lung Disease.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: The interstitial lung diseases (ILD) are a heterogenous group of disorders with similar clinical presentation, but widely varying prognoses. The use of a pragmatic disease behaviour classification (DBC), first proposed in international guidelines in 2013, categorises diseases into five behavioural classes based on their predicted clinical course. This study aimed to determine the prognostic utility of the DBC in an ILD cohort. METHODS: Consecutive patients presented at the weekly multidisciplinary meeting (MDM) of a specialist ILD centre were included. MDM consensus was obtained for diagnosis and DBC category (1-5). Baseline and serial clinical and physiological data were collected over the study period (median 3.9 years, range 0-5.4 years). The relationship between DBC and prognostic outcomes was explored. RESULTS: 137 ILD patients, [64 (47%) female] were included with mean age 67.0 ± 1.1 years, baseline FVC% 72.7 ± 1.7, and baseline DLco% 57.8 ± 1.6%. Patients were stratified into DBC by consensus at MDM: DBC1 n = 0 (0%), DBC2 n = 16 (12%), DBC3 n = 10 (7.3%), DBC4 n = 55 (40%), and DBC5 n = 56 (41%). On univariable Cox regression, increasing DBC class was associated with poorer progression-free survival (HR 1.6, 95% CI 1.2-2.0, p < 0.001). On multivariable Cox regression, DBC remained predictive of PFS when combined with age and gender (HR 1.4, 95% CI 1.1-1.9, p = 0.011), baseline FVC% (HR 1.5, 95% CI 1.1-1.8, p = 0.003) and ILD diagnosis (HR 1.6, 95% CI 1.2-2.2, p < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: DBC as determined at ILD multidisciplinary meeting may be a useful prognostic tool for the management of ILD patients.

Priorities and expectations of patients attending a multidisciplinary interstitial lung disease clinic.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: The significant and progressive morbidity associated with ILD mean that patients often struggle with the impact of this disease on their QOL and independence. To date, no studies have investigated the importance of multidisciplinary care on patient experience in ILD. We aimed to determine the expectations and priorities of patients attending a tertiary referral centre multidisciplinary ILD clinic. In particular, we sought to learn how important the multidisciplinary element of the clinic was to patients and which aspects of the clinic were most valued. METHODS: An 18-item patient questionnaire was developed in conjunction with expert physicians and specialist nurses involved in the ILD clinic and sent to all patients on the centre's ILD registry at the time of the study (n = 240). Patients rated the importance of different aspects of their experience of attending the clinic. Data collected were analysed using descriptive statistics. Comparisons across disease severity were made using two-sided Z-tests for independent proportions. RESULTS: A total of 100 respondents comprised the study group. Almost all respondents valued the multidisciplinary aspect of the clinic. Obtaining an accurate diagnosis and improving their disease understanding was most important to respondents. The importance of the ILD specialist nurse for both education and support increased with worsening disease severity. CONCLUSION: Our results suggest that a multidisciplinary approach to the management of ILD with additional focus on patient education, as well as tailoring care to disease severity, is a plausible pathway to improving the patient experience with ILD.