Der Stellenwert der bronchoalveolären Lavage bei der Diagnostik der idiopathischen Lungenfibrose – eine Analyse unter Berücksichtigung des Proteingehaltes

The impact of bronchoalveolar lavage on the diagnosis of undifferentiated interstitial lung disease alongside a multidisciplinary discussion

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Cellular analysis of bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL) fluid may aid diagnosis in patients with undifferentiated interstitial lung disease (ILD). The utility of this test in the diagnostic process in conjunction with a multidisciplinary discussion (MDD) is not known. We aim to assess and compare interobserver agreement and diagnostic confidence before and after presenting BAL results in an ILD-MDD.

METHODS

Patients undergoing investigations for ILD at Waikato Hospital were recruited. At the ILD-MDD two respiratory physicians and one respiratory radiologist participated in the discussion, and their diagnosis and diagnostic confidence were assessed at four sequential time points. Assessors were blinded to each others diagnosis and diagnostic confidence scores. The four sequential time points were (1) after clinical and radiology presentation; (2) after subsequent MDD; (3) after reviewing BAL results; (4) after final MDD with all results. Interobserver agreements were calculated using Fleiss κ statistic.

RESULTS

36 patients were recruited, and 77.8% were male. In the first step, the interobserver agreement was substantial κ = 0.622 (95% CI 0.47-0.77), improving in step 2 following MDD to κ = 0.78 (95% CI 0.624-0.935), in step 3 κ = 0.776 (95% CI 0.614-0.937) and step 4 achieved almost perfect agreement of κ = 0.969 (95% CI 0.828-1.11). The diagnostic confidence for individual and group diagnosis increased with the presentation of BAL with and without multidisciplinary MDD.

CONCLUSION

We found that BAL cellular analysis improves interobserver agreement and confidence in diagnosis following MDD, thus aiding decision-making in cases with undifferentiated ILD.

S2K Guideline for Diagnosis of Idiopathic Pulmonary Fibrosis

Idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) is a severe and often fatal disease. Diagnosis of IPF requires considerable expertise and experience. Since the publication of the international IPF guideline in the year 2011 and the update 2018 several studies and technical advances have occurred, which made a new assessment of the diagnostic process mandatory. The goal of this guideline is to foster early, confident, and effective diagnosis of IPF. The guideline focusses on the typical clinical context of an IPF patient and provides tools to exclude known causes of interstitial lung disease including standardized questionnaires, serologic testing, and cellular analysis of bronchoalveolar lavage. High-resolution computed tomography remains crucial in the diagnostic workup. If it is necessary to obtain specimens for histology, transbronchial lung cryobiopsy is the primary approach, while surgical lung biopsy is reserved for patients who are fit for it and in whom a bronchoscopic diagnosis did not provide the information needed. After all, IPF is a diagnosis of exclusion and multidisciplinary discussion remains the golden standard of diagnosis.

Bronchoalveolar lavage fluid lymphocytosis in chronic hypersensitivity pneumonitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

The role of bronchoalveolar lavage fluid (BALF) lymphocyte percentage in diagnosing chronic hypersensitivity pneumonitis (CHP) is unclear. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL) lymphocyte percentage in the diagnosis of CHP.

Methods

We searched Medline, Embase and the Cochrane Library from inception to August 2019. Individual patient data were obtained to test performance characteristics of BAL lymphocyte percentage at different thresholds. Random-effects models were used for pooled estimates, with comparisons made between CHP and non-CHP interstitial lung diseases (ILDs).

Results

Fifty-three studies were included in the systematic review and 42 in the meta-analysis. The pooled estimate for BAL lymphocyte percentage was 42.8% (95% CI 37.7–47.8, I2=95.3%) in CHP, 10.0% (95% CI 6.9–13.1, I2=91.2%) in idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF), 23.1% (95% CI 3.0–43.2, I2=85.2%) in non-IPF idiopathic interstitial pneumonia (IIP), 23.4% (95% CI 11.0–35.9, I2=45.7%) in connective-tissue disease associated ILD (CTD-ILD) and 31.2% (95% CI 17.6–44.8, I2=95.2%) in sarcoidosis. Results differed between CHP and IPF (p<0.0001), non-IPF IIP (p=0.0309) or CTD-ILD (p=0.0824), but not between CHP and sarcoidosis (p=0.0966). Using individual patient data from eight studies, a lymphocyte percentage threshold of >20% provided a sensitivity of 68.1% and a specificity of 64.8% for CHP. Higher thresholds provided lower sensitivity with higher specificity. Older age and ever having smoked were associated with lower lymphocyte percentage in CHP.

Conclusions

BAL lymphocyte percentage is higher in CHP compared to IPF and other IIPs, with higher thresholds providing improved specificity at the cost of sensitivity. However, the parent studies are at risk of incorporation bias and prospective studies should evaluate the additive discriminate value of BAL lymphocyte percentage to accurately diagnose CHP.

Diagnosis of Idiopathic Pulmonary Fibrosis. An Official ATS/ERS/JRS/ALAT Clinical Practice Guideline

BACKGROUND

This document provides clinical recommendations for the diagnosis of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF). It represents a collaborative effort between the American Thoracic Society, European Respiratory Society, Japanese Respiratory Society, and Latin American Thoracic Society.

METHODS

The evidence syntheses were discussed and recommendations formulated by a multidisciplinary committee of IPF experts. The evidence was appraised and recommendations were formulated, written, and graded using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach.

RESULTS

The guideline panel updated the diagnostic criteria for IPF. Previously defined patterns of usual interstitial pneumonia (UIP) were refined to patterns of UIP, probable UIP, indeterminate, and alternate diagnosis. For patients with newly detected interstitial lung disease (ILD) who have a high-resolution computed tomography scan pattern of probable UIP, indeterminate, or an alternative diagnosis, conditional recommendations were made for performing BAL and surgical lung biopsy; because of lack of evidence, no recommendation was made for or against performing transbronchial lung biopsy or lung cryobiopsy. In contrast, for patients with newly detected ILD who have a high-resolution computed tomography scan pattern of UIP, strong recommendations were made against performing surgical lung biopsy, transbronchial lung biopsy, and lung cryobiopsy, and a conditional recommendation was made against performing BAL. Additional recommendations included a conditional recommendation for multidisciplinary discussion and a strong recommendation against measurement of serum biomarkers for the sole purpose of distinguishing IPF from other ILDs.

CONCLUSIONS

The guideline panel provided recommendations related to the diagnosis of IPF.