BackgroundThe role of bronchoalveolar lavage fluid (BAL) lymphocyte% to diagnose chronic hypersensitivity pneumonitis (CHP) is unclear. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of BAL lymphocyte% in the diagnosis of CHP.MethodsWe searched Medline, Embase and Cochrane library from inception to August 2019. Individual patient data were obtained to test performance characteristics of BAL lymphocyte% at different thresholds. Random-effects models were used for pooled estimates, with comparisons made between CHP and non-CHP interstitial lung diseases (ILD).ResultsFifty-three studies were included in the systematic review and 42 in the meta-analysis. The pooled estimate for BAL lymphocyte% 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 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), and CTD-ILD (p=0.0824), but not between sarcoidosis (p=0.0966). Using individual patient data from eight studies, lymphocyte% threshold >20% provided sensitivity of 68.1% and 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% in CHP.ConclusionsBAL lymphocyte% is higher in CHP compared to IPF and other IIP, with higher thresholds providing improved specificity at the cost of sensitivity. However, parent studies are at risk of incorporation bias, and prospective studies should evaluate the additive discriminate value of BAL lymphocyte% to accurately diagnose CHP.
RationalePatients with fibrotic interstitial lung disease (ILD) frequently develop resting or exertional hypoxaemia. There is heterogeneity in clinical practice and a paucity of evidence guiding supplemental oxygen use in this patient population. The objectives of this study were to build international expert-based consensus on the indications and goals of supplemental oxygen from the perspective of healthcare providers, and identify potential barriers to its access.MethodsSemistructured interviews and a comprehensive literature search informed items for the Delphi survey, with items not meeting consensus included in round 2. Round 3 contained survey questions regarding regional funding coverage for oxygen therapy. A priori definitions of consensus were median scores of 4 (agree) to 5 (strongly agree) for “agreement”, 1 (strongly disagree) to 2 (disagree) for “disagreement” or 3 (unsure) with an interquartile range of 0–1.Results42 out of 45 (93%) experts completed all three survey rounds, representing 17 countries. 20 out of 36 items met consensus for agreement or disagreement, 10 items met consensus for unsure and four items did not meet consensus. Experts agreed that oxygen should be recommended for patients with severe resting hypoxaemia and in cases of exertional desaturation to <85–89%, particularly with attributable symptoms or exercise limitation. There are regional differences in funding coverage for oxygen, based on desaturation thresholds, clinical symptoms and testing requirements.ConclusionsExperts achieved consensus on 20 items guiding supplemental oxygen use in fibrotic ILD. These findings may inform research, clinical recommendations and funding policy.
We describe a 56-year-old female patient hospitalised with COVID-19 in April 2020 who had persistent respiratory symptoms after radiographic and microbiologic recovery. X-ray of the chest demonstrated an elevated right hemidiaphragm while fluoroscopy confirmed unilateral diaphragmatic paralysis. Symptoms resolved gradually, concurrent with restoration of right hemidiaphragm function. Thus, we describe a rare cause of postacute sequelae of COVID-19 dyspnoea.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.