Idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) is a form of chronic interstitial lung disease of unknown cause, which predominantly affects elderly men who are current or former smokers. Even though it is an uncommon disease, it is of great importance because of its severity and poor prognosis. In recent decades, several pharmacological treatment modalities have been investigated for the treatment of this disease, and the classic concepts have therefore been revised. The purpose of these guidelines was to define evidence-based recommendations regarding the use of pharmacological agents in the treatment of IPF in Brazil. We sought to provide guidance on the practical issues faced by clinicians in their daily lives. Patients of interest, Intervention to be studied, C omparison of intervention and Outcome of interest (PICO)-style questions were formulated to address aspects related to the use of corticosteroids, N-acetylcysteine, gastroesophageal reflux medications, endothelin-receptor antagonists, phosphodiesterase-5 inhibitors, pirfenidone, and nintedanib. To formulate the PICO questions, a group of Brazilian specialists working in the area was assembled and an extensive review of the literature on the subject was carried out. Previously published systematic reviews with meta-analyses were analyzed for the strength of the compiled evidence, and, on that basis, recommendations were developed by employing the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach. The authors believe that the present document represents an important advance to be incorporated in the approach to patients with IPF, aiming mainly to improve its management, and can become an auxiliary tool for defining public policies related to IPF.

Background COVID-19 is a new disease and the most common complication is pneumonia. The Radiological Society of North America (RSNA) proposed an expert consensus for imaging classification for COVID-19 pneumonia. Objective To evaluate sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, and reproducibility of chest CT standards in the beginning of the Brazilian COVID-19 outbreak. Methods Cross-sectional study performed from March 1st to April 14th, 2020. Patients with suspected COVID-19 pneumonia submitted to RT-PCR test and chest computed tomography (CT) were included. Two thoracic radiologists blinded for RT-PCR and clinical and laboratory results classified every patient scan according to the RSNA expert consensus. A third thoracic radiologist also evaluated in case of discordance, and consensus was reached among the three radiologists. A typical appearance was considered a positive chest CT for COVID-19 pneumonia. Sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values were calculated. Cohen’s kappa coefficient was used to evaluate intra- and inter-rater agreements. Results A total of 159 patients were included (mean age 57.9 ± 18.0 years; 88 [55.3%] males): 86 (54.1%) COVID-19 and 73 (45.9%) non-COVID-19 patients. Eighty (50.3%) patients had a positive CT for COVID-19 pneumonia. Sensitivity and specificity of typical appearance were 88.3% (95%CI, 79.9–93.5) and 94.5% (95%CI, 86.7–97.8), respectively. Intra- and inter-rater agreement were assessed (Cohen’s kappa = 0.924, P = 0.06; Cohen’s kappa=0.772, P = 0.05, respectively). Conclusion Chest CT categorical classification of COVID-19 findings is reproducible and demonstrates high level of agreement with clinical and RT-PCR diagnosis of COVID-19. In RT-PCR scarcity scenarios or in equivocal cases, it may be useful for attending physicians in the evaluation of suspected COVID-19 pneumonia patients attended at the emergency unit.

No abstract

Chronic unexplained dyspnea and exercise intolerance represent common, distressing symptoms in outpatients. Clinical history taking and physical examination are the mainstays for diagnostic evaluation. However, the cause of dyspnea may remain elusive even after comprehensive diagnostic evaluation-basic laboratory analyses; chest imaging; pulmonary function testing; and cardiac testing. At that point (and frequently before), patients are usually referred to a pulmonologist, who is expected to be the main physician to solve this conundrum. In this context, cardiopulmonary exercise testing (CPET), to assess physiological and sensory responses from rest to peak exercise, provides a unique opportunity to unmask the mechanisms of the underlying dyspnea and their interactions with a broad spectrum of disorders. However, CPET is underused in clinical practice, possibly due to operational issues (equipment costs, limited availability, and poor remuneration) and limited medical education regarding the method. To counter the latter shortcoming, we aspire to provide a pragmatic strategy for interpreting CPET results. Clustering findings of exercise response allows the characterization of patterns that permit the clinician to narrow the list of possible diagnoses rather than pinpointing a specific etiology. We present a proposal for a diagnostic workup and some illustrative cases assessed by CPET. Given that airway hyperresponsiveness and pulmonary vascular disorders, which are within the purview of pulmonology, are common causes of chronic unexplained dyspnea, we also aim to describe the role of bronchial challenge tests and the diagnostic reasoning for investigating the pulmonary circulation in this context.