An easily applicable limited/extensive staging system for SSc-ILD, based on combined evaluation with HRCT and PFTs, provides discriminatory prognostic information.

Many patients with an idiopathic interstitial pneumonia (IIP) have clinical features that suggest an underlying autoimmune process but do not meet established criteria for a connective tissue disease (CTD). Researchers have proposed differing criteria and terms to describe these patients, and lack of consensus over nomenclature and classification limits the ability to conduct prospective studies of a uniform cohort.The "European Respiratory Society/American Thoracic Society Task Force on Undifferentiated Forms of Connective Tissue Disease-associated Interstitial Lung Disease" was formed to create consensus regarding the nomenclature and classification criteria for patients with IIP and features of autoimmunity.The task force proposes the term "interstitial pneumonia with autoimmune features" (IPAF) and offers classification criteria organised around the presence of a combination of features from three domains: a clinical domain consisting of specific extra-thoracic features, a serologic domain consisting of specific autoantibodies, and a morphologic domain consisting of specific chest imaging, histopathologic or pulmonary physiologic features.A designation of IPAF should be used to identify individuals with IIP and features suggestive of, but not definitive for, a CTD. With IPAF, a sound platform has been provided from which to launch the requisite future research investigations of a more uniform cohort. @ERSpublications ERS/ATS task force provides nomenclature and classification criteria for patients with IIP and autoimmune features

No abstract

Progressive fibrotic interstitial lung diseases (ILDs) are characterised by major reductions in quality of life and survival and have similarities to certain malignancies. However, palliative care expertise is conspicuously inaccessible to many patients with ILD. Unmet patient and caregiver needs include effective pharmacological and psychosocial interventions to improve quality of life throughout the disease course, sensitive advanced care planning, and timely patient-centred end-of-life care. The incorrect perception that palliative care is synonymous with end-of-life care, with no role earlier in the course of ILD, has created a culture of neglect. Interventions that aim to improve life expectancy are often prioritised without rigorous assessment of the individual's health and psychosocial needs, thereby inadvertently reducing quality of life. As in malignant disorders, radical interventions to slow disease progression and palliative measures to improve quality of life should both be prioritised. Efficient patient-centred models of palliative care must be validated, taking into account religious and cultural differences, as well as variability of resources. Effective implementation of palliative care for ILD will require multidisciplinary participation from clinicians, specialist nurses, psychologists, social workers, and, in some countries, non-governmental faith and community-based organisations with access to palliative care expertise.