INTRODUCTION: Acute exacerbation of interstitial lung disease (AE-ILD) often results in death and poses significant challenges in clinical management. While corticosteroids are frequently employed, the optimal regimen and their clinical efficacy remain uncertain. To address this knowledge gap, we undertook a systematic review to evaluate the impact of steroid therapy on clinical outcomes in patients experiencing AE-ILD.
METHOD: Following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines, we systematically searched multiple databases, identifying 12 454 articles. After removing duplicates and screening titles and abstracts, 447 articles were selected for full-text review. Ultimately, nine studies met inclusion criteria, comparing high-dose corticosteroids with low-dose or non-steroidal interventions in treating AE-ILD. Key outcomes included in-hospital and long-term mortality, as well as AE recurrence.
RESULTS: Analysis of nine studies (total n=18 509) revealed differential treatment effects based on the ILD subtype. In non-idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) ILD, high-dose corticosteroid therapy (>1.0 mg/kg prednisolone) demonstrated improved survival (adjusted HR 0.221, 95% CI 0.102 to 0.480, p<0.001) and reduced 90-day mortality. Early tapering of high-dose corticosteroids (>10% reduction within 2 weeks) reduced in-hospital mortality (adjusted HR 0.37, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.99). Higher cumulative doses in the first 30 days (5185±2414 mg/month vs 3133±1990 mg/month) were associated with lower recurrence rates (adjusted HR 0.61, 95% CI 0.41 to 0.90, p=0.02). In IPF patients, however, high-dose therapy showed inconsistent benefits, with some studies reporting increased mortality risk (OR 1.075, 95% CI 1.044 to 1.107, p<0.001).
CONCLUSION: This review emphasises the potential benefits of individualised treatment approaches for AE-ILD but highlights the need for caution in making definitive recommendations. Although high-dose corticosteroids may show promise, particularly in non-IPF cases, the current evidence is inconsistent, and the lack of robust supporting literature makes it difficult to draw firm conclusions. Further research through randomised controlled trials is necessary to refine and optimise therapeutic strategies for AE-ILD.
| Discipline Area | Score |
|---|---|
| Respirology/Pulmonology |  |
| Emergency Medicine |  |
| Internal Medicine | |
As an Internist treating often treating patients with acute exacerbations of interstitial lung diseases, I found this article very useful for everyday clinical practice.
Important analysis that underlines the wisdom of individualized therapy vs protocol-driven medicine.
Helpful systematic review highlighting the differential response patterns to steroids in IPF vs non-IPF patients with acute exacerbations of ILD (non-IPF benefit from treatment), as well as the dose-response relationships and treatment duration. This invites clinicians to review their treatment strategies for acute exacerbations of ILD.
Retrospective study suggests benefit of high-dose steroids in exacerbations of non-IPF ILD. Lack of specificity for the term non-IPF ILD not particularly helpful for clinicians. Perhaps the strongest point of the paper is to highlight the lack of good clinical trials to answer the proposed question.
The authors lack fundamental knowledge in conducting systematic reviews and meta-analyses. No evidence profiles or summary of findings tables are presented. The grouping of ILD is inappropriate, and there is a lack of subgroup analyses. All of the included studies are cohort studies, and the certainty of evidence is not addressed. This study is not useful.