Systemic sclerosis (SSc) is a complex, multiorgan, autoimmune disease. Lung fibrosis occurs in ∼80% of patients with SSc; 25% to 30% develop progressive interstitial lung disease (ILD). The pathogenesis of fibrosis in SSc-associated ILD (SSc-ILD) involves cellular injury, activation/differentiation of mesenchymal cells, and morphological/biological changes in epithelial/endothelial cells. Risk factors for progressive SSc-ILD include older age, male sex, degree of lung involvement on baseline high-resolution computed tomography imaging, reduced Dl_CO, and reduced FVC. SSc-ILD does not share the genetic risk architecture observed in idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF), with key risk factors yet to be identified. Presence of anti-Scl-70 antibodies and absence of anti-centromere antibodies indicate increased likelihood of progressive ILD. Elevated levels of serum Krebs von den Lungen-6 and C-reactive protein are both associated with SSc-ILD severity and predict SSc-ILD progression. A promising prognostic indicator is serum chemokine (C-C motif) ligand 18. SSc-ILD shares similarities with IPF, although clear differences exist. Histologically, a nonspecific interstitial pneumonia pattern is commonly observed in SSc-ILD, whereas IPF is defined by usual interstitial pneumonia. The course of SSc-ILD is variable, ranging from minor, stable disease to a progressive course, whereas all patients with IPF experience progression of disease. Although appropriately treated patients with SSc-ILD have better chances of stabilization and survival, a relentlessly progressive course, akin to IPF, is seen in a minority. Better understanding of cellular and molecular pathogenesis, genetic risk, and distinctive features of SSc-ILD and identification of robust prognostic biomarkers are needed for optimal disease management.

With more than 900,000 confirmed cases worldwide and nearly 50,000 deaths during the first 3 months of 2020, the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has emerged as an unprecedented health care crisis. The spread of COVID-19 has been heterogeneous, resulting in some regions having sporadic transmission and relatively few hospitalized patients with COVID-19 and others having community transmission that has led to overwhelming numbers of severe cases. For these regions, health care delivery has been disrupted and compromised by critical resource constraints in diagnostic testing, hospital beds, ventilators, and health care workers who have fallen ill to the virus exacerbated by shortages of personal protective equipment. Although mild cases mimic common upper respiratory viral infections, respiratory dysfunction becomes the principal source of morbidity and mortality as the disease advances. Thoracic imaging with chest radiography and CT are key tools for pulmonary disease diagnosis and management, but their role in the management of COVID-19 has not been considered within the multivariable context of the severity of respiratory disease, pretest probability, risk factors for disease progression, and critical resource constraints. To address this deficit, a multidisciplinary panel comprised principally of radiologists and pulmonologists from 10 countries with experience managing patients with COVID-19 across a spectrum of health care environments evaluated the utility of imaging within three scenarios representing varying risk factors, community conditions, and resource constraints. Fourteen key questions, corresponding to 11 decision points within the three scenarios and three additional clinical situations, were rated by the panel based on the anticipated value of the information that thoracic imaging would be expected to provide. The results were aggregated, resulting in five main and three additional recommendations intended to guide medical practitioners in the use of chest radiography and CT in the management of COVID-19.

Background

Invasive fungal diseases (IFDs) remain important causes of morbidity and mortality. The consensus definitions of the Infectious Diseases Group of the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer and the Mycoses Study Group have been of immense value to researchers who conduct clinical trials of antifungals, assess diagnostic tests, and undertake epidemiologic studies. However, their utility has not extended beyond patients with cancer or recipients of stem cell or solid organ transplants. With newer diagnostic techniques available, it was clear that an update of these definitions was essential.

Methods

To achieve this, 10 working groups looked closely at imaging, laboratory diagnosis, and special populations at risk of IFD. A final version of the manuscript was agreed upon after the groups' findings were presented at a scientific symposium and after a 3-month period for public comment. There were several rounds of discussion before a final version of the manuscript was approved.

Results

There is no change in the classifications of "proven," "probable," and "possible" IFD, although the definition of "probable" has been expanded and the scope of the category "possible" has been diminished. The category of proven IFD can apply to any patient, regardless of whether the patient is immunocompromised. The probable and possible categories are proposed for immunocompromised patients only, except for endemic mycoses.

Conclusions

These updated definitions of IFDs should prove applicable in clinical, diagnostic, and epidemiologic research of a broader range of patients at high-risk.