Search

The role of immunity in the pathogenesis of various pulmonary diseases, particularly interstitial lung diseases (ILDs), is being increasingly appreciated as mechanistic discoveries advance our knowledge in the field. Immune-mediated lung diseases demonstrate clinical and immunological heterogeneity and can be etiologically categorized into connective tissue disease (CTD)-associated, exposure-related, idiopathic, and other miscellaneous lung diseases including sarcoidosis, and post-lung transplant ILD. The immunopathogenesis of many of these diseases remains poorly defined and possibly involves either immune dysregulation, abnormal healing, chronic inflammation, or a combination of these, often in a background of genetic susceptibility. The heterogeneity and complex immunopathogenesis of ILDs complicate management, and thus a collaborative treatment team should work toward an individualized approach to address the unique needs of each patient. Current management of immune-mediated lung diseases is challenging; the choice of therapy is etiology-driven and includes corticosteroids, immunomodulatory drugs such as methotrexate, cyclophosphamide and mycophenolate mofetil, rituximab, or other measures such as discontinuation or avoidance of the inciting agent in exposure-related ILDs. Antifibrotic therapy is approved for some of the ILDs (e.g., idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis) and is being investigated for many others and has shown promising preliminary results. A dire need for advances in the management of immune-mediated lung disease persists in the absence of standardized management guidelines.

The pillars of scientific progress in rheumatology are experimentation and observation, followed by the publication of reliable and credible results. These data must then be independently verified, validated, and replicated. Peer and journal-specific technical and statistical reviews are paramount to improving rigor and reproducibility. In addition, research integrity, ethics, and responsible conduct training can help to reduce research misconduct and improve scientific evidence. As the number of published articles in rheumatology grows, the field has become critical for determining reproducibility. Prospective, longitudinal, randomized controlled clinical trials are the gold standard for evaluating clinical intervention efficacy and safety in this space. However, their applicability to larger, more representative patient populations with rheumatological disorders worldwide could be limited due to time, technical, and cost constraints involved with large-scale clinical trials. Accordingly, analysis of real-world, patient-centered clinical data retrieved from established healthcare inventories, such as electronic health records, medical billing reports, and disease registries, are increasingly used to report patient outcomes. Unfortunately, it is unknown whether this clinical research paradigm in rheumatology could be deployed in medically underserved regions.