Executive Summary: Diagnosis and Evaluation of Hypersensitivity Pneumonitis: CHEST Guideline and Expert Panel Report.

{"article_title":"Executive Summary: Diagnosis and Evaluation of Hypersensitivity Pneumonitis: CHEST Guideline and Expert Panel Report.","author":"Fern\u00e1ndez P\u00e9rez ER, Travis WD, Lynch DA, Brown KK, Johannson KA, Selman M, Ryu JH, Wells AU, Tony Huang YC, Pereira CAC, Scholand MB, Villar A, Inase N, Evans RB, Mette SA, Frazer-Green L","journal_title":"Chest","issn":"1931-3543","isbn":"","publication_date":"2021-08-01","volume":"160","issue":"2","first_page":"595","page_count":"","accession_number":"33865835","doi":"10.1016\/j.chest.2021.03.067","publisher":"Elsevier","doctype":"Journal Article","subjects":"Alveolitis, Extrinsic Allergic diagnosis; Clinical Decision-Making; Diagnosis, Differential; Evidence-Based Medicine; Humans","interest_area":["Pulmonology"],"abstract":"Background: The purpose of this summary is to provide a synopsis of evidence-based and consensus-derived guidance for clinicians to improve individual diagnostic decision-making for hypersensitivity pneumonitis (HP) and decrease diagnostic practice variability. Study Design and Methods: Approved panelists developed key questions regarding the diagnosis of HP using the PICO (Population, Intervention, Comparator, and Outcome) format. MEDLINE (via PubMed) and the Cochrane Library were systematically searched for relevant literature, which was supplemented by manual searches. References were screened for inclusion and vetted evaluation tools were used to assess the quality of included studies, to extract data, and to grade the level of evidence supporting each recommendation or statement. The quality of the evidence was assessed using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) approach. Graded recommendations and ungraded consensus-based statements were drafted and voted on using a modified Delphi technique to achieve consensus. Results: The systematic review of the literature based on 14 PICO questions resulted in 14 key action statements: 12 evidence-based, graded recommendations, and 2 ungraded consensus-based statements. All evidence was of very low quality. Interpretation: Diagnosis of HP should employ a patient-centered approach and include a multidisciplinary assessment that incorporates the environmental and occupational exposure history and CT pattern to establish diagnostic confidence prior to considering BAL and\/or lung biopsy. Additional research is needed on the performance characteristics and generalizability of exposure assessment tools and traditional and new diagnostic tests in modifying clinical decision-making for HP, particularly among those with a provisional diagnosis. Copyright \u00a9 2021 American College of Chest Physicians. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.","url":"https:\/\/search.ebscohost.com\/login.aspx?direct=true&db=mdl&AN=33865835","isPdfLink":false,"isSAML":false,"an":"33865835","number_other":"","type_pub":"","issn_electronic":"1931-3543","languages":"English","language":"eng","date_entry":"Date Created: 20210418 Date Completed: 20220103 Latest Revision: 20220103","date_update":"20240104","titleSource":"Chest [Chest] 2021 Aug; Vol. 160 (2), pp. 595-615. Date of Electronic Publication: 2021 Apr 15.","date_pub_cy":"","type_document":"","contract_publisher":"","authored_on":"2021-08-01","description":"Background: The purpose of this summary is to provide a synopsis of evidence-based and consensus-derived guidance for clinicians to improve individual diagnostic decision-making for hypersensitivity pneumonitis (HP) and decrease diagnostic practice variability.<br \/>Study Design and Methods: Approved panelists developed key questions regarding the diagnosis of HP using the PICO (Population, Intervention, Comparator, and Outcome) format. MEDLINE (via PubMed) and the Cochrane Library were systematically searched for relevant literature, which was supplemented by manual searches. References were screened for inclusion and vetted evaluation tools were used to assess the quality of included studies, to extract data, and to grade the level of evidence supporting each recommendation or statement. The quality of the evidence was assessed using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) approach. Graded recommendations and ungraded consensus-based statements were drafted and voted on using a modified Delphi technique to achieve consensus.<br \/>Results: The systematic review of the literature based on 14 PICO questions resulted in 14 key action statements: 12 evidence-based, graded recommendations, and 2 ungraded consensus-based statements. All evidence was of very low quality.<br \/>Interpretation: Diagnosis of HP should employ a patient-centered approach and include a multidisciplinary assessment that incorporates the environmental and occupational exposure history and CT pattern to establish diagnostic confidence prior to considering BAL and\/or lung biopsy. Additional research is needed on the performance characteristics and generalizability of exposure assessment tools and traditional and new diagnostic tests in modifying clinical decision-making for HP, particularly among those with a provisional diagnosis.<br \/> (Copyright © 2021 American College of Chest Physicians. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)","upload_link":"https:\/\/search.ebscohost.com\/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&scope=site&db=mdl&AN=33865835&authtype=shib&custid=ns346513&group=main&profile=eds","no_of_pages":"","authored_by":"Fern\u00e1ndez P\u00e9rez ER, Travis WD, Lynch DA, Brown KK, Johannson KA, Selman M, Ryu JH, Wells AU, Tony Huang YC, Pereira CAC, Scholand MB, Villar A, Inase N, Evans RB, Mette SA, Frazer-Green L"}