Back

Baseline predictors of mortality in non-idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis interstitial lung disease - A retrospective cohort study at a tertiary centre in Malaysia

Sia, L. C.; Wong, C. K.; Sivakumar, D.; Chandran, D. M.; Yeoh, K. L.; Ling, S.-Y.; Leong, W. L.; Pang, Y.-K.

2026-02-15 respiratory medicine
10.64898/2026.02.12.26346139 medRxiv
Show abstract

Background and AimsThe prognosis of interstitial lung diseases (ILDs) other than idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) has not been studied as extensively as IPF. This study aimed to evaluate baseline factors associated with mortality in non-IPF ILD, including demographic characteristics, respiratory function test (RFT), comorbidities, and ILD subtypes. MethodsThis retrospective cohort study analysed prospectively collected data of patients with non-IPF ILD at a single tertiary centre in Malaysia (2010-2023). Patients without baseline RFT or HRCT were excluded. Survival was assessed using Kaplan-Meier analysis, and mortality predictors were identified using Cox regression. ResultsThe mean age was 60 {+/-} 15 years, with a male-to-female ratio of 1:3. Indian ethnicity constituted the largest group (n = 109, 47.6%). The mean baseline forced vital capacity (FVC) was 53.3 {+/-} 21% predicted. An FVC <50% predicted, age [&ge;]50 years at diagnosis, specific ILD subtypes, and ethnicity were independently associated with mortality. Compared with Malays, both Chinese (hazard ratio [HR] 9.86, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.27-76.89, p = 0.037) and Indians (HR 8.59, 95% CI 1.14-64.69, p = 0.001) were associated with a higher risk of death. Kaplan-Meier analysis demonstrated significant differences in survival across non-IPF ILD subtypes (log-rank p = 0.048), with hypersensitivity pneumonitis showing the poorest prognosis (mean survival 6.1 years). ConclusionEthnicity emerged as an independent prognostic factor for mortality in non-IPF ILD. The underlying mechanisms remain unclear and may reflect differences in genetic variation, cultural factors, or environmental exposures. Larger prospective studies are required to validate these findings.

Matching journals

The top 4 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
European Respiratory Journal
54 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
22.9%
2
BMJ Open Respiratory Research
32 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
15.0%
3
Respiratory Research
19 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
8.6%
4
ERJ Open Research
44 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
6.5%
50% of probability mass above
5
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 22%
4.9%
6
American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine
39 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
4.9%
7
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 31%
4.9%
8
Thorax
32 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
2.6%
9
Pediatric Pulmonology
14 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
2.4%
10
Frontiers in Medicine
113 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.9%
11
Archives of Clinical and Biomedical Research
28 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
1.7%
12
Journal of Cystic Fibrosis
15 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
1.7%
13
Medicine
30 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.7%
14
Frontiers in Pharmacology
100 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.7%
15
Clinical Immunology
21 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.5%
16
American Journal of Respiratory Cell and Molecular Biology
38 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
1.4%
17
Journal of Internal Medicine
12 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.4%
18
BMJ Open
554 papers in training set
Top 11%
1.1%
19
Frontiers in Immunology
586 papers in training set
Top 6%
1.0%
20
Epidemiology and Infection
84 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.9%
21
Metabolites
50 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
0.9%
22
Genomics
60 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.8%
23
Journal of Translational Medicine
46 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.5%
24
Annals of Translational Medicine
17 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.5%
25
Medical Research Archives
11 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
0.5%