This secondary analysis demonstrates poor prognosis linked to PPFE-like findings in idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis, suggesting new monitoring strategies.
Background Idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) is a progressive fibrosing interstitial lung disease (ILD) with poor prognosis. Radiological pleuroparenchymal fibroelastosis (PPFE)–like findings, characterized by upper-lobe subpleural fibrosis, have been associated with worse outcome in IPF. While short leukocyte telomere length (LTL) is a recognized prognostic factor, its relationship with PPFE-like findings remains unclear. Methods We conducted a secondary analysis of an ongoing ILD cohort. IPF patients who underwent LTL measurement by quantitative PCR were classified into those with PPFE-like findings on high-resolution computed tomography (IPF/PPFE group) and those without such findings (IPF/UIP group). Clinical characteristics, pulmonary function, telomere length, and outcomes were compared. Age-adjusted LTL was evaluated using healthy controls. Prognostic factors were analyzed using Cox regression. Results Among 179 IPF patients, 29 (16%) were assigned to the IPF/PPFE group. Compared to the IPF/UIP group (n=150), the IPF/PPFE group had lower body mass index and forced vital capacity, and significantly shorter LTL (p=0.002), with more patients below the 10th percentile of healthy controls (37.9% versus 12.0%). The IPF/PPFE group showed greater respiratory functional decline and higher mortality (65.5% versus 25.3%, p<0.001). In survival analysis, both PPFE-like findings and shortened LTL predicted worse outcomes; however, only PPFE-like findings remained independently associated with mortality in multivariate analysis. Conclusions IPF patients with PPFE-like findings constitute a distinct high-risk phenotype with shorter telomeres, accelerated progression, and poor prognosis. These findings highlight the clinical importance of recognizing PPFE-like changes and telomere biology in IPF for risk stratification and emphasize the need for close monitoring and early intervention.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Otoshi et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: