Income and Other Contributors to Poor Outcomes in US Patients with Sarcoidosis

Rationale: Socioeconomic factors are associated with worse disease severity at presentation in sarcoidosis, but the relative importance of socioeconomic variables on morbidity and disease burden has not been fully elucidated.Objectives: To determine the association between income and sarcoidosis outcomes after controlling for socioeconomic and disease-related factors.Methods: Using the Sarcoidosis Advanced Registry for Cures database, we analyzed data from 2,318 patients with sarcoidosis in the United States to determine the effect of income and other variables on outcomes. We divided comorbidities arising after diagnosis into those likely related to steroid use and those likely related to sarcoidosis. We assessed the development of health-related, functional, and socioeconomic outcomes following the diagnosis of sarcoidosis.Measurements and Main Results: In multivariate analysis, low-income patients had significantly higher rates of new sarcoidosis-related comorbidities (=$85,000 [reference (Ref)]) and new steroid-related comorbidities (=$85,000 [Ref]), had lower health-related quality of life as assessed by the Sarcoidosis Health Questionnaire (P =$85,000 [Ref]). The use of supplemental oxygen, need for assistive devices, and job loss were more common in lower income patients. Development of comorbidities after diagnosis of sarcoidosis occurred in 63% of patients and were strong independent predictors of poor outcomes. In random forest modeling, income was consistently a leading predictor of outcome.Conclusions: These results suggest the burden from sarcoidosis preferentially impacts the economically disadvantaged

Diagnosis and Detection of Sarcoidosis An Official American Thoracic Society Clinical Practice Guideline

Background: The diagnosis of sarcoidosis is not standardized but is based on three major criteria: a compatible clinical presentation, finding nonnecrotizing granulomatous inflammation in one or more tissue samples, and the exclusion of alternative causes of granulomatous disease. There are no universally accepted measures to determine if each diagnostic criterion has been satisfied; therefore, the diagnosis of sarcoidosis is never fully secure.Methods: Systematic reviews and, when appropriate, meta-analyses were performed to summarize the best available evidence. The evidence was appraised using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach and then discussed by a multidisciplinary panel. Recommendations for or against various diagnostic tests were formulated and graded after the expert panel weighed desirable and undesirable consequences, certainty of estimates, feasibility, and acceptability.Results: The clinical presentation, histopathology, and exclusion of alternative diagnoses were summarized. On the basis of the available evidence, the expert committee made 1 strong recommendation for baseline serum calcium testing, 13 conditional recommendations, and 1 best practice statement. All evidence was very low quality.Conclusions: The panel used systematic reviews of the evidence to inform clinical recommendations in favor of or against various diagnostic tests in patients with suspected or known sarcoidosis. The evidence and recommendations should be revisited as new evidence becomes available