Observational studyScientific reports2026
Prevalence of drug-induced interstitial lung disease in Saudi Arabia: a real-world data study.
Observational study in Scientific reports, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Drug-induced interstitial lung disease (DI-ILD) is a serious but often under-recognized complication of various medications. Despite its potential reversibility if detected early, estimating its true prevalence is difficult due to clinical overlap with other interstitial lung disease (ILD) subtypes and the absence of specific biomarkers. We conducted a retrospective observational study using the Saudi Real-world Evidence Network between 2016 and 2023. ILD cases were identified using ICD-10 code J84.XX, and DI-ILD was defined either by diagnostic codes (J70.2-J70.4) or as a potential DI-ILD group based on recent exposure to drugs previously associated with pulmonary toxicity within six months prior to diagnosis. Demographics, comorbidities, and prescribing patterns were analyzed, and prevalence was calculated per 100,000 individuals. Among 2,858,141 individuals, 1,907 ILD cases were identified (66.7 per 100,000). Coded DI-ILD accounted for 1.26 per 100,000, while potential DI-ILD based on drug exposure was 28.6 per 100,000. Patients with potential DI-ILD were more often female (62.5%), older (mean age 61.1 ± 15.4 years), and had a higher comorbidity burden (mean Charlson Comorbidity Index 2.0 ± 2.1). Among ILD patients, 42.9% had recent exposure to at least one drug associated with pulmonary toxicity, most commonly antiarrhythmics (18.7%), including amiodarone (6.5%). These findings highlight the diagnostic complexity of DI-ILD in routine clinical practice and underscore the importance of systematic medication history review when evaluating patients with ILD. Exposure-based prevalence estimates should be interpreted cautiously and may serve as indicators of potential risk rather than confirmed diagnoses, supporting the need for enhanced diagnostic awareness and strengthened pharmacovigilance approaches.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.