Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Current issue
  • ERJ Early View
  • Past issues
  • ERS Guidelines
  • Authors/reviewers
    • Instructions for authors
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Open access
    • COVID-19 submission information
    • Peer reviewer login
  • Alerts
  • Subscriptions
  • ERS Publications
    • European Respiratory Journal
    • ERJ Open Research
    • European Respiratory Review
    • Breathe
    • ERS Books
    • ERS publications home

User menu

  • Log in
  • Subscribe
  • Contact Us
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
  • ERS Publications
    • European Respiratory Journal
    • ERJ Open Research
    • European Respiratory Review
    • Breathe
    • ERS Books
    • ERS publications home

Login

European Respiratory Society

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Current issue
  • ERJ Early View
  • Past issues
  • ERS Guidelines
  • Authors/reviewers
    • Instructions for authors
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Open access
    • COVID-19 submission information
    • Peer reviewer login
  • Alerts
  • Subscriptions

From the authors

R. Pellegrino, V. Brusasco, R. O. Crapo, G. Viegi, J. Wanger, P. Gustafsson, M. R. Miller, R. T. McKay, R. Casaburi, N. McIntire, O. F. Pedersen, F. Burgos, R. Jensen, D. Navajas
European Respiratory Journal 2006 27: 1323-1324; DOI: 10.1183/09031936.06.00018506
R. Pellegrino
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
V. Brusasco
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
R. O. Crapo
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
G. Viegi
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
J. Wanger
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
P. Gustafsson
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
M. R. Miller
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
R. T. McKay
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
R. Casaburi
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
N. McIntire
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
O. F. Pedersen
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
F. Burgos
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
R. Jensen
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
D. Navajas
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

We would like to thank P. Enright for giving us the opportunity to clarify some issues raised by the recently published interpretative strategies for lung function tests 1. P. Enright's letter is important in that it reinforces our shared belief that guidelines are always relative and complete consensus is a utopian ideal. It also clarifies why he chose not to be listed among the authors of this section, and shows the difference in perception of time among individuals. Our records show that there was a Task Force meeting in Stockholm in 2002, which was almost entirely devoted to the divergent opinions about interpretation, most of them raised by P. Enright. Over the next year, we had a number of additional discussions by telephone and e-mail before a final vote was taken in Vienna in 2003.

The first point raised by P. Enright addresses the interpretation of a low forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1)/vital capacity (VC) when the FEV1 is normal. We recognise that figure 2 and table 6 do not specifically include the possibility that such a pattern may be a normal variant, but we are confident that the average reader will be careful enough to note this possibility is clearly included in the accompanying text. The text also stresses that an interpretation of airflow obstruction will depend on the prior probability of lung disease and on additional tests. We share P. Enright's concern that relying only on FEV1/VC to establish treatment may be wrong, but we believe the possibility of disease must be considered in subjects with this pattern. In fact, although his letter claims “no associations with clinical disease or increased risk of future disease have been established for this pattern”, another of his recent publications notes that this very spirometric pattern is associated with an increased risk of death 2. It should also be noted that in particular populations, e.g. athletes with large lungs, this pattern may be present due to unequal growth of airways and lung parenchyma, whereas in asthmatic patients this may be due to airway narrowing. Distinguishing between these two conditions is an imperative task to help patients.

P. Enright also questions whether the characterisation of the pattern of normal FEV1/VC with a low VC and normal total lung capacity (TLC) is consistent with airflow obstruction. This concern appears to be based mostly on the lack of studies of clinical correlates and outcomes associated with this pattern, as if studies on lung mechanics should not count much in interpreting lung function tests. A number of studies have indeed shown that a number of asthmatics exhibit a similar decrease in FEV1 and VC or FVC after they have been exposed to inhaled agents that are known to narrow or close the airways without a change in TLC 3, 4. This has also been reported in chronic airflow obstruction 5 and the mechanism has been reproduced in healthy subjects 6, 7. Altogether, these data are the foundation of the document's cautious statement that a normal FEV1/VC with low FEV1 and normal TLC may be consistent with airflow obstruction, an interpretation offered in the 1993 European Respiratory Society (ERS) guidelines on lung function testing 8.

We agree that there is a risk for the over-treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), but we believe the major part of this risk is not in the interpretative strategies published by the American Thoracic Society (ATS)/ERS (and supported by most of the Task Force members). We believe the suggestion to use the statistical lower limit of normal for FEV1/VC and not per cent of predicted or fixed ratio to diagnose obstructive abnormalities is one of the real advantages of these guidelines. It will reduce the number of false-positive diagnoses as compared with using the Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease or ERS/ATS COPD guidelines.

It is unlikely that a single interpretive strategy will work for all patients at all times, given the diversity of respiratory disorders that may be encountered. Likewise, persons with responsibility for the interpretation of spirometric tests must recognise this fact. Furthermore, it is our expectation that those who interpret spirometry tests have appropriate training and experience to do so. These guidelines are not “cookbooks”. While manufacturers may use our guidelines as a basis for computer interpretation of results, all tests should ultimately be read by appropriately trained personnel.

We hope the readers of the recent American Thoracic Society/European Respiratory Society guidelines on lung function will agree that it represents a general consensus even though it was not unanimous. We are confident they will understand that it is only with an integrated interpretation of clinical and functional data by physicians that we may be of help and not harm to our patients.

    • © ERS Journals Ltd

    References

    1. ↵
      Pellegrino R, Viegi G, Brusasco V, et al. Interpretative strategies for lung function tests. Eur Respir J 2005;26:948–968.
      OpenUrlFREE Full Text
    2. ↵
      Mannino DM, Buist AS, Petty TL, Enright PL, Redd SC. Lung function and mortality in the United States: data from the First National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey follow up study. Thorax 2003;58:388–393.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    3. ↵
      Olive JT, Hyatt RE. Maximal expiratory flow and total respiratory resistance during induced bronchoconstriction in asthmatic subjects. Am Rev Respir Dis 1972;106:366–376.
      OpenUrlPubMedWeb of Science
    4. ↵
      Gibbons WJ, Sharma A, Lougheed D, Macklem PT. Detection of excessive bronchoconstriction in asthma. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 1996;153:582–589.
      OpenUrlPubMedWeb of Science
    5. ↵
      Guerry-Force ML, Müller NL, Wright JL, et al. A comparison of bronchiolitis obliterans with organizing pneumonia, usual interstitial pneumonia, and small airways disease. Am Rev Respir Dis 1987;135:705–712.
      OpenUrlPubMedWeb of Science
    6. ↵
      Hyatt RE, Okeson GC, Rodarte JR. Influence of expiratory flow limitation on the pattern of lung emptying in man. J Appl Physiol 1973;35:411–419.
      OpenUrlFREE Full Text
    7. ↵
      Rodarte JR, Hyatt RE, Cortese DA. Influence of expiratory flow on closing capacity at low expiratory flow rates. J Appl Physiol 1975;39:60–65.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    8. ↵
      Quanjer PH, Tammeling GJ, Cotes JE, Pedersen OF, Peslin R, Yernault J-C. Standardized lung function testing. Eur Respir J 1993;6: Suppl. 16 5–40.
      OpenUrlFREE Full Text
    PreviousNext
    Back to top
    View this article with LENS
    Vol 27 Issue 6 Table of Contents
    European Respiratory Journal: 27 (6)
    • Table of Contents
    • Index by author
    Email

    Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on European Respiratory Society .

    NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

    Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
    From the authors
    (Your Name) has sent you a message from European Respiratory Society
    (Your Name) thought you would like to see the European Respiratory Society web site.
    CAPTCHA
    This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
    Print
    Citation Tools
    From the authors
    R. Pellegrino, V. Brusasco, R. O. Crapo, G. Viegi, J. Wanger, P. Gustafsson, M. R. Miller, R. T. McKay, R. Casaburi, N. McIntire, O. F. Pedersen, F. Burgos, R. Jensen, D. Navajas
    European Respiratory Journal Jun 2006, 27 (6) 1323-1324; DOI: 10.1183/09031936.06.00018506

    Citation Manager Formats

    • BibTeX
    • Bookends
    • EasyBib
    • EndNote (tagged)
    • EndNote 8 (xml)
    • Medlars
    • Mendeley
    • Papers
    • RefWorks Tagged
    • Ref Manager
    • RIS
    • Zotero

    Share
    From the authors
    R. Pellegrino, V. Brusasco, R. O. Crapo, G. Viegi, J. Wanger, P. Gustafsson, M. R. Miller, R. T. McKay, R. Casaburi, N. McIntire, O. F. Pedersen, F. Burgos, R. Jensen, D. Navajas
    European Respiratory Journal Jun 2006, 27 (6) 1323-1324; DOI: 10.1183/09031936.06.00018506
    del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Technorati logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Connotea logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
    Full Text (PDF)

    Jump To

    • Article
      • References
    • Info & Metrics
    • PDF
    • Tweet Widget
    • Facebook Like
    • Google Plus One

    More in this TOC Section

    • Clinical outcomes of bronchiectasis in India
    • Reply: Clinical outcomes of bronchiectasis in India
    • Risk factors for disease progression in fibrotic hypersensitivity pneumonitis
    Show more Correspondence

    Related Articles

    Navigate

    • Home
    • Current issue
    • Archive

    About the ERJ

    • Journal information
    • Editorial board
    • Press
    • Permissions and reprints
    • Advertising

    The European Respiratory Society

    • Society home
    • myERS
    • Privacy policy
    • Accessibility

    ERS publications

    • European Respiratory Journal
    • ERJ Open Research
    • European Respiratory Review
    • Breathe
    • ERS books online
    • ERS Bookshop

    Help

    • Feedback

    For authors

    • Instructions for authors
    • Publication ethics and malpractice
    • Submit a manuscript

    For readers

    • Alerts
    • Subjects
    • Podcasts
    • RSS

    Subscriptions

    • Accessing the ERS publications

    Contact us

    European Respiratory Society
    442 Glossop Road
    Sheffield S10 2PX
    United Kingdom
    Tel: +44 114 2672860
    Email: journals@ersnet.org

    ISSN

    Print ISSN:  0903-1936
    Online ISSN: 1399-3003

    Copyright © 2023 by the European Respiratory Society