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
    • 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
    • Peer reviewer login
  • Alerts
  • Subscriptions

From the authors

J. Zielinski, M. Bednarek, D. Gorecka
European Respiratory Journal 2006 28: 1068; DOI: 10.1183/09031936.06.00096906
J. Zielinski
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
M. Bednarek
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
D. Gorecka
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

We thank N.H. Chavannes and T.R.J. Schermer for their interest in our recent article 1. The letter is an important contribution to the ongoing discussion on spirometry testing in primary care for the diagnosis and management of chronic lung diseases 2. The study by Schermer et al. 3 found that spirometry testing in the primary care setting was of comparable quality to spirometry testing in a hospital-based lung function laboratory.

We congratulate Schermer et al. 3 on their excellent and, up to now, difficult to reproduce results. Several factors favoured good comparability of the results in their study. All subjects had a diagnosis of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and had previous experience with spirometry testing. All subjects were first tested by an experienced pulmonary function technician and a few days later in the primary care setting. Primary care offices chosen to participate in the study had an average of several years’ experience in performing office spirometry. However, 18% of tests did not meet the American Thoracic Society goals for forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1) repeatability.

In our study 1, we aimed to detect airflow obstruction in smokers without a previous diagnosis of lung disease. Of the 110,000 subjects screened, ∼70% had normal spirometry. No subjects had previously performed spirometry. We felt that, in such circumstances, reliable spirometry was crucial to avoid false positive results leading to unnecessary stress, prescription of unnecessary treatment, and additional costs to verify spirometric values. Recently, Enright et al. 4 reported excellent repeatability in 18,000 spirometries performed by certified technicians. Ninety per cent of patients were able to reproduce FEV1 within 120 mL, and forced vital capacity within 150 mL.

We entirely agree that considering the enormous number of subjects with chronic respiratory problems, the majority of spirometric tests should be performed at a primary care level. International guidelines indicate that spirometry is necessary for the diagnosis and management of COPD and the proper management of asthma.

However, that is easier to say than to implement. First of all, primary care physicians (PCPs) must be convinced of the feasibility and practical usefulness of spirometric measurements in the routine management of COPD and asthma. This has been very difficult. More than 10 yrs have passed since Kesten and Chapman 5 reported that only 21% of PCPs requested spirometry to diagnose COPD. Recent studies by Kaminsky et al. 6, Bolton et al. 7 and Lusuardi et al. 8 have demonstrated that the use of spirometry in primary care remains very low.

Another important point is the training of personnel performing spirometry in the primary care setting. A 3–4-h hands-on training session, closely supervised by a certified lung-function technician, should be obligatory. For the first few months, samples of spirometry tests performed by each technologist should be sent to a reference lung-function laboratory for quality-control checks and reports. After every break from regular performing of tests, refresher training should be obligatory.

Good-quality measurements in the primary care setting would be more likely if reliable, user-friendly, inexpensive office spirometers with in-built quality-control software 9 were widely available to prompt good-quality measurements.

Pulmonary specialists and primary care physicians should work together to determine optimal methods for the detection of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in smokers. There is no ready solution that would apply to all countries and all settings. The detection of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease should be performed by primary care physicians in smokers registered in their practice. Diagnosis of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease is an opportune moment to start smoking-cessation counselling. Our experience showed that using spirometry result to reinforce anti-smoking advice resulted in complete smoking cessation by 15% of recently diagnosed chronic obstructive pulmonary disease patients 10.

    • © ERS Journals Ltd

    References

    1. ↵
      Zielinski J, Bednarek M, Gorecka D, et al. Increasing COPD awareness. Eur Respir J 2006;27:833–852.
      OpenUrlFREE Full Text
    2. ↵
      Enright PL. Office spirometry is 30 years old, but is not mature. Respir Care 2005;50:1619–1620.
      OpenUrlPubMed
    3. ↵
      Schermer TR, Jacobs JE, Chavannes NH, et al. Validity of spirometric testing in a general practice population of patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Thorax 2003;58:861–866.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    4. ↵
      Enright P, Beck KC, Sherrill DL. Repeatability of spirometry in 18,000 adult patients. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2004;169:235–238.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    5. ↵
      Kesten S, Chapman KR. Physician perceptions and management of COPD. Chest 1993;104:254–258.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    6. ↵
      Kaminsky DA, Marcz TW, Bachand M, Ervin CG. Knowledge and use of office spirometry for the detection of COPD in primary care. Respir Care 2005;50:1639–1648.
      OpenUrlPubMed
    7. ↵
      Bolton CE, Ionescu AA, Edwards PH, Faulkner TA, Edwards SM, Shale DJ. Attaining a correct diagnosis of COPD in general practice. Respir Med 2005;99:493–500.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    8. ↵
      Lusuardi M, De Benedetto F, Paggiaro P, et al. A randomized controlled trial on office spirometry in asthma and COPD in standard general practice: data from spirometry in asthma and COPD: a comparative evaluation Italian study. Chest 2006;129:844–852.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    9. ↵
      Schoh RJ, Fero LJ, Shapiro H, et al. Performance of a new screening spirometer at a community health fair. Respir Care 2002;47:1150–1157.
      OpenUrlPubMed
    10. ↵
      Bednarek M., Gorecka D., Wielgomas J., et al.: Smokers with airway obstruction are more likely to quit smoking.:: Thorax 2006; [Epub ahead of print PMID: 16809415].
    PreviousNext
    Back to top
    View this article with LENS
    Vol 28 Issue 5 Table of Contents
    European Respiratory Journal: 28 (5)
    • 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
    J. Zielinski, M. Bednarek, D. Gorecka
    European Respiratory Journal Nov 2006, 28 (5) 1068; DOI: 10.1183/09031936.06.00096906

    Citation Manager Formats

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

    Share
    From the authors
    J. Zielinski, M. Bednarek, D. Gorecka
    European Respiratory Journal Nov 2006, 28 (5) 1068; DOI: 10.1183/09031936.06.00096906
    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

    • Latent COPD: a proposed new term in the disease nomenclature
    • Empiric anti-anaerobic antibiotics are associated with adverse clinical outcomes
    • Anti-anaerobic antibiotics: indication is key
    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