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
  • Log out

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

Distinct clinical phenotypes of airways disease defined by cluster analysis

M. Weatherall, J. Travers, P. M. Shirtcliffe, S. E. Marsh, M. V. Williams, M. R. Nowitz, S. Aldington, R. Beasley
European Respiratory Journal 2009 34: 812-818; DOI: 10.1183/09031936.00174408
M. Weatherall
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
J. Travers
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
P. M. Shirtcliffe
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
S. E. Marsh
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
M. V. Williams
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
M. R. Nowitz
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
S. Aldington
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
R. Beasley
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

Airways disease is currently classified using diagnostic labels such as asthma, chronic bronchitis and emphysema. The current definitions of these classifications may not reflect the phenotypes of airways disease in the community, which may have differing disease processes, clinical features or responses to treatment. The aim of the present study was to use cluster analysis to explore clinical phenotypes in a community population with airways disease.

A random population sample of 25–75-yr-old adults underwent detailed investigation, including a clinical questionnaire, pulmonary function tests, nitric oxide measurements, blood tests and chest computed tomography. Cluster analysis was performed on the subgroup with current respiratory symptoms or obstructive spirometric results.

Subjects with a complete dataset (n = 175) were included in the cluster analysis. Five clusters were identified with the following characteristics: cluster 1: severe and markedly variable airflow obstruction with features of atopic asthma, chronic bronchitis and emphysema; cluster 2: features of emphysema alone; cluster 3: atopic asthma with eosinophilic airways inflammation; cluster 4: mild airflow obstruction without other dominant phenotypic features; and cluster 5: chronic bronchitis in nonsmokers.

Five distinct clinical phenotypes of airflow obstruction were identified. If confirmed in other populations, these findings may form the basis of a modified taxonomy for the disorders of airways obstruction.

  • Asthma
  • chronic bronchitis
  • chronic obstructive pulmonary disease
  • cluster analysis
  • emphysema
  • phenotypes

Airways disease is currently classified using potentially overlapping diagnostic labels, such as asthma, chronic bronchitis and emphysema. These disorders are characterised by defined symptom complexes, exposure to certain risk factors, variable patterns of airflow obstruction and airway hyperresponsiveness, and different types of airways inflammation with structural changes 1–5. The definitions of these disorders have evolved over time with greater knowledge of their pathogenesis and clinical characteristics; however, this has led to greater awareness of their imprecision, with the overlap of phenotypes resulting in difficulties in differentiating the disorders from each other. For example, reversible airflow obstruction, the characteristic physiological and clinical feature of asthma, may be present in a substantial proportion of subjects with chronic bronchitis and/or emphysema 6, 7. In addition, patients with long-standing asthma may show an accelerated loss of lung function, resulting in irreversible airflow obstruction 8–10. It is also recognised that different phenotypes of asthma can differ markedly in their response to treatment 11, 12. Chronic bronchitis is defined by the presence of chronic sputum production, a symptom complex that is commonly present in asthma 13. Although the use of gas transfer measurements and computed tomography (CT) has enhanced the ability to diagnose emphysema, the definition remains dependent upon pathological appearances 14. Furthermore, the current definition of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is based on the presence of incompletely reversible airflow obstruction (post-bronchodilator forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1)/forced vital capacity (FVC) of <0.7), independent of the presence of chronic cough and sputum or the existence of emphysematous structural changes in the lungs 14.

These limitations have led to recommendations that a new taxonomy is required in order to better define the disorders of airways obstruction 3, 15–18. Conceptually, the phenotypic overlap of the disorders of airways obstruction has been represented in Venn diagram format 1, 2, 19. However, this has resulted in ≥15 phenotypes that are difficult to differentiate in terms of their pathogenesis, response to treatment and prognosis. Similar limitations exist with the recent proposal to classify asthma into multiple overlapping phenotypes 18.

Another approach is to use techniques such as cluster analysis to describe the patterns of disease based on the clinical, pathogenetic and physiological features of airways disease. This approach has previously been employed in a patient population with well-characterised asthma and COPD, in which at least four phenotypic subgroups of airways disease were identified 3. It has also been employed in three separate patient populations with asthma, in which several clinically relevant phenotypic subgroups of asthma were identified 12.

The burden of airways disease is not, however, confined to diagnosed patient populations. Many individuals with airways disease in the community do not meet standard criteria for a diagnosis of asthma 20 or COPD 21, or meet the criteria but are undiagnosed 19. In the present study, a survey of a random community population was undertaken, utilising detailed clinical, immunological, physiological and radiological data. Those with airways disease were identified by the presence of current respiratory symptoms or obstructive spirometric results; a prior diagnosis of asthma, chronic bronchitis or COPD was not required. Cluster analysis was then used to explore clinical phenotypes of airways disease in this community population.

METHODS

Subjects

Participants in the Wellington Respiratory Survey (n = 3,500) were randomly selected from the electoral register, and equally distributed by sex across the five decade age groups ranging 25–75 yrs 19, 22, 23. Subjects were sent a simple postal questionnaire seeking demographic, respiratory and smoking history data. The 2,319 subjects who returned completed questionnaires were invited to undertake an interviewer-administered questionnaire followed by pulmonary function tests, exhaled nitric oxide fraction (FeNO) measurements, blood tests, CT scanning and a peak flow diary. The survey was approved by the Central Regional Ethics Committee (Ministry of Health, Wellington, New Zealand), and written informed consent was obtained from each subject.

Detailed questionnaire

All participants completed a detailed written questionnaire, compiled from a series of validated questionnaires and administered by a trained interviewer in a standardised manner, as previously described 22 (see online supplementary material).

Pulmonary function testing

Pulmonary function tests were carried out using two whole-body constant-volume plethysmographs with heated pneumotachographs and gas analysers (Masterlab 4.5 and 4.6; Erich-Jaeger, Würzburg, Germany), following which peak flow monitoring was undertaken, as described in detail elsewhere 23 (see online supplementary material).

Blood tests

Total serum immunoglobulin (Ig) E levels were measured using the Roche Modular analyser (Roche, Basle, Switzerland). The blood eosinophil level was measured by the Sysmex XE-2100 automated complete blood cell count analyser (Sysmex, Mundelein, IL, USA).

FeNO measurements

Measurements of FeNO were undertaken using an online NO monitor (NIOX®; Aerocrine, Solna, Sweden), as previously described 24 (see online supplementary material).

CT scanning

CT scans of the chest were performed using a single machine (GE Prospeed; GE Yokogawa Medical Systems, Tokyo, Japan), as described previously 25 (see online supplementary material).

Statistical methods

Cluster analysis is a technique that defines the distances of each subject from each other based on the combined values, the multidimensional vector, of their measured characteristics. Using a matrix of distance measurements, cluster analysis finds groups of subjects more similar to each other than to those in other groups. It can be used to describe the phenotypes of disease without the need for historical or arbitrary a priori assumptions about classification. Subjects were selected for inclusion in the cluster analysis if they had a pre-bronchodilator FEV1/FVC ratio of <70% and/or had had wheeze within the last 12 months.

Cluster analysis was carried out on the data set with the subjects defined as described using the following nine variables: 1) pre-bronchodilator FEV1/FVC ratio expressed as a percentage; 2) pre-bronchodilator FEV1 expressed as a percentage of the predicted value; 3) post-bronchodilator change in FEV1, expressed as percentage from baseline; 4) functional residual capacity expressed as a percentage of the predicted value; 5) diffusing capacity of the lung for carbon monoxide/alveolar volume adjusted for haemoglobin level and expressed as a percentage of the predicted value; 6) natural logarithm of the serum IgE concentration; 7) mean FeNO; 8) sputum production, defined as a positive response to the question “Do you usually bring up sputum from your chest or have sputum in your chest that is difficult to bring up when you don’t have a cold?”; and 9) cumulative tobacco cigarette consumption (in pack-years).

The variables were chosen to provide measures of airflow obstruction, bronchodilator reversibility, hyperinflation, gas transfer, atopy, eosinophilic airway inflammation, sputum production and lifetime smoking. The variables were equally weighted and the logarithmic function of IgE was used to ensure that extreme values did not form clusters.

For the purposes of the cluster analysis, the Gower distance measure, which is meaningful in the presence of a mixture of continuous and categorical variables, was used 26. Two different methods were used for the cluster analysis. The primary method was the agglomerative algorithm using the agnes cluster function (R statistical package). The secondary method was the divisive algorithm using the diana function (R statistical package) 26. Agglomerative methods start with each individual contributing to the cluster analysis being treated as a single cluster and then joins individuals who are closest together on the particular distance metric into clusters. Divisive methods start with all individuals combined into one cluster and then split off individuals and then groups who are furthest apart on the distance metric. Different algorithms use slightly different techniques to efficiently work through the very large number of possible combinations of individuals and clusters at each step of the joining or splitting process. The clusters generated by these techniques were then described using their summary statistics. Tree diagrams or dendrograms were presented to show the progressive divisions or joinings of the clustering process. Cut points in the tree diagrams were chosen to avoid having clusters of less than five subjects, and to aim to have ≥10 subjects per cluster. In addition to the nine primary variables, other phenotypic characteristics of the clusters were also presented in summary form.

RESULTS

The 749 subjects who completed the investigative modules showed similar characteristics to the 2,319 who completed the screening questionnaire, as previously reported 22. Of the 749 subjects, 250 met the criteria for inclusion in the cluster analysis, with 103 (41.2%) having a pre-bronchodilator FEV1/FVC ratio of <0.7 alone, 86 (34.4%) reporting wheeze within the last 12 months and 61 (24.4%) meeting both criteria. Some subjects were missing data, particularly for FeNO measurements, due to technical problems with the equipment on the day of testing. Exclusion of these subjects with missing data resulted in the cluster analysis being carried out on the 175 subjects with a complete data set. The characteristics of the subjects are shown in table 1⇓. The subjects with data for all variables were similar to those with missing data.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 1—

Characteristics of subjects

The cluster analysis using the agnes methodology identified five distinct clusters based on the nine variables included in the model (tables 2⇓–⇓4⇓). Cluster 1 grouped subjects with features suggesting an overlap syndrome with atopic asthma, chronic bronchitis and emphysema. This cluster exhibited severe airflow obstruction and the greatest degree of bronchodilator reversibility and peak flow variability. Additional characteristics included concomitant eczema and rhinitis, heavy cigarette smoking and markedly reduced quality of life.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 2—

Characteristics of clusters of subjects with full data set# defined by the agnes method

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 3—

Additional characteristics of subjects included in the five clusters defined by the agnes method

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 4—

Patterns of variables of subjects with full data set# defined by the agnes method

Cluster 2 grouped subjects with features of emphysema but without features of concomitant asthma or chronic bronchitis. Similarly to cluster 1, these subjects showed severe airflow obstruction and were heavy cigarette smokers, but, in contrast, exhibited minimal bronchodilator reversibility and were nonatopic.

Cluster 3 grouped subjects with asthma who were highly atopic and with concomitant eczema and rhinitis and markedly raised FeNO, indicative of eosinophilic airways inflammation. This cluster did not have the features of chronic bronchitis or emphysema.

Cluster 4 grouped subjects with mild airflow obstruction but without features suggesting emphysema or chronic bronchitis, a dominant atopic predisposition or smoking history.

Cluster 5 grouped subjects with airflow obstruction and chronic sputum production, but without concomitant emphysema or a major smoking history. Other features of this group included concomitant eczema and rhinitis and a modest increase in FeNO and blood eosinophil level.

The cluster analysis using the diana methodology identified four disease clusters based on the nine variables included in the model (tables 5⇓–⇓7⇓). Clusters 1, 2 and 4 were very similar to clusters 1, 2 and 5 using the agnes methodology. Cluster 3 represented a combination of agnes clusters 3 and 4 without differentiating on the basis of FeNO or IgE levels.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 5—

Characteristics of clusters of subjects with full data set# defined by the diana method

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 6—

Additional characteristics of subjects included in the four clusters defined by the diana method

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 7—

Patterns of variables of subjects with full data set# defined by the diana method

The dendrograms for the cluster analyses using the agnes and diana methods are shown in figures 1⇓ and 2⇓, respectively.

Fig. 1—
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Fig. 1—

Tree plot for the agnes method. Gower’s distance refers to the distance at which clusters are joined. The distance separating the individual branches is unitless.

Fig. 2—
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Fig. 2—

Tree plot for the diana method. Gower’s distance refers to the distance at which clusters are separated. The distance separating the individual branches is unitless.

DISCUSSION

The present cluster analysis suggests that the syndrome of airways obstruction can be classified according to five distinct phenotypes. This provides a naturalistic classification that, if confirmed in other studies, could provide a modified taxonomy for the disorders of airways obstruction.

There are a number of methodological issues relevant to the interpretation of the present findings. The first was the selection of patients from a random population sample, thereby ensuring that the results were broadly generalisable. Subjects who had lung function test results or current respiratory symptoms indicating airflow obstruction were then included in the cluster analysis, thereby ensuring that all forms of airflow obstruction were included. This approach differed from that used previously, in which subjects with a diagnosis of asthma and/or COPD were included and patients who did not meet these strict diagnostic criteria were excluded 3. It has previously been shown that the inclusion of only those subjects who meet the strict diagnostic criteria for asthma and/or COPD results in the majority of patients with asthma or COPD in the community being excluded from such studies 20, 21. The cluster analysis was not undertaken in the whole population sample as any signal related to airflow obstruction would have been overwhelmed by the noise of the far larger nonobstructed group.

Another issue was the selection of the variables included in the cluster analysis. The analysis was limited to nine variables, chosen to reflect putative mechanisms and clinical features of the different phenotypes, and to have the best chance of discriminating between underlying clusters, ensuring that the variables were not too close to measuring the same characteristics. Some, but not all, of the variables chosen have previously been shown to contribute to separate dimensions in the description of asthma and COPD 3, 27, 28. Variables, such as sex and age, which represented characteristics of the participants rather than expression of disease phenotypes were not used. Smoking history was an exception because of the common clinical practice of allocating smokers with wheeze or airflow limitation to a diagnosis of COPD.

There was no formal means of assessing the optimal number of clusters with the algorithms used in the present analysis. The approach used was to move the cut points in the tree diagrams to give ≥10 subjects per cluster. Examination of the tree plots suggested that this was a reasonable approach.

The cluster analysis using the divisive diana algorithm identified four distinct groups. These were very similar to the five distinct groups identified with the agglomerative agnes algorithm, with the exception that one cluster represented a combination of agnes clusters 3 and 4, without differentiating subjects on the basis of FeNO or IgE levels. Owing to evidence that measures of FeNO are an important phenotypic feature that reflects the degree of airways eosinophilic inflammation and predicts response to inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) therapy 29, 30, we consider that cluster analysis using the agnes algorithm is of greater clinical relevance.

An important consideration, which is inherent to any study of this kind, is that disease-modifying treatment has the potential to modify clinical variables. This relates primarily to ICS therapy, which was prescribed in 21–42% of subjects in each of the groups. It is not possible to overcome this confounding through study design or analysis, since to include only subjects not prescribed ICS therapy would result in the exclusion of those with the most significant clinical disease, and thereby not be generalisable to a random population with airflow obstruction. However, the observation that the use of ICSs was broadly similar between the groups suggests that it may not have markedly influenced the clusters observed.

Amongst the five distinct phenotypes identified with the agglomerative agnes algorithm, there were two groups with features characteristic of emphysema secondary to tobacco smoking. These two groups exhibited the most severe degree of airflow obstruction and hyperinflation, a marked reduction in gas transfer, a higher prevalence of macroscopic emphysema on CT scanning and similarly heavy exposure to tobacco smoke. However, these two groups were markedly different in terms of other characteristics. One group (cluster 2) had the classical characteristics of emphysema, with no chronic sputum production, minimal bronchodilator reversibility and low levels of serum IgE and FeNO. In contrast, the other group (cluster 1) showed the greatest degree of bronchodilator reversibility and peak flow variability of all five clusters, was strongly atopic in terms of both raised IgE levels and the presence of eczema and rhinitis, and exhibited chronic sputum production. As a result, this group could be considered to represent an overlap disorder with features characteristic of emphysema, atopic asthma and chronic bronchitis.

The other group with chronic sputum production (cluster 5) more closely represented simple chronic bronchitis, without features of emphysema and not associated with heavy tobacco smoking. These subjects commonly exhibited rhinitis and eczema, suggesting a possible role of atopy in the disease pathogenesis.

The other two groups (clusters 3 and 4) could primarily be differentiated on the basis of their FeNO. One group (cluster 3) could be considered to show allergic asthma with eosinophilic airways inflammation, with a markedly raised FeNO (mean 69.2 ppb), high IgE levels and significant bronchodilator reversibility. The other group (cluster 4) showed mild airflow obstruction with minimal bronchodilator reversibility or peak flow variability, no features to suggest a chronic bronchitis or emphysema phenotype, and a low FeNO. It is possible that these latter subjects represent a group with mild disease and intermittent airflow obstruction.

These findings complement those from the previous cluster analyses of patients with diagnosed asthma or COPD 3. In particular, they confirm the presence of an overlap atopic asthma/emphysema/chronic bronchitis group with severe airflow obstruction and marked bronchodilator reversibility. This cluster exhibited the most severe disease based on the degree of airflow obstruction, requirement for hospital admission, prescribed treatment and quality of life, and, as a result, represents a particular priority for research into its pathogenesis and treatment. These findings also support previous findings that there may be more than one asthma group, without emphysema or chronic bronchitis, defined by the presence or absence of atopy and eosinophilic airways inflammation 3, 12. This finding is of clinical relevance in view of the preferentially greater response to ICS therapy in patients with marked eosinophilic airways inflammation 11, 12, 29, 30.

The present findings are also relevant to the generalisability of the results from randomised controlled trials of asthma and COPD 20, 21. Subjects in the overlap atopic asthma/emphysema/chronic bronchitis group with severe airflow obstruction would have been excluded from the major randomised controlled trials of asthma due to their smoking history, and from trials of COPD due to their marked bronchodilator reversibility. As a result, there is an inadequate evidence base for the treatment of this group of subjects with the most severe form of airways obstruction.

Application of the current definitions of asthma, chronic bronchitis, emphysema and COPD results in substantial overlap, with ≥15 potential phenotypes. This potentially represents a major source of confusion due to the difficulties in distinguishing between these phenotypes in terms of their aetiology, clinical features and responses to treatment. We have demonstrated that there is evidence to consider the syndrome of airflow obstruction in terms of the five distinct phenotypes defined by the major variables included in the present cluster analysis. If these findings are confirmed in other populations, these five phenotypes may form the basis of a modified taxonomy for the disorders of airways obstruction. The priority would then be to determine whether the phenotypes vary in their response to different pharmacological treatments. This knowledge could lead to treatment specifically targeted at defined phenotypic groups, rather than asthma or COPD in general, which represents the current management approach.

Statement of interest

Statements of interest for R. Beasley and the study itself can be found at www.erj.ersjournals.com/misc/statements.dtl

Footnotes

  • This article has supplementary material accessible from www.erj.ersjournals.com

  • Received November 17, 2008.
  • Accepted March 19, 2009.
  • © ERS Journals Ltd

References

  1. ↵
    Soriano JB, Davis KJ, Coleman B, et al. The proportional Venn diagram of obstructive lung disease: two approximations from the United States and the United Kingdom. Chest 2003;124:474–481.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  2. ↵
    Viegi G, Matteelli G, Angino A, et al. The proportional Venn diagram of obstructive lung disease in the Italian general population. Chest 2004;126:1093–1101.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  3. ↵
    Wardlaw AJ, Silverman M, Siva R, et al. Multi-dimensional phenotyping: towards a new taxonomy for airway disease. Clin Exp Allergy 2005;35:1254–1262.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  4. Hargreave FE, Parameswaran K. Asthma, COPD and bronchitis are just components of airway disease. Eur Respir J 2006;28:264–267.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  5. ↵
    Celli BR. Roger S. Mitchell Lecture. Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease phenotypes and their clinical relevance. Proc Am Thorac Soc 2006;3:461–465.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  6. ↵
    Calverley PM, Burge PS, Spencer S, et al. Bronchodilator reversibility testing in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Thorax 2003;58:659–664.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  7. ↵
    Anthonisen NR, Wright EC. Bronchodilator response in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Am Rev Respir Dis 1986;133:814–819.
    OpenUrlPubMedWeb of Science
  8. ↵
    Silva GE, Sherrill DL, Guerra S, et al. Asthma as a risk factor for COPD in a longitudinal study. Chest 2004;126:59–65.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  9. Vonk JM, Jongepier H, Panhuysen CI, et al. Risk factors associated with the presence of irreversible airflow limitation and reduced transfer coefficient in patients with asthma after 26 years of follow up. Thorax 2003;58:322–327.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  10. ↵
    Peat JK, Woolcock AJ, Cullen K. Rate of decline of lung function in subjects with asthma. Eur J Respir Dis 1987;70:171–179.
    OpenUrlPubMedWeb of Science
  11. ↵
    Berry M, Morgan A, Shaw DE, et al. Pathological features and inhaled corticosteroid response of eosinophilic and non-eosinophilic asthma. Thorax 2007;62:1043–1049.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  12. ↵
    Haldar P, Pavord ID, Shaw DE, et al. Cluster analysis and clinical asthma phenotypes. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2008;178:218–224.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  13. ↵
    Mannino DM, Gagnon RC, Petty TL, et al. Obstructive lung disease and low lung function in adults in the United States. Data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, 1988–1994. Arch Intern Med 2000;160:1683–1689.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  14. ↵
    Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease. Global Strategy for the Diagnosis, Management and Prevention of COPD (Updated 2008). Medical Communications Resources, Inc., 2008. www.goldcopd.org/Guidelineitem.asp?l1 = 2&l2 = 1&intId = 2003 Date last updated: January 2009. Date last accessed: July 2, 2009
  15. ↵
    Asthma: still more questions than answers. Lancet 2008;372:1009
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  16. Anderson GP. Endotyping asthma: new insights into key pathogenic mechanisms in a complex, heterogeneous disease. Lancet 2008;372:1107–1119.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  17. A plea to abandon asthma as a disease concept. Lancet 2006;368:705
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  18. ↵
    Wenzel SE. Asthma: defining of the persistent adult phenotypes. Lancet 2006;368:804–813.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  19. ↵
    Marsh SE, Travers J, Weatherall M, et al. Proportional classifications of COPD phenotypes. Thorax 2008;63:761–767.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  20. ↵
    Travers J, Marsh S, Williams M, et al. External validity of randomised controlled trials in asthma: to whom do the results of the trials apply?. Thorax 2007;62:219–223.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  21. ↵
    Travers J, Marsh S, Caldwell B, et al. External validity of randomized controlled trials in COPD. Respir Med 2007;101:1313–1320.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  22. ↵
    Shirtcliffe P, Weatherall M, Marsh S, et al. COPD prevalence in a random population survey: a matter of definition. Eur Respir J 2007;30:232–239.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  23. ↵
    Marsh S, Aldington S, Williams M, et al. Complete reference ranges for pulmonary function tests from a single New Zealand population. N Z Med J 2006;119:U2281
    OpenUrlPubMed
  24. ↵
    Travers J, Marsh S, Aldington S, et al. Reference ranges for exhaled nitric oxide derived from a random community survey of adults. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2007;176:238–242.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  25. ↵
    Marsh S, Aldington S, Williams MV, et al. Utility of lung density measurements in the diagnosis of emphysema. Respir Med 2007;101:1512–1520.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  26. ↵
    Everitt B. An R and S-PLUS® Companion to Multivariate Analysis. London, Springer-Verlag, 2005
  27. ↵
    Rosi E, Ronchi MC, Grazzini M, et al. Sputum analysis, bronchial hyperresponsiveness, and airway function in asthma: results of a factor analysis. J Allergy Clin Immunol 1999;103:232–237.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  28. ↵
    Lapperre TS, Snoeck-Stroband JB, Gosman MM, et al. Dissociation of lung function and airway inflammation in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2004;170:499–504.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  29. ↵
    Szefler SJ, Phillips BR, Martinez FD, et al. Characterization of within-subject responses to fluticasone and montelukast in childhood asthma. J Allergy Clin Immunol 2005;115:233–242.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  30. ↵
    Smith AD, Cowan JO, Brassett KP, et al. Exhaled nitric oxide: a predictor of steroid response. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2005;172:453–459.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
PreviousNext
Back to top
View this article with LENS
Vol 34 Issue 4 Table of Contents
European Respiratory Journal: 34 (4)
  • 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.
Distinct clinical phenotypes of airways disease defined by cluster analysis
(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
Distinct clinical phenotypes of airways disease defined by cluster analysis
M. Weatherall, J. Travers, P. M. Shirtcliffe, S. E. Marsh, M. V. Williams, M. R. Nowitz, S. Aldington, R. Beasley
European Respiratory Journal Oct 2009, 34 (4) 812-818; DOI: 10.1183/09031936.00174408

Citation Manager Formats

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

Share
Distinct clinical phenotypes of airways disease defined by cluster analysis
M. Weatherall, J. Travers, P. M. Shirtcliffe, S. E. Marsh, M. V. Williams, M. R. Nowitz, S. Aldington, R. Beasley
European Respiratory Journal Oct 2009, 34 (4) 812-818; DOI: 10.1183/09031936.00174408
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
    • Abstract
    • METHODS
    • RESULTS
    • DISCUSSION
    • Statement of interest
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

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