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
    • WoS Reviewer Recognition Service
  • 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
    • WoS Reviewer Recognition Service
  • Alerts
  • Subscriptions

Can health status questionnaires be used as a measure of physical activity in COPD patients?

Heleen Demeyer, Ivan Dueñas-Espín, Corina De Jong, Zafeiris Louvaris, Miek Hornikx, Elena Gimeno-Santos, Matthias Loeckx, Ioannis Vogiatzis, Wim Janssens, Nicholas S. Hopkinson, Roberto A. Rabinovich, Niklas Karlsson, Judith Garcia-Aymerich, Thierry Troosters on behalf of the PROactive consortium
European Respiratory Journal 2016 47: 1565-1568; DOI: 10.1183/13993003.01815-2015
Heleen Demeyer
1KU Leuven–University of Leuven, Department of Rehabilitation Sciences, Leuven, Belgium
2University Hospitals Leuven, Department of Respiratory Diseases, Leuven, Belgium
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Ivan Dueñas-Espín
3Centre for Research in Environmental Epidemiology, Barcelona, Spain
4CIBER Epidemiología y Salud Pública, Barcelona, Spain
5Universitat Pompeu Fabra, Barcelona, Spain
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Corina De Jong
6Dept of General Practice, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, Netherlands
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Zafeiris Louvaris
7Dept of Critical Care Medicine, Pulmonary Rehabilitation Centre, Evangelismos Hospital, M. Simou and G.P. Livanos Laboratories, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Thorax Foundation, Athens, Greece
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Miek Hornikx
1KU Leuven–University of Leuven, Department of Rehabilitation Sciences, Leuven, Belgium
2University Hospitals Leuven, Department of Respiratory Diseases, Leuven, Belgium
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Elena Gimeno-Santos
3Centre for Research in Environmental Epidemiology, Barcelona, Spain
4CIBER Epidemiología y Salud Pública, Barcelona, Spain
5Universitat Pompeu Fabra, Barcelona, Spain
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Elena Gimeno-Santos
Matthias Loeckx
1KU Leuven–University of Leuven, Department of Rehabilitation Sciences, Leuven, Belgium
2University Hospitals Leuven, Department of Respiratory Diseases, Leuven, Belgium
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Ioannis Vogiatzis
7Dept of Critical Care Medicine, Pulmonary Rehabilitation Centre, Evangelismos Hospital, M. Simou and G.P. Livanos Laboratories, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Thorax Foundation, Athens, Greece
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Wim Janssens
2University Hospitals Leuven, Department of Respiratory Diseases, Leuven, Belgium
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Nicholas S. Hopkinson
8NIHR Respiratory Biomedical Research Unit of the Royal Brompton and Harefield NHS foundation Trust and Imperial College London, London, UK
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Nicholas S. Hopkinson
Roberto A. Rabinovich
9ELEGI/Colt laboratory, UoE/MRC Centre for Inflammation Research, The University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Niklas Karlsson
10Astra Zeneca, Mölndal, Sweden
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Judith Garcia-Aymerich
3Centre for Research in Environmental Epidemiology, Barcelona, Spain
4CIBER Epidemiología y Salud Pública, Barcelona, Spain
5Universitat Pompeu Fabra, Barcelona, Spain
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Thierry Troosters
1KU Leuven–University of Leuven, Department of Rehabilitation Sciences, Leuven, Belgium
2University Hospitals Leuven, Department of Respiratory Diseases, Leuven, Belgium
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: Thierry.Troosters@med.kuleuven.be
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

This article has a correction. Please see:

  • “Can health status questionnaires be used as a measure of physical activity in COPD patients?” Heleen Demeyer, Ivan Dueñas-Espín, Corina De Jong, Zafeiris Louvaris, Miek Hornikx, Elena Gimeno-Santos, Matthias Loeckx, Ioannis Vogiatzis, Wim Janssens, Nicholas S. Hopkinson, Roberto A. Rabinovich, Niklas Karlsson, Judith Garcia-Aymerich and Thierry Troosters, on behalf of the PROactive consortium. Eur Respir J 2016; 47: 1565–1568. - February 01, 2017

Abstract

Health status questionnaires provide only limited insight into the physical activity of patients with COPD http://ow.ly/X7oUb

To the Editor:

Acting to address the amount of physical activity of patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is recommended as part of the Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) recommendations [1]. A level lower than approximately 5000 steps for day (sedentary lifestyle index) is associated with significantly increased health risks [2, 3]. Actively screening to identify patients below this threshold could be an important step towards targeting interventions to increase physical activity. Potential screening tools include activity monitors (objective assessment) or self-reported questionnaires (subjective assessment) to measure the amount of physical activity [4]. The latter method, which is feasible in clinical practice, may not result in an accurate representation in an individual patient, as questionnaire responses tend to misclassify physical activity [5]. Although more accurate and widely used in research, activity monitoring is not yet commonly included in patients' routine assessment. Several health status questionnaires in routine clinical use contain a domain or dimension related to physical activity [6]. In the analytical framework of Leidy [7], functional performance has been defined as the physical, psychological, social, occupational and spiritual activities that people actually do in the normal course of their lives to meet basic needs, fulfil usual roles, and maintain their health and wellbeing. A review by Kocks et al. [8] proposed that these questionnaires could be used in the measurement of functional performance (defined as “what a patient is actually doing”) and that this would be a more practical alternative to physical activity monitoring. Whether this approach is sufficiently valid as a representation of physical activity levels in clinical practice remains to be established.

The aims of the present analyses were 1) to describe the relationship between objectively measured physical activity and responses to health status questionnaires, and 2) to assess the utility of these questionnaires to screen for severe physical inactivity (SPI) in this population.

Data from 235 COPD patients (diagnosis confirmed by post-bronchodilator spirometry) recruited from five centres across Europe (Leuven, Belgium; Athens, Greece; Groningen, The Netherlands; and London and Edinburgh, UK), as part of the PROactive project (www.proactivecopd.com), were included in this analysis. Patients were current or ex-smokers (≥10 pack-years) without comorbidities significantly interfering with their ability to exercise and without respiratory conditions other than COPD. Further study details are available in the article reporting the primary analyses of the present study [9]. Physical activity was measured for 14 days during waking hours using the Dynaport Movemonitor (McRoberts, The Hague, the Netherlands), which has been validated in this population [10, 11]. Patients with a minimum of four valid days, defined as days with ≥8 h of wearing time, were included in this analysis [12]. SPI was defined as a step count <5000 per day [2]. At the end of this measurement period, several questionnaires were administered including: the Chronic Respiratory Disease Questionnaire Self-Administered Standardised Format (CRDQ-SAS), COPD Assessment Test (CAT), Clinical COPD Questionnaire (CCQ) and modified Medical Research Council dyspnoea questionnaire (mMRC). Relations between physical activity (number of daily steps) and different health status questionnaires were investigated using Spearman correlations. The ability of questionnaires to predict SPI was analysed using logistic regression analysis with SPI as the outcome and different questionnaires as explanatory variables, each included in a separate analysis. Area under the curve (AUC) was retrieved if the regression analysis was significant. AUC values are a measure of accuracy and are considered excellent (≥0.90), good (0.80–0.89), fair (0.70–0.79) or poor (<0.70). Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were drawn for the different questionnaires, including total scores and the subdomain with the best discriminative property. A cut-off was suggested for each of the questionnaires (using the total score or subdomain, giving the highest AUC), giving an equal weight to sensitivity and specificity. Likelihood ratios were calculated as the ratio between sensitivity and 1−specificity. Likelihood ratios >10 are considered to provide strong evidence for diagnostic purposes [13].

Nine patients did not have a valid physical activity measurement and were excluded from the analysis, and one patient did not complete the questionnaires, resulting in 225 patients (67% male, mean±sd age 67±8 years, forced expiratory volume in 1 s 56±20% pred, 6-min walk distance 426±129 m (68±19% pred) with a median (interquartile range) step count of 4287 (2971–6331) steps per day representing all GOLD stages (I/II/III/IV: 12%/47%/32%/9%, respectively) included in the present analyses. 60% of patients were defined as severely inactive. The health status questionnaires (and their subdomains) CCQsymptoms, CRDQ-SASmental and CRDQ-SASmastery were poorly correlated (absolute r<0.3), CAT, CCQtotal, CCQmental, CCQfunctional state, CRDQ-SAStotal, CRDQ-SASdyspnoea and CRDQ-SASfatigue were weakly related (absolute r=0.3–<0.5), and the mMRC score was moderately related (r= −0.52) to steps (p<0.01 for all). All scores, except for the CRDQ-SASmental score, were significant predictors of SPI (p≤0.01 for all). Only mMRC and CCQfunctional state scores showed a fair discriminative property (AUC 0.719 and 0.724, respectively). Other questionnaires resulted in a poor discrimination (AUC<0.7). ROC curves were plotted for the different questionnaires including the total score and the best discriminative subdomain (figure 1). To predict SPI, a mMRC score ≥2 resulted in a positive predictive value (PPV) of 79%, accuracy of 67% and positive likelihood ratio (LR+) of 2.27. A CAT score ≥13 resulted in a PPV of 73%, accuracy of 64% and LR+ of 1.78. A CCQfunctional state score ≥1.5 resulted in a PPV of 76%, accuracy of 67% and LR+ of 2.06. A CRDQ-SASdyspnoea score ≤5.3 results in PPV of 76%, accuracy of 68% and LR+ of 2.10.

FIGURE 1
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
FIGURE 1

Receiver operating characteristic analyses of: a) the modified Medical Research council dyspnoea questionnaire (mMRC), with a range of 0–4; b) COPD Assessment Test (CAT), with a range of 0–40; c) total score and functional state domain score of the Clinical COPD Questionnaire (CCQ), with a range of 0–6 for both; and d) total score and dyspnoea domain score of the Chronic Respiratory Disease Questionnaire Self-Administered Standardised format (CRDQ-SAS), with a range of 1–7 for both. mMRC ≥2 resulted in a sensitivity of 65% and specificity of 71%; CAT ≥13 resulted in 64% sensitivity and 64% specificity; CCQfunctional state ≥1.5 in 66% sensitivity and 68% specificity; and CRDQ-SASdyspnoea ≤5.3 in 67% sensitivity and 68% specificity.

The present data show that responses to health status questionnaires are only loosely related to the amount of physical activity, and their use cannot therefore be recommended as a standalone screening tool for SPI because of low sensitivity and specificity. Two explanations can be proposed for the very low to moderate associations observed between these questionnaires, which mainly capture symptoms and physical activity. First, none of these questionnaires use physical activity as a main concept and, thus, they are not designed to give a reliable assessment of the physical activity level [6]. The questionnaires mainly reflect symptoms that are indirectly associated with physical activity. Second, it is plausible that there is interplay between the volume (amount×intensity) of physical activity and the symptom experience. Patients may decrease their level of physical activity to avoid symptoms. This leads to the hypothesis that symptoms can depend on the physical activity level and, therefore, fail to give a reliable estimate of the actual underlying physical activity level. Indeed, patients' perception of physical activity includes not only the amount of physical activity but also symptoms experienced during and adaptations related to physical activity [9, 14].

A good screening tool for inactive patients would be able to identify truly inactive patients (sensitivity) without including too many active patients (specificity). DePew et al. [15] concluded that the mMRC is the best predictor of SPI, compared to two physical activity questionnaires, self-efficacy and the ADO (age, dyspnoea and airflow obstruction) index. Those authors proposed a mMRC score of 3 as a triage for SPI (defined as physical activity level <1.4, i.e. the ratio of active to total energy expenditure) [15]. Above this cut-off, 84% of patients identified as severely inactive were indeed inactive (PPV 84%). However, it resulted in a sensitivity of 36%, meaning that only a minority of inactive patients were identified by this screening tool. Based on the ROC analysis, for mMRC, we chose a cut-off of 2 points, which also resulted in a majority of patients above this threshold to be inactive (PPV 79%) with a sensitivity of 65%. These results suggest that this cut-off could be used in clinical practice as a first screening tool to identify severely inactive patients. However, a significant proportion of patients with an mMRC of 0 or 1 are inactive (negative predictive value (NPV) 56%). Therefore, physical activity should still be measured to identify inactive patients with a mMRC <2. A comparable conclusion can be drawn based on the CCQfunctional state domain, using a cut off ≥1.5 (PPV 76%, NPV 57%). In the review by Kocks et al. [8], the questionnaires were judged mainly based on their use in a primary care setting (e.g. practical use and responsiveness). These authors also concluded the mMRC and CCQfunctional state to be the most suited questionnaires to measure functional performance [8]. The present study shows that this conclusion only holds true in terms of PPV, whereas NPV is poor.

The use of simple clinical tests, such as the 6-min walk test, were also shown to fail to predict SPI [16]. Taking all this into account, we can conclude that neither health status questionnaires nor simple clinical tests can replace objective measurement of physical activity in COPD patients. The mMRC dyspnoea and CCQfunctional state score could be recommended as easy first screening tests to identify severely inactive patients but will misclassify patients as “not severely inactive” below the proposed thresholds. Therefore, objective physical activity measurement should be recommended in the clinical routine assessment of COPD patients.

Acknowledgements

The PROactive Consortium members are as follows. Nathalie Ivanoff: Almirall, Barcelona, Spain; Niklas Karlsson and Solange Corriol-Rohou: AstraZeneca AB, Mölndal, Sweden; Ian Jarrod: British Lung Foundation, London, UK; Damijen Erzen: Boehringer Ingelheim, Nieder-Ingelheim, Germany; Mario Scuri and Roberta Montacchini: Chiesi Farmaceutici S.A. Parma, Italy; Paul McBride: Choice Healthcare Solutions, Hitchin, UK; Nadia Kamel: European Respiratory Society, Lausanne, Switzerland; Margaret Tabberer: GlaxoSmithKline, Uxbridge, UK; Thierry Troosters, Wim Janssens and Fabienne Dobbels,: Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Leuven, Belgium; Judith Garcia-Aymerich, Municipal Institute of Medical Research, Barcelona, Spain; Pim de Boer: Netherlands Lung Foundation, Amersfoort, The Netherlands; Karoly Kulich and Alastair Glendenning: Novartis, Basel, Switzerland; Michael I. Polkey and Nick S. Hopkinson: Royal Brompton and Harefield NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK; Ioannis Vogiatzis: Thorax Research Foundation, Athens, Greece; Enkeleida Nikai: UCB, Brussels, Belgium; Thys van der Molen and Corina De Jong: University Medical Center, Groningen, The Netherlands; Roberto A. Rabinovich and Bill MacNee: University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK; Milo A. Puhan and Anja Frei: University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.

Footnotes

  • Support statement: The PROactive project is funded by the Innovative Medicines Initiative Joint Undertaking number 115011. This work was supported by the Flemish Research Foundation (grant G.0871.13). W. Janssens is a post-doctoral research fellow of the FWO-Flanders. Funding information for this article has been deposited with FundRef.

  • Conflict of interest: Disclosures can be found alongside the online version of this article at erj.ersjournals.com

  • This article has been amended according to the correction published in the February 2017 issue of the European Respiratory Journal.

  • Received December 3, 2015.
  • Accepted January 1, 2016.
  • Copyright ©ERS 2016

References

  1. ↵
    Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease. Global Strategy for the Diagnosis, Management and Prevention of COPD. www.goldcopd.org/uploads/users/files/GOLD_Report%202016.pdf Date last accessed: August 18, 2015. Date last updated: 2016.
  2. ↵
    1. Tudor-Locke C,
    2. Craig CL,
    3. Thyfault JP, et al.
    A step-defined sedentary lifestyle index: <5000 steps/day. Appl Physiol Nutr Metab 2013; 38: 100–114.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  3. ↵
    1. Waschki B,
    2. Kirsten A,
    3. Holz O, et al.
    Physical activity is the strongest predictor of all-cause mortality in patients with COPD: a prospective cohort study. Chest 2011; 140: 331–342.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  4. ↵
    1. Watz H,
    2. Pitta F,
    3. Rochester CL, et al.
    An official European Respiratory Society statement on physical activity in COPD. Eur Respir J 2014; 44: 1521–1537.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  5. ↵
    1. Garfield BE,
    2. Canavan JL,
    3. Smith CJ, et al.
    Stanford Seven-Day Physical Activity Recall questionnaire in COPD. Eur Respir J 2012; 40: 356–362.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  6. ↵
    1. Williams K,
    2. Frei A,
    3. Vetsch A, et al.
    Patient-reported physical activity questionnaires: a systematic review of content and format. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2012; 10: 28.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  7. ↵
    1. Leidy NK
    . Functional status and the forward progress of merry-go-rounds: toward a coherent analytical framework. Nurs Res 1994; 43: 196–202.
    OpenUrlPubMedWeb of Science
  8. ↵
    1. Kocks JW,
    2. Asijee GM,
    3. Tsiligianni IG, et al.
    Functional status measurement in COPD: a review of available methods and their feasibility in primary care. Prim Care Respir J 2011; 20: 269–275.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  9. ↵
    1. Gimeno-Santos E,
    2. Raste Y,
    3. Demeyer H, et al.
    The PROactive instruments to measure physical activity in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Eur Respir J 2015; 46: 988–1000.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  10. ↵
    1. Rabinovich RA,
    2. Louvaris Z,
    3. Raste Y, et al.
    Validity of physical activity monitors during daily life in patients with COPD. Eur Respir J 2013; 42: 1205–1215.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  11. ↵
    1. Van Remoortel H,
    2. Raste Y,
    3. Louvaris Z, et al.
    Validity of six activity monitors in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a comparison with indirect calorimetry. PLoS One 2012; 7: e39198.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  12. ↵
    1. Demeyer H,
    2. Burtin C,
    3. van Remoortel H, et al.
    Standardizing the analysis of physical activity in patients with COPD following a pulmonary rehabilitation program. Chest 2014; 146: 318–327.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  13. ↵
    1. Deeks JJ,
    2. Altman DG
    . Diagnostic tests 4: likelihood ratios. BMJ 2004; 329: 168–169.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  14. ↵
    1. Dobbels F,
    2. de Jong C,
    3. Drost E, et al.
    The PROactive innovative conceptual framework on physical activity. Eur Respir J 2014; 44: 1223–1233.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  15. ↵
    1. DePew ZS,
    2. Garofoli AC,
    3. Novotny PJ, et al.
    Screening for severe physical inactivity in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: the value of simple measures and the validation of two physical activity questionnaires. Chron Respir Dis 2013; 10: 19–27.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  16. ↵
    1. van Gestel AJ,
    2. Clarenbach CF,
    3. Stowhas AC, et al.
    Predicting daily physical activity in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. PLoS One 2012; 7: e48081.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
PreviousNext
Back to top
View this article with LENS
Vol 47 Issue 5 Table of Contents
European Respiratory Journal: 47 (5)
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)
  • About the Cover
  • 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.
Can health status questionnaires be used as a measure of physical activity in COPD patients?
(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
Can health status questionnaires be used as a measure of physical activity in COPD patients?
Heleen Demeyer, Ivan Dueñas-Espín, Corina De Jong, Zafeiris Louvaris, Miek Hornikx, Elena Gimeno-Santos, Matthias Loeckx, Ioannis Vogiatzis, Wim Janssens, Nicholas S. Hopkinson, Roberto A. Rabinovich, Niklas Karlsson, Judith Garcia-Aymerich, Thierry Troosters
European Respiratory Journal May 2016, 47 (5) 1565-1568; DOI: 10.1183/13993003.01815-2015

Citation Manager Formats

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

Share
Can health status questionnaires be used as a measure of physical activity in COPD patients?
Heleen Demeyer, Ivan Dueñas-Espín, Corina De Jong, Zafeiris Louvaris, Miek Hornikx, Elena Gimeno-Santos, Matthias Loeckx, Ioannis Vogiatzis, Wim Janssens, Nicholas S. Hopkinson, Roberto A. Rabinovich, Niklas Karlsson, Judith Garcia-Aymerich, Thierry Troosters
European Respiratory Journal May 2016, 47 (5) 1565-1568; DOI: 10.1183/13993003.01815-2015
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
    • Acknowledgements
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Subjects

  • COPD and smoking
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

More in this TOC Section

Agora

  • Airway immune responses to COVID-19 vaccination in COPD patients
  • Wider access to rifapentine-based regimens is needed for TB care globally
  • Screening for PVOD in heterozygous EIF2AK4 variant carriers
Show more Agora

Research letters

  • Airway immune responses to COVID-19 vaccination in COPD patients
  • Wider access to rifapentine-based regimens is needed for TB care globally
  • Screening for PVOD in heterozygous EIF2AK4 variant carriers
Show more Research letters

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