Skip to main content

Main menu

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

It's time to evolve from Scadding: phenotyping sarcoidosis

Daniel A. Culver, Robert P. Baughman
European Respiratory Journal 2018 51: 1800050; DOI: 10.1183/13993003.00050-2018
Daniel A. Culver
1Dept of Pulmonary Medicine, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: culverd@ccf.org
Robert P. Baughman
2University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

Novel approaches to cluster sarcoidosis by organ clusters may yield new clinical and pathophysiologic insights http://ow.ly/uCVG30hMsro

Tell me with whom you associate, and I will tell you who you are—Johann Wolfgang von GoethePrediction is very difficult, especially about the future—Niels Bohr

Sarcoidosis is complex and highly variable, with protean clinical manifestations and a wide array of consequences for patients. The course is likewise unpredictable, leading to the moniker “sarcoidoses” to connote that sarcoidosis may be a syndrome rather than a single disease [1]. Delineating distinct subgroups, “phenotypes”, has been an attempt to simplify prediction about individual patients and to homogenise groups for research purposes. Sarcoidosis phenotypes have been used most often to predict prognosis or to cluster patients with similar outcomes [2–5]. But phenotyping could also be used primarily to stratify patients by clinical features such as extent of organ involvement, or by perceived severity [6, 7].

The most well-known phenotyping system was proposed by Karl Wurm [8], and modified by Guy Scadding in a seminal 1961 publication [9]. The Wurm−Scadding system relies entirely on the chest radiograph (CXR) to provide a rough estimate of the likelihood of resolution at 5 years. Today, nearly all clinical and translational studies contain a table describing the CXR stage of their population; newer proposed phenotyping systems [4, 5] and almost all extant clinical trials likewise incorporate the Wurm−Scadding features as foundational elements. That the Scadding system has persisted so long is a testament to its simplicity, convenience and reproducibility across populations. However, Scadding himself noted from the outset that the likelihood of ocular or cutaneous disease bore no relationship to the chest radiographic pattern [9]. In fact, the Scadding stage correlates poorly with patient-reported disease severity, pulmonary function tests, and need for treatment for individual patients [10–13].

Many of the most reproducible scientific observations regarding sarcoidosis, and a significant proportion of novel pathophysiologic insights, have been derived from focusing on narrow, relatively homogeneous, and fairly uncommon, phenotypes, especially Löfgren's syndrome [14–16]. More recently, a distinct phenotype of advanced sarcoidosis, characterised by markedly impaired physiology, fibrosis and a high prevalence of pulmonary hypertension, was shown to have a particularly poor prognosis [17, 18]. Advanced fibrotic sarcoidosis with pulmonary hypertension and Löfgren's syndrome occupy opposite ends of the spectrum, but for most pulmonary patients, defining a homogeneous and highly predictable phenotype is not so simple. The Scadding staging system is not especially useful for this middle group.

Time and technology have also eroded the usefulness of the Scadding system. Today, nearly all sarcoidosis patients have had at least one computed tomography (CT) study prior to diagnosis. Typically, the scans reveal imaging abnormalities not evident on CXR, including prominent lymph nodes, subtle parenchymal involvement, or minimal fibrosis. The implications of such findings in the context of Scadding descriptions are largely unknown, but it is likely that CT features can enrich our capacity to phenotype [19, 20]. FDG-PET scan provides further data regarding disease activity and prognosis [21], and will increasingly be considered as a strategy to stratify patients. Other imaging technologies will emerge [21–23]. Finally, the field of sarcoidosis is rapidly expanding from being solely the bailiwick of chest physicians to intense focus by other specialties, especially cardiology, rheumatology, ophthalmology and neurology. A phenotyping system centred on the lung is increasingly less relevant.

The GenPhenReSa consortium is an ambitious multinational collaboration that illuminates a new paradigm for sarcoidosis research by demonstrating the feasibility and value of funding collaborative multicentre efforts for this rare and heterogeneous disease. For a study published in this issue of the European Respiratory Journal, the investigators have mined the clinical data from 2163 patients recruited at 31 centers across Central and Western Europe [24]. Rather than binning their patients according to preconceived or historically studied subgroups, the authors performed unsupervised hierarchical clustering on principal components to identify novel clinical associations. Five phenotypic organ-based clusters emerged from the analysis: pulmonary, intra-abdominal organs, musculoskeletal−cutaneous, extrapulmonary and oculo−cardiac−central nervous system−cutaneous (OCCC). Membership in a given cluster entails higher odds for certain other clinical features, such as acute versus subacute onset, symptoms and need for therapy.

The organ clusters revealed in this analysis accord with our existing knowledge. Splenic, hepatic and cutaneous involvement, along with a high frequency of constitutional symptoms, correlated more often than controls in a cohort of 233 US patients [25]. In the Sarcoidosis Genetic Analysis (SAGA) study in African-Americans, liver, spleen and bone marrow involvement segregated into a phenotypic cluster [26]. Other groups have noted a relationship between neurological, cardiac and ocular sarcoidosis [27, 28]. The symptoms and organ distribution of the musculoskeletal−cutaneous phenotype correspond well with Löfgren's syndrome.

While these results are tantalising, they will require validation. A high proportion (42%) of the patients were enrolled from a single centre. The relative frequency and importance of acute sarcoidosis in Europe compared with other continents likely skewed the derivation of the clusters. Compared with white Europeans, well-known phenotypic differences are present in African-American and Japanese populations [29–31]. However, besides epidemiological cohorts, analysis of genetic and genomic datasets may provide additional validation through the process of “reverse phenotyping” that could substantiate the currently proposed organ clusters [32, 33].

Clearly, clustering patients according to organ involvement will not entirely explain the phenotypic heterogeneity that characterises the sarcoidosis syndrome. However, it is intriguing that organ involvement clusters associate with shared genetic markers [16, 26], at least in selected populations. Shared pathophysiology may also have shared therapeutic implications: for example, the OCCC system contains most of the organs that are most effectively treated with tumour necrosis factor antagonists [34]. We can imagine that biomarker discovery will be enriched when organ clusters are used to analyse candidate proteins, micro-RNAs or genes. There is good precedent for this approach. For example, genetic linkage in the SAGA cohort was stronger for organ involvement when organs were considered as clusters, rather than individually [26].

As mentioned previously, one of the important utilities of phenotyping is to estimate prognosis. To date, phenotyping provides limited insight regarding prognosis. For example, most patients who die from pulmonary sarcoidosis have Scadding stage 4 disease. However, the majority of stage 4 patients still do well over time [18]. The GenPhenReSa consortium did not provide nuanced information about types of therapy and aggressiveness of treatment, and also lacks information about the clinical status at two to five years. Linking clinical outcome to phenotype may lead to future insights, such as genetic markers. For Löfgren's syndrome, between 10 to 20% of patients require therapy beyond 2 years. Longitudinal studies of Löfgren's patients demonstrated that the patients with HLA type DRB1*03 had self-limited disease whereas half of DRB1*03 negative patients did not resolve within 2 years [15]. Therefore future phenotyping studies of sarcoidosis should plan on following clinical course to further refine the phenotypes identified.

A phenotype is defined as a “set of observable characteristics”, but does not dictate the stringency (intensity and/or frequency) with which attempts to uncover any given characteristic should be undertaken [35]. In clinical practice, we phenotype based on what is observed, not what could be observed. This nuance has direct relevance to sarcoidosis, where it is well-known that occult, clinically non-bothersome organ involvement is very common. If one looks hard, perhaps by imaging, random biopsy, or even autopsy, asymptomatic organ involvement may be found much more often than expected [36–40]. For this reason, certain tests have been recommended as baseline screening for all patients, even when asymptomatic [41–43], when occult involvement is potentially organ-threatening. Ophthalmologic examination is one example. However, the intensity of screening, considering cost, radiation exposure, likelihood of changing the outcome, and the subjecting the patient to unnecessary tests or additional downstream procedures, is still a controversial topic [35, 41]. For example, it is worth noting that the chance of developing new ocular involvement over the first 2 years in a US cohort was 3.3% [44], and zero in a Japanese cohort over a median follow-up period of 7.7 years [45]. For new cardiac disease, the incidence was 2.3% and 4.7% in the two cohorts, respectively. In both series, clinical features at baseline, such as extrathoracic disease or multiple organ involvement predicted a higher chance of new organ manifestations. Coupled with organ-involvement clusters proposed in the current report, these observations suggest a strategy to enrich screening efforts for diagnosing unsuspected organ involvement. For example, routine ophthalmologic exams and more intense (baseline and longitudinal) cardiac screening tests seem more sensible in patients with established neurosarcoidosis, especially if there is multisystem disease.

As pathophysiologic insights, clinical technology, cost, treatments, and practice standards evolve, phenotyping will continue to evolve as well. Biomarkers, genotypes, molecular signatures and clinical features are all likely to play a role in the physician's assessment of sarcoidosis in the near future, ideally in combination. A non-biased approach to clustering sarcoidosis patients based on “-omics” promises to identity novel phenotypes that are more powerful for prognosis, severity, treatment response, and other clinical characteristics. As these new phenotypes are developed, they must be interpreted and validated within the context of the sarcoidosis clinic and the patient's experience in order to be acceptable and useful.

Footnotes

  • Conflict of interest: D.A. Culver has received non-financial support from Araim and Gilead, and grants and personal fees from Mallinckrodt and Foundation for Sarcoidosis Research, outside the submitted work. R.P. Baughman has received grants from Gilead, Bayer, National Institutes of Health, Genentech, Mallinckrodt and Foundation for Sarcoidosis Research, personal fees for consultancy from Genentech and Mallinckrodt, and fees for speaking from Mallinckrodt, outside the submitted work.

  • Received January 9, 2018.
  • Accepted January 11, 2018.
  • Copyright ©ERS 2018

References

  1. ↵
    1. Culver DA,
    2. Newman LS,
    3. Kavuru MS
    . Gene-environment interactions in sarcoidosis: challenge and opportunity. Clin Dermatol 2007; 25: 267–275.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  2. ↵
    1. Baughman RP,
    2. Nagai S,
    3. Balter M, et al.
    Defining the clinical outcome status (COS) in sarcoidosis: results of the WASOG task force. Sarcoidosis Vasc Diffuse Lung Dis 2011; 28: 56–64.
    OpenUrlPubMedWeb of Science
    1. Prasse A,
    2. Katic C,
    3. Germann M, et al.
    Phenotyping sarcoidosis from a pulmonary perspective. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2008; 177: 330–336.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  3. ↵
    1. Moller DR,
    2. Koth LL,
    3. Maier LA, et al.
    Rationale and design of the Genomic Research in Alpha-1 Antitrypsin Deficiency and Sarcoidosis (GRADS) study. Sarcoidosis protocol. Ann Am Thorac Soc 2015; 12: 1561–1571.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  4. ↵
    1. Rodrigues SC,
    2. Rocha NA,
    3. Lima MS, et al.
    Factor analysis of sarcoidosis phenotypes at two referral centers in Brazil. Sarcoidosis Vasc Diffuse Lung Dis 2011; 28: 34–43.
    OpenUrlPubMedWeb of Science
  5. ↵
    1. Wasfi YS,
    2. Rose CS,
    3. Murphy JR, et al.
    A new tool to assess sarcoidosis severity. Chest 2006; 129: 1234–1245.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  6. ↵
    1. Takada K,
    2. Ina Y,
    3. Noda M, et al.
    The clinical course and prognosis of patients with severe, moderate or mild sarcoidosis. J Clin Epidemiol 1993; 46: 359–366.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  7. ↵
    1. Wurm K
    . [The significance of stage classification of sarcoidosis (Boeck's disease)]. Dtsch Med Wochenschr 1960; 85: 1541–1548.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  8. ↵
    1. Scadding JG
    . Prognosis of intrathoracic sarcoidosis in England. A review of 136 cases after five years’ observation. Br Med J 1961; 5261: 1165–1172.
    OpenUrl
  9. ↵
    1. Baughman RP,
    2. Judson MA,
    3. Teirstein A, et al.
    Presenting characteristics as predictors of duration of treatment in sarcoidosis. QJM 2006; 99: 307–315.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    1. Judson MA,
    2. Gilbert GE,
    3. Rodgers JK, et al.
    The utility of the chest radiograph in diagnosing exacerbations of pulmonary sarcoidosis. Respirology (Carlton, Vic) 2008; 13: 97–102.
    OpenUrlPubMedWeb of Science
    1. Karetzky M,
    2. McDonough M
    . Exercise and resting pulmonary function in sarcoidosis. Sarcoidosis Vasc Diffuse Lung Dis 1996; 13: 43–49.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  10. ↵
    1. Yeager H,
    2. Rossman MD,
    3. Baughman RP, et al.
    Pulmonary and psychosocial findings at enrollment in the ACCESS study. Sarcoidosis Vasc Diffuse Lung Dis 2005; 22: 147–153.
    OpenUrlPubMedWeb of Science
  11. ↵
    1. Kaiser Y,
    2. Lepzien R,
    3. Kullberg S, et al.
    Expanded lung T-bet+RORγT+ CD4+ T-cells in sarcoidosis patients with a favourable disease phenotype. Eur Respir J 2016; 48: 484–494.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  12. ↵
    1. Grunewald J,
    2. Eklund A
    . Lofgren's syndrome: human leukocyte antigen strongly influences the disease course. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2009; 179: 307–312.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  13. ↵
    1. Sato H,
    2. Woodhead FA,
    3. Ahmad T, et al.
    Sarcoidosis HLA class II genotyping distinguishes differences of clinical phenotype across ethnic groups. Hum Mol Genet 2010; 19: 4100–4111.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  14. ↵
    1. Walsh SL,
    2. Wells AU,
    3. Sverzellati N, et al.
    An integrated clinicoradiological staging system for pulmonary sarcoidosis: a case-cohort study. Lancet Respir Med 2014; 2: 123–130.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  15. ↵
    1. Kirkil G,
    2. Lower EE,
    3. Baughman RP
    . Predictors of mortality in pulmonary sarcoidosis. Chest 2018; 153: 105–113.
    OpenUrl
  16. ↵
    1. Drent M,
    2. De Vries J,
    3. Lenters M, et al.
    Sarcoidosis: assessment of disease severity using HRCT. Eur Radiol 2003; 13: 2462–2471.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  17. ↵
    1. Benamore R,
    2. Kendrick YR,
    3. Repapi E, et al.
    CTAS: a CT score to quantify disease activity in pulmonary sarcoidosis. Thorax 2016; 71: 1161–1163.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  18. ↵
    1. Keijsers RG,
    2. Verzijlbergen EJ,
    3. van den Bosch JM, et al.
    18F-FDG PET as a predictor of pulmonary function in sarcoidosis. Sarcoidosis Vasc Diffuse Lung Dis 2011; 28: 123–129.
    OpenUrlPubMedWeb of Science
    1. Cao Z,
    2. Zhu W,
    3. Wang W, et al.
    Stable cerasomes for simultaneous drug delivery and magnetic resonance imaging. Int J Nanomed 2014; 9: 5103–5116.
    OpenUrl
  19. ↵
    1. Stephen MJ,
    2. Emami K,
    3. Woodburn JM, et al.
    Quantitative assessment of lung ventilation and microstructure in an animal model of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis using hyperpolarized gas MRI. Acad Radiol 2010; 17: 1433–1443.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  20. ↵
    1. Schupp JC,
    2. Freitag-Wolf S,
    3. Bargagli E, et al.
    Phenotypes of organ involvement in sarcoidosis. Eur Respir J 2018; 51: 1700991.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  21. ↵
    1. Kataria YP,
    2. Whitcomb ME
    . Splenomegaly in sarcoidosis. Arch Intern Med 1980; 140: 35–37.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  22. ↵
    1. Rybicki BA,
    2. Sinha R,
    3. Iyengar S, et al.
    Genetic linkage analysis of sarcoidosis phenotypes: the sarcoidosis genetic analysis (SAGA) study. Genes Immun 2007; 8: 379–386.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  23. ↵
    1. James DG,
    2. Sharma OP
    . Neurosarcoidosis. Proc R Soc Med 1967; 60: 1169–1170.
    OpenUrlPubMedWeb of Science
  24. ↵
    1. Lower EE,
    2. Broderick JP,
    3. Brott TG, et al.
    Diagnosis and management of neurological sarcoidosis. Arch Intern Med 1997; 157: 1864–1868.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  25. ↵
    1. James DG,
    2. Neville E,
    3. Siltzbach LE
    . A worldwide review of sarcoidosis. Ann N Y Acad Sci 1976; 278: 321–334.
    OpenUrlPubMedWeb of Science
    1. Pietinalho A,
    2. Ohmichi M,
    3. Hiraga Y, et al.
    The mode of presentation of sarcoidosis in Finland and Hokkaido, Japan. A comparative analysis of 571 Finnish and 686 Japanese patients. Sarcoidosis Vasc Diffuse Lung Dis 1996; 13: 159–166.
    OpenUrlPubMedWeb of Science
  26. ↵
    1. Baughman RP,
    2. Teirstein AS,
    3. Judson MA, et al.
    Clinical characteristics of patients in a case control study of sarcoidosis. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2001; 164: 1885–1889.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  27. ↵
    1. Schulze TG,
    2. McMahon FJ
    . Defining the phenotype in human genetic studies: forward genetics and reverse phenotyping. Hum Hered 2004; 58: 131–138.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  28. ↵
    1. Iannuzzi MC,
    2. Baughman RP
    . Reverse phenotyping in sarcoidosis. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2007; 175: 4–5.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  29. ↵
    1. Wijsenbeek MS,
    2. Culver DA
    . Treatment of sarcoidosis. Clin Chest Med 2015; 36: 751–767.
    OpenUrl
  30. ↵
    1. Culver DA
    . Diagnosing sarcoidosis. Curr Opin Pulm Med 2015; 21: 499–509.
    OpenUrl
  31. ↵
    1. Patel MR,
    2. Cawley PJ,
    3. Heitner JF, et al.
    Detection of myocardial damage in patients with sarcoidosis. Circulation 2009; 120: 1969–1977.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    1. Iwai K,
    2. Tachibana T,
    3. Takemura T, et al.
    Pathological studies on sarcoidosis autopsy. I. Epidemiological features of 320 cases in Japan. Acta Pathol Jpn 1993; 43: 372–376.
    OpenUrlPubMed
    1. Hercules HD,
    2. Bethlem NM
    . Value of liver biopsy in sarcoidosis. Arch Pathol Lab Med 1984; 108: 831–834.
    OpenUrlPubMedWeb of Science
    1. Selroos O
    . Sarcoidosis of the spleen. Acta Med Scand 1976; 200: 337–340.
    OpenUrlPubMedWeb of Science
  32. ↵
    1. Wallace SL,
    2. Lattes R,
    3. Malia JP, et al.
    Muscle involvement in Boeck's sarcoid. Ann Intern Med 1958; 48: 497–511.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  33. ↵
    1. Judson MA
    . The three tiers of screening for sarcoidosis organ involvement. Respir Med 2016; 113: 42–49.
    OpenUrl
    1. Hunninghake GW,
    2. Costabel U,
    3. Ando M, et al.
    ATS/ERS/WASOG statement on sarcoidosis. American Thoracic Society/European Respiratory Society/World Association of Sarcoidosis and other Granulomatous Disorders. Sarcoidosis Vasc Diffuse Lung Dis 1999; 16: 149–173.
    OpenUrlPubMedWeb of Science
  34. ↵
    1. Birnie DH,
    2. Sauer WH,
    3. Bogun F, et al.
    HRS expert consensus statement on the diagnosis and management of arrhythmias associated with cardiac sarcoidosis. Heart Rhythm 2014; 11: 1305–1323.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  35. ↵
    1. Judson MA,
    2. Baughman RP,
    3. Thompson BW, et al.
    Two year prognosis of sarcoidosis: the ACCESS experience. Sarcoidosis Vasc Diffuse Lung Dis 2003; 20: 204–211.
    OpenUrlPubMedWeb of Science
  36. ↵
    1. Inoue Y,
    2. Inui N,
    3. Hashimoto D, et al.
    Cumulative incidence and predictors of progression in corticosteroid-naive patients with sarcoidosis. PLoS One 2015; 10: e0143371.
    OpenUrl
PreviousNext
Back to top
View this article with LENS
Vol 51 Issue 1 Table of Contents
European Respiratory Journal: 51 (1)
  • 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.
It's time to evolve from Scadding: phenotyping sarcoidosis
(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
It's time to evolve from Scadding: phenotyping sarcoidosis
Daniel A. Culver, Robert P. Baughman
European Respiratory Journal Jan 2018, 51 (1) 1800050; DOI: 10.1183/13993003.00050-2018

Citation Manager Formats

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

Share
It's time to evolve from Scadding: phenotyping sarcoidosis
Daniel A. Culver, Robert P. Baughman
European Respiratory Journal Jan 2018, 51 (1) 1800050; DOI: 10.1183/13993003.00050-2018
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
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Subjects

  • Interstitial and orphan lung disease
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

More in this TOC Section

  • Addressing the effect of ancestry on lung volume
  • Bronchodilators in bronchiectasis: there is light but it is still too dim
  • Consensus statement on quality standards for managing children with bronchiectasis
Show more Editorials

Related Articles

Navigate

  • Home
  • Current issue
  • Archive

About the ERJ

  • Journal information
  • Editorial board
  • Reviewers
  • 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 © 2022 by the European Respiratory Society