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

Breath volatile organic compounds and inflammatory markers in adult asthma patients: negative results from the ALLIANCE cohort

Olaf Holz, Benjamin Waschki, Henrik Watz, Anne Kirsten, Mustafa Abdo, Frauke Pedersen, Markus Weckmann, Oliver Fuchs, Anna-Maria Dittrich, Gesine Hansen, Matthias V. Kopp, Erika von Mutius, Klaus F. Rabe, Jens M. Hohlfeld, Thomas Bahmer the ALLIANCE Study Group
European Respiratory Journal 2021 57: 2002127; DOI: 10.1183/13993003.02127-2020
Olaf Holz
1Fraunhofer ITEM, Hannover, Germany
2German Center for Lung Research, BREATH
14O. Holz and B. Waschki contributed equally
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Olaf Holz
Benjamin Waschki
3University Hospital Hamburg-Eppendorf, Department of Cardiology, University Heart and Vascular Center Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany
4LungenClinic Grosshansdorf, Grosshansdorf, Germany
5German Center for Lung Research, ARCN
14O. Holz and B. Waschki contributed equally
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Benjamin Waschki
Henrik Watz
5German Center for Lung Research, ARCN
6Pulmonary Research Institute at LungenClinic Grosshansdorf, Grosshansdorf, Germany
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Anne Kirsten
5German Center for Lung Research, ARCN
6Pulmonary Research Institute at LungenClinic Grosshansdorf, Grosshansdorf, Germany
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Mustafa Abdo
4LungenClinic Grosshansdorf, Grosshansdorf, Germany
5German Center for Lung Research, ARCN
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Frauke Pedersen
5German Center for Lung Research, ARCN
6Pulmonary Research Institute at LungenClinic Grosshansdorf, Grosshansdorf, Germany
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Markus Weckmann
5German Center for Lung Research, ARCN
7Division of Pediatric Pulmonology and Allergology, University Children's Hospital, Luebeck, Germany
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Markus Weckmann
Oliver Fuchs
8Dept of Paediatric Respiratory Medicine, Inselspital, University Children's Hospital of Bern, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland
9German Center for Lung Research, CPC-M
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Oliver Fuchs
Anna-Maria Dittrich
2German Center for Lung Research, BREATH
10Dept of Paediatric Pneumology, Allergology and Neonatology, Hannover Medical School, Hannover, Germany
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Gesine Hansen
2German Center for Lung Research, BREATH
10Dept of Paediatric Pneumology, Allergology and Neonatology, Hannover Medical School, Hannover, Germany
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Matthias V. Kopp
5German Center for Lung Research, ARCN
7Division of Pediatric Pulmonology and Allergology, University Children's Hospital, Luebeck, Germany
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Erika von Mutius
9German Center for Lung Research, CPC-M
11Dr von Hauner Children's Hospital, Ludwig Maximilians University, Munich, Germany
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Erika von Mutius
Klaus F. Rabe
4LungenClinic Grosshansdorf, Grosshansdorf, Germany
5German Center for Lung Research, ARCN
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Jens M. Hohlfeld
1Fraunhofer ITEM, Hannover, Germany
2German Center for Lung Research, BREATH
12Department of Respiratory Medicine, Hannover Medical School, Hannover, Germany
15J.M. Hohlfeld and T. Bahmer contributed equally
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Jens M. Hohlfeld
Thomas Bahmer
4LungenClinic Grosshansdorf, Grosshansdorf, Germany
13University Hospital Schleswig-Holstein, Campus Kiel, Internal Medicine Department I, Pneumology, Kiel, Germany
15J.M. Hohlfeld and T. Bahmer contributed equally
  • 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

Despite recent publications, we are not close to finding a clinically valuable breath VOC biomarker for asthma or asthma phenotypes https://bit.ly/3heTgtK

To the Editor:

“Breathomics” in asthma is a rapidly growing area of significant scientific interest, as indicated by a recently published review, two research articles, and their accompanying editorials in high impact pneumology journals [1–5]. The repeatedly observed associations between breath volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and sputum or blood inflammatory cells [2, 3] suggest that breathomics are on the brink of introduction as a valuable clinically tool. However, there are also major concerns about unresolved methodological issues and a general paucity of high-quality data [1, 6]. In this letter we detail our concerns with breathomics based on data from a cohort of adult asthma patients with a broad spectrum of clinical phenotypes.

In the adult arm of the ALLIANCE asthma cohort we prospectively recruited patients with an established diagnosis of asthma [7] across different severity grades and inflammatory phenotypes, as identified by exhaled nitric oxide fraction (FENO), blood and sputum differential cell counts [8]. As recently recommended [5], the patients were clinically well characterised, the asthma diagnosis was thoroughly established, and breath VOCs were compared between different asthma phenotypes.

For the analysis we included 133 adult patients that attended their 12-month follow-up visit from 2015 to 2016 at LungenClinic Grosshansdorf. To examine patients under stable conditions, all visits were scheduled at least 4 weeks after an acute severe exacerbation (defined as oral steroid burst therapy for at least three consecutive days) or asthma-related hospitalisation. The study (NCT02419274) was approved (Medical School Luebeck ethics committee, Az.12-215) and all participants gave their written informed consent before inclusion.

The patients were grouped into five clinically established phenotypes according to disease severity (2014 European Respiratory Society/American Thoracic Society guidelines [9]), type 2 airway inflammation (blood eosinophils ≥300 per µL), and smoking status (figure 1a). We performed spirometry, body-plethysmography, impulse oscillometry, and measured FENO [8]. Blood differential cell counts and induced sputum [10] were assessed by established protocols. The collection and analysis of breath VOCs has been described in detail previously [11]. Patients inhaled active-carbon filtered room air and exhaled into an aluminium reservoir tube to avoid the use of sampling bags. During 5 min collection, 2.5 L breaths were loaded onto each of two Tenax TA adsorption tubes, which were analysed by gas chromatography/mass spectrometry. 134 VOCs were assessed in total (listed in table 2 of [11]). 40 VOCs were excluded because in at least in 85% of the study participants the values were below the limit of detection. VOC data was log-transformed prior to analysis.

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

a) Patient demographics according to asthma phenotypes. Data are presented as median (interquartile range). Statistics: Kruskal–Wallis ANOVA. ICS: inhaled corticosteroids; OCS: oral corticosteroids; FEV1: forced expiratory volume in 1 s; FVC: forced vital capacity; RV: residual volume; TLC: total lung capacity; sRtot: specific total airway resistance; R5Hz: resistance at 5 Hz; FDRabs: frequency dependence of resistance (resistance at 5 Hz minus resistance at 20 Hz). #: omalizumab or mepolizumab; ¶: missing values. b) Gas chromatography/mass spectrometry chromatogram of one representative patient with inserts and arrows indicating the retention time (RT) for propanol-1, hexane, 2-hexanone and nonanal [3]. The black line indicates the total ion content (TIC), the insert coloured plots show specific masses of the respective volatile organic compounds (VOCs). c–e) Correlation between VOCs and sputum neutrophils (%). All patients and subgroup correlations not significant (unadjusted p-value >0.05). f) Correlation between hexane and sputum eosinophils (%). All patients and subgroup correlations not significant (unadjusted p-value >0.05), except for smokers (r=−0.45, unadjusted p-value 0.02, adjusted p-value 0.48). Selection of VOCs based on published data [3]. As shown in (b), 2-hexanone was not detectable in our samples. g) Histograms of unadjusted p-values for the correlation between all detected VOCs and sputum neutrophils and eosinophils (%), exhaled nitric oxide fraction (FENO) and blood eosinophils (%). a.u.: arbitrary units.

The validity and plausibility of the VOC data is supported by several aspects and observations. 1) The method used for collection and analysis was benchmarked in the peppermint oil trial [12, 13], in which we demonstrated washout kinetics of peppermint oil compounds after ingestion of a respective capsule. 2) The two simultaneously collected adsorption tubes in this study showed a very close agreement (median r>0.87). 3) As expected, acetone and isoprene were the most abundant VOCs in breath, while cleaning- and disinfectant-related VOCs such as propanol-1, propanol-2 and ethanol were predominantly found in room air. 4) We found highly significant differences for smoking-related VOCs such as acetonitrile, benzene and cyclohexadiene (p<0.001, respectively) between active smokers and non-smokers (figure 1a). In addition, these compounds indicated that five patients potentially misjudged their smoking behaviour or experienced a substantial passive smoke exposure. 5) In line with others [14], we found higher levels of isoprene in male subjects (p<0.001).

Patient characteristics according to asthma phenotypes are shown in figure 1a. In contrast to others, we observed no statistically significant correlations between breath VOC levels and markers of inflammation such as sputum eosinophils, blood eosinophils, sputum neutrophils or exhaled nitric oxide, after adjusting the p-values for multiple testing using the Benjamini–Hochberg method [15]. The histograms of all unadjusted p-values of the correlations between VOCs and markers of inflammation are shown in figure 1g. We tested these correlations also within the subgroups of patients with comparable results. Figure 1c–f shows the correlations between sputum neutrophils and eosinophils for three markers suggested to discriminate between eosinophilc or neutrophilic asthma [3]. There were also no significant differences in breath VOCs between four different sputum inflammatory phenotypes (eosinophil cut-off 3% and neutrophil cut-off of 61% [16]). In a univariate analysis, we found nine VOCs with differences between severe and mild asthmatic subjects and only one VOC with a difference between high and normal blood eosinophils. After adjusting for multiple testing, all respective p-values were >0.11. Interestingly, the largest difference between moderate and severe asthma patients was found for an unidentified VOC (unadjusted p<0.001) that was suspected to be COPD-related in a previous study [11].

A recent paper suggests propanol-1 as a potential marker to discriminate between inflammatory phenotypes [3]. Although propanol-1 is known to occur in humans and to be associated with some diseases and metabolic disorders, propanol-1 is a major part of hand and surface disinfectant and detected in high concentrations in room air of hospital environments. We found no difference of propanol-1 between groups or sputum inflammatory phenotypes [16] in our study (figure 1c). The spectrum of compounds associated with asthma is very broad and diverse between studies. A certain overlap between studies appears to exist for alkanes in general, but not for individual alkanes. These as well as other markers or combination of markers suggested to be associated with asthma (reviewed in [1]) were either not among the VOCs that we detected [11] or showed no significant differences between groups. In an effort to find clinically relevant breath VOCs we used a comprehensively characterised asthma cohort and used a breath analysis method that has been benchmarked against others [13], but we were not able to reproduce the positive results of other asthma breath VOC trials.

There is an increasing interest in breath biomarkers [5] but it is important to keep in mind that still no validated VOC biomarker or biomarker pattern exists for any disease (Breath Summit 2019, Loughborough). Despite STARD guidelines, external validation is still rare in breath VOC studies [1] and importantly it is also heterogeneously defined. To evaluate the clinical value of a novel test system the discrimination model from the training patient cohort should be tested in independent patients. Showing that two discrimination models, derived from independent patient groups, result in a similar list of markers [3] or lead to similar clustering of data [2] is a major improvement with respect to independent data validation. However, a true external validation still is missing. The reason for the currently limited success in this field may be remaining methodological issues or the fact that readily detectable asthma VOC biomarkers do not exist. Despite our high quality standards we can also not exclude that methodological or sensitivity issues are responsible for the non-supportive findings presented here. However, breath biomarkers are not ready for clinical use until all standards are met.

Many valuable insights were gained from the numerous breath VOC studies, especially increasing our awareness for interfering environmental, lifestyle and metabolic factors and for the need of a more standardised methodological approach. Considering these interfering factors it currently appears crucial to identify breath VOCs to be able to assess their origin and biochemical meaning. Databases like PubChem, mVOC or HMDB provide detailed information for VOCs on endogenous production in different species, and relationship to human diseases, as well as occurrence in foods or products potentially playing a role for exogenous exposures. Available standardised collection methods (e.g. ReCIVA breath sampler, Owlstone, UK) and efforts to make collection and analysis methods more comparable between research groups (Peppermint Oil Consortium) will strengthen research activities that involve multiple centres [3, 11] and thereby increase patient numbers and statistical power, which is desperately needed for a truly external validation.

However, at this point, we would like to add a word of caution to the ongoing discussion, as we did not find any significant correlations between VOCs and inflammatory markers in a well-characterised cohort of adult patients with asthma with a broad spectrum of clinical phenotypes.

Shareable PDF

Supplementary Material

This one-page PDF can be shared freely online.

Shareable PDF ERJ-02127-2020.Shareable

Footnotes

  • This study is registered at clinicaltrials.gov as NCT02419274.

  • Conflict of interest: O. Holz has nothing to disclose.

  • Conflict of interest: B. Waschki has nothing to disclose.

  • Conflict of interest: H. Watz has nothing to disclose.

  • Conflict of interest: A. Kirsten has nothing to disclose.

  • Conflict of interest: M. Abdo has nothing to disclose.

  • Conflict of interest: F. Pedersen has nothing to disclose.

  • Conflict of interest: M. Weckmann has nothing to disclose.

  • Conflict of interest: O. Fuchs has nothing to disclose.

  • Conflict of interest: A-M. Dittrich has nothing to disclose.

  • Conflict of interest: G. Hansen reports grants from the German Federal Ministry for Education and Research (BMBF) for the German Center for Lung Research (DZL), during the conduct of the study.

  • Conflict of interest: M.V. Kopp reports grants from the German Federal Ministry for Education and Research (BMBF) for the German Center for Lung Research (DZL), during the conduct of the study; personal fees for lectures and consultancy from ALK-Abello, Allergopharma, Chiesi, Meda, Novartis Pharma, Vertex, Abbvie and Infectopharm, grants from Allergopharma and Vertex, outside the submitted work.

  • Conflict of interest: E. von Mutius reports grants from the German Federal Ministry for Education and Research (BMBF) for the German Center for Lung Research (DZL), during the conduct of the study; authorship fees from Springer-Verlag GmbH, Georg Thieme Verlag and Elsevier Ltd, personal fees for consultancy from HiPP GmbH & Co. KG, OM Pharma SA and Peptinnovate Ltd, personal fees for lectures from Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH, outside the submitted work; and has a patent LU101064, “Barn dust extract for the prevention and treatment of diseases” pending, a patent EP2361632, “Specific environmental bacteria for the protection from and/or the treatment of allergic, chronic inflammatory and/or autoimmune disorders” with royalties paid to ProtectImmun GmbH, a patent number EP 1411977, “Composition containing bacterial antigens used for the prophylaxis and the treatment of allergic diseases” licensed to ProtectImmun GmbH, a patent EP1637147, “Stable dust extract for allergy protection” licensed to ProtectImmun GmbH, and a patent EP 1964570, “Pharmaceutical compound to protect against allergies and inflammatory diseases” licensed to ProtectImmun GmbH.

  • Conflict of interest: K.F. Rabe reports grants and personal fees from Boehringer Ingelheim and AstraZeneca, personal fees from Novartis, Sanofi, Regeneron, Roche and Chiesi Pharmaceuticals outside the submitted work.

  • Conflict of interest: J.M. Hohlfeld reports grants from German Ministry for Education and Research (BMBF; grant DZL 2016-2020/82DZL002A2), during the conduct of the study; personal fees for consultancy from Boehringer Ingelheim and Merck & Co., Inc., personal fees for lectures from Novartis and HAL, grants from AstraZeneca AB, Novartis, Janssen Pharmaceutica NV, ALK, Boehringer Ingelheim, LETI, GlaxoSmithKline, Sanofi-Aventis, Astellas Pharma and Allergopharma, outside the submitted work.

  • Conflict of interest: T. Bahmer reports grants from BMBF (unrestricted research grant for the German Center for Lung Research, DZL), during the conduct of the study; personal fees lectures and consultancy, and compensation of travel expenses from AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis and Roche, outside the submitted work.

  • Support statement: This work was supported by Deutsche Zentrum für Lungenforschung. Funding information for this article has been deposited with the Crossref Funder Registry.

  • Received June 3, 2020.
  • Accepted September 9, 2020.
  • Copyright ©ERS 2021
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

This version is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial Licence 4.0.

References

  1. ↵
    1. Azim A,
    2. Barber C,
    3. Dennison P, et al.
    Exhaled volatile organic compounds in adult asthma: a systematic review. Eur Respir J 2019; 54: 1900056. doi:10.1183/13993003.00056-2019
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  2. ↵
    1. de Vries R,
    2. Dagelet YWF,
    3. Spoor P, et al.
    Clinical and inflammatory phenotyping by breathomics in chronic airway diseases irrespective of the diagnostic label. Eur Respir J 2018; 51: 1701817. doi:10.1183/13993003.01817-2017
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  3. ↵
    1. Schleich FN,
    2. Zanella D,
    3. Stefanuto P-H, et al.
    Exhaled volatile organic compounds are able to discriminate between neutrophilic and eosinophilic asthma. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2019; 200: 444–453. doi:10.1164/rccm.201811-2210OC
    OpenUrlPubMed
    1. Sterk PJ
    . Modern inflammatory phenotyping of asthma. Breathomics is here to stay. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2019; 200: 405–406. doi:10.1164/rccm.201904-0733ED
    OpenUrl
  4. ↵
    1. Fowler SJ,
    2. Sterk PJ
    . Breath biomarkers in asthma: we're getting answers, but what are the important questions? Eur Respir J 2019; 54: 1901411. doi:10.1183/13993003.01411-2019
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  5. ↵
    1. Ahmed WM,
    2. Brinkman P,
    3. Weda H, et al.
    Methodological considerations for large-scale breath analysis studies: lessons from the U-BIOPRED severe asthma project. J Breath Res 2018; 13: 16001. doi:10.1088/1752-7163/aae557
    OpenUrl
  6. ↵
    Global Initiative for Asthma. Global Strategy for Asthma Management and Prevention 2014. https://ginasthma.org/
  7. ↵
    1. Fuchs O,
    2. Bahmer T,
    3. Weckmann M, et al.
    The all age asthma cohort (ALLIANCE) - from early beginnings to chronic disease: a longitudinal cohort study. BMC Pulm Med 2018; 18: 140. doi:10.1186/s12890-018-0705-6
    OpenUrl
  8. ↵
    1. Chung KF,
    2. Wenzel SE,
    3. Brozek JL, et al.
    International ERS/ATS guidelines on definition, evaluation and treatment of severe asthma. Eur Respir J 2014; 43: 343–373. doi:10.1183/09031936.00202013
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  9. ↵
    1. Pedersen F,
    2. Zissler UM,
    3. Watz H, et al.
    Rating sputum cell quality in clinical trials for asthma and COPD treatment. Int J Chron Obstruct Pulmon Dis 2019; 14: 195–198. doi:10.2147/COPD.S188033
    OpenUrl
  10. ↵
    1. Gaida A,
    2. Holz O,
    3. Nell C, et al.
    A dual center study to compare breath volatile organic compounds from smokers and non-smokers with and without COPD. J Breath Res 2016; 10: 26006. doi:10.1088/1752-7155/10/2/026006
    OpenUrl
  11. ↵
    1. Malásková M,
    2. Henderson B,
    3. Chellayah PD, et al.
    Proton transfer reaction time-of-flight mass spectrometric measurements of volatile compounds contained in peppermint oil capsules of relevance to real-time pharmacokinetic breath studies. J Breath Res 2019; 13: 46009. doi:10.1088/1752-7163/ab26e2
    OpenUrl
  12. ↵
    1. Henderson B,
    2. Ruszkiewicz D,
    3. Wilkinson M, et al.
    A benchmarking protocol for breath analysis: the peppermint experiment. J Breath Res 2020; 14: 046008. doi:10.1088/1752-7163/aba130
    OpenUrl
  13. ↵
    1. Lechner M,
    2. Moser B,
    3. Niederseer D, et al.
    Gender and age specific differences in exhaled isoprene levels. Respir Physiol Neurobiol 2006; 154: 478–483. doi:10.1016/j.resp.2006.01.007
    OpenUrlPubMed
  14. ↵
    1. Benjamini Y,
    2. Hochberg Y
    . Controlling the false discovery rate: a practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. J R Stat Soc B 1995; 57: 289–300.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  15. ↵
    1. Wang F,
    2. He XY,
    3. Baines KJ, et al.
    Different inflammatory phenotypes in adults and children with acute asthma. Eur Respir J 2011; 38: 567–574. doi:10.1183/09031936.00170110
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
PreviousNext
Back to top
View this article with LENS
Vol 57 Issue 2 Table of Contents
European Respiratory Journal: 57 (2)
  • 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.
Breath volatile organic compounds and inflammatory markers in adult asthma patients: negative results from the ALLIANCE cohort
(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
Breath volatile organic compounds and inflammatory markers in adult asthma patients: negative results from the ALLIANCE cohort
Olaf Holz, Benjamin Waschki, Henrik Watz, Anne Kirsten, Mustafa Abdo, Frauke Pedersen, Markus Weckmann, Oliver Fuchs, Anna-Maria Dittrich, Gesine Hansen, Matthias V. Kopp, Erika von Mutius, Klaus F. Rabe, Jens M. Hohlfeld, Thomas Bahmer
European Respiratory Journal Feb 2021, 57 (2) 2002127; DOI: 10.1183/13993003.02127-2020

Citation Manager Formats

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

Share
Breath volatile organic compounds and inflammatory markers in adult asthma patients: negative results from the ALLIANCE cohort
Olaf Holz, Benjamin Waschki, Henrik Watz, Anne Kirsten, Mustafa Abdo, Frauke Pedersen, Markus Weckmann, Oliver Fuchs, Anna-Maria Dittrich, Gesine Hansen, Matthias V. Kopp, Erika von Mutius, Klaus F. Rabe, Jens M. Hohlfeld, Thomas Bahmer
European Respiratory Journal Feb 2021, 57 (2) 2002127; DOI: 10.1183/13993003.02127-2020
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
    • Shareable PDF
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

More in this TOC Section

Agora

  • Mortality after admission with pneumonia higher than after admission with COPD exacerbation
  • Balancing the risks and benefits of in-circuit bacterial filters
  • Polyurethane foam degradation in CPAP devices for sleep apnoea
Show more Agora

Research letters

  • P. aeruginosa membrane vesicles cause endothelial barrier failure
  • Mortality after admission with pneumonia higher than after admission with COPD exacerbation
  • Polyurethane foam degradation in CPAP devices for sleep apnoea
Show more Research letters

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