Lung-function trajectories: relevance and implementation in clinical practice.

Lung development starts in utero and continues during childhood through to adolescence, reaching its peak in early adulthood. This growth is followed by gradual decline due to physiological lung ageing. Lung-function development can be altered by several host and environmental factors during the life course. As a result, a range of lung-function trajectories exist in the population. Below average trajectories are associated with respiratory, cardiovascular, metabolic, and mental health comorbidities, as well as with premature death. This Review presents progressive research into lung-function trajectories and assists the implementation of this knowledge in clinical practice as an innovative approach to detect poor lung health early, monitor respiratory disease progression, and promote lung health. Specifically, we propose that, similar to paediatric height and weight charts used globally to monitor children's growth, lung-function charts could be used for both children and adults to monitor lung health status across the life course. To achieve this proposal, we introduce our free online Lung Function Tracker tool. Finally, we discuss challenges and opportunities for effective implementation of the trajectory concept at population level and outline an agenda for crucial research needed to support such implementation.

Principles of patient partnership: integrating patient perspectives into ERS Clinical Research Collaborations.

Patient and public involvement in research is increasingly considered a cornerstone of good research practice, and the research community recognises people with lived experience as valuable stakeholders within the research process. European Respiratory Society (ERS) strongly encourages patient input into its research programme and scientific activities, working in partnership with the European Lung Foundation (ELF) to facilitate this. Based on the ERS and ELF experience and best practice in the field of patient and public involvement, we developed a set of principles to which future ERS and ELF collaborations should adhere. These principles provide guidance on how to address key challenges when planning and conducting patient and public involvement in order to develop successful partnerships with patients and drive forward patient-centred research.

Important steps towards a big change for lung health: a joint approach by the European Respiratory Society, the European Society of Radiology and their partners to facilitate implementation of the European Union's new recommendations on lung cancer screening.

Enormous progress has been made on the epic journey towards implementation of lung cancer screening in Europe. A breakthrough for lung health has been achieved with the EU proposal for a Council recommendation on cancer screening. https://bit.ly/3J4O0Jb.

European Respiratory Society guideline on various aspects of quality in lung cancer care.

This European Respiratory Society guideline is dedicated to the provision of good quality recommendations in lung cancer care. All the clinical recommendations contained were based on a comprehensive systematic review and evidence syntheses based on eight PICO (Patients, Intervention, Comparison, Outcomes) questions. The evidence was appraised in compliance with the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach. Evidence profiles and the GRADE Evidence to Decision frameworks were used to summarise results and to make the decision-making process transparent. A multidisciplinary Task Force panel of lung cancer experts formulated and consented the clinical recommendations following thorough discussions of the systematic review results. In particular, we have made recommendations relating to the following quality improvement measures deemed applicable to routine lung cancer care: 1) avoidance of delay in the diagnostic and therapeutic period, 2) integration of multidisciplinary teams and multidisciplinary consultations, 3) implementation of and adherence to lung cancer guidelines, 4) benefit of higher institutional/individual volume and advanced specialisation in lung cancer surgery and other procedures, 5) need for pathological confirmation of lesions in patients with pulmonary lesions and suspected lung cancer, and histological subtyping and molecular characterisation for actionable targets or response to treatment of confirmed lung cancers, 6) added value of early integration of palliative care teams or specialists, 7) advantage of integrating specific quality improvement measures, and 8) benefit of using patient decision tools. These recommendations should be reconsidered and updated, as appropriate, as new evidence becomes available.

The discovAIR project: a roadmap towards the Human Lung Cell Atlas.

The Human Cell Atlas (HCA) consortium aims to establish an atlas of all organs in the healthy human body at single-cell resolution to increase our understanding of basic biological processes that govern development, physiology and anatomy, and to accelerate diagnosis and treatment of disease. The Lung Biological Network of the HCA aims to generate the Human Lung Cell Atlas as a reference for the cellular repertoire, molecular cell states and phenotypes, and cell-cell interactions that characterise normal lung homeostasis in healthy lung tissue. Such a reference atlas of the healthy human lung will facilitate mapping the changes in the cellular landscape in disease. The discovAIR project is one of six pilot actions for the HCA funded by the European Commission in the context of the H2020 framework programme. discovAIR aims to establish the first draft of an integrated Human Lung Cell Atlas, combining single-cell transcriptional and epigenetic profiling with spatially resolving techniques on matched tissue samples, as well as including a number of chronic and infectious diseases of the lung. The integrated Human Lung Cell Atlas will be available as a resource for the wider respiratory community, including basic and translational scientists, clinical medicine, and the private sector, as well as for patients with lung disease and the interested lay public. We anticipate that the Human Lung Cell Atlas will be the founding stone for a more detailed understanding of the pathogenesis of lung diseases, guiding the design of novel diagnostics and preventive or curative interventions.

Individual-level interventions to reduce personal exposure to outdoor air pollution and their effects on people with long-term respiratory conditions.

BACKGROUND: More than 90% of the global population lives in areas exceeding World Health Organization air quality limits. More than four million people each year are thought to die early due to air pollution, and poor air quality is thought to reduce an average European's life expectancy by one year. Individuals may be able to reduce health risks through interventions such as masks, behavioural changes and use of air quality alerts. To date, evidence is lacking about the efficacy and safety of such interventions for the general population and people with long-term respiratory conditions. This topic, and the review question relating to supporting evidence to avoid or lessen the effects of air pollution, emerged directly from a group of people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) in South London, UK. OBJECTIVES: 1. To assess the efficacy, safety and acceptability of individual-level interventions that aim to help people with or without chronic respiratory conditions to reduce their exposure to outdoor air pollution. 2. To assess the efficacy, safety and acceptability of individual-level interventions that aim to help people with chronic respiratory conditions reduce the personal impact of outdoor air pollution and improve health outcomes. SEARCH METHODS: We identified studies from the Cochrane Airways Trials Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and other major databases. We did not restrict our searches by date, language or publication type and included a search of the grey literature (e.g. unpublished information). We conducted the most recent search on 16 October 2020. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomised studies (NRS) that included a comparison treatment arm, in adults and children that investigated the effectiveness of an individual-level intervention to reduce risks of outdoor air pollution. We included studies in healthy individuals and those in people with long-term respiratory conditions. We excluded studies which focused on non-respiratory long-term conditions, such as cardiovascular disease. We did not restrict eligibility of studies based on outcomes. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methods. Two review authors independently selected trials for inclusion, extracted study characteristics and outcome data, and assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool for RCTs and the Risk Of Bias In Non-randomised Studies - of Interventions (ROBINS-I) as appropriate. One review author entered data into the review; this was spot-checked by a second author. We planned to meta-analyse results from RCTs and NRS separately, using a random-effects model. This was not possible, so we presented evidence narratively. We assessed certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach. Primary outcomes were: measures of air pollution exposure; exacerbation of respiratory conditions; hospital admissions; quality of life; and serious adverse events. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 11 studies (3372 participants) meeting our inclusion criteria (10 RCTs and one NRS). Participants' ages ranged from 18 to 74 years, and the duration of studies ranged from 24 hours to 104 weeks. Six cross-over studies recruited healthy adults and five parallel studies included either people with pre-existing conditions (three studies) or only pregnant women (two studies). Interventions included masks (e.g. an N95 mask designed to filter out airborne particles) (five studies), an alternative cycle route (one study), air quality alerts and education (five studies). Studies were set in Australia, China, Iran, the UK, and the USA. Due to the diversity of study designs, populations, interventions and outcomes, we did not perform any meta-analyses and instead summarised results narratively. We judged both RCTs and the NRS to be at risk of bias from lack of blinding and lack of clarity regarding selection methods. Many studies did not provide a prepublished protocol or trial registration. From five studies (184 participants), we found that masks or altered cycle routes may have little or no impact on physiological markers of air pollution exposure (e.g. blood pressure and heart rate variability), but we are very uncertain about this estimate using the GRADE approach. We found conflicting evidence regarding health care usage from three studies of air pollution alerts, with one non-randomised cross-over trial (35 participants) reporting an increase in emergency hospital attendances and admissions, but the other two randomised parallel trials (1553 participants) reporting little to no difference. We also gave the evidence for this outcome a very uncertain GRADE rating. None of our included trials reported respiratory exacerbations, quality of life or serious adverse events. Secondary outcomes were not well reported, but indicated inconsistent impacts of air quality alerts and education interventions on adherence, with some trials reporting improvements in the intervention groups and others reporting little or no difference. Symptoms were reported by three trials, with one randomised cross-over trial (15 participants) reporting a small increase in breathing difficulties associated with the mask intervention, one non-randomised cross-over trial (35 participants) reporting reduced throat and nasal irritation in the lower-pollution cycle route group (but no clear difference in other respiratory symptoms), and another randomised parallel trial (519 participants) reporting no clear difference in symptoms between those who received a smog warning and those who did not. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The lack of evidence and study diversity has limited the conclusions of this review. Using a mask or a lower-pollution cycle route may mitigate some of the physiological impacts from air pollution, but evidence was very uncertain. We found conflicting results for other outcomes, including health care usage, symptoms and adherence/behaviour change. We did not find evidence for adverse events. Funders should consider commissioning larger, longer studies, using high-quality and well-described methods, recruiting participants with pre-existing respiratory conditions. Studies should report outcomes of importance to people with respiratory conditions, such as exacerbations, hospital admissions, quality of life and adverse events.

Discussing treatment burden.

Healthcare professionals should help patients to reach informed decisions about treatments in order to maximise benefits while minimising treatment burden https://bit.ly/2XRtRPK.

Educational aspects of rare and orphan lung diseases.

People with rare lung diseases often suffer the burden of delayed diagnosis, limited treatment options, and difficulties in finding expert physicians. One of the reasons for the delay in diagnosis is the limited training for healthcare practitioners on rare diseases. This review explores the main concerns and needs for education on rare lung diseases from the perspectives of both patients and professionals. Despite the increasing interest in rare lung disorders and some recent breakthrough developments on the management of several diseases, healthcare professionals, including general practitioners and hospital workers, receive little education on this topic. Nonetheless, many healthcare professionals show much interest in receiving further training, especially on diagnosis. Patients and families want easier access to high-quality education materials to help them manage their own disease. Well-educated patients are better equipped to deal with chronic diseases, but patient education can be challenging as patients' individual health issues, and diverse backgrounds can create significant barriers. Raising more awareness for rare lung diseases and further development of patient-centred international expert networks like the European Reference Network on Rare Lung Diseases (ERN-LUNG), which includes both experts and patient representatives, are essential for improving care and education on rare lung diseases. Initiatives such as the Rare Disease Day, have been successful in increasing awareness for rare conditions. The development of online tools for accessing information has had positive effects and should be further supported and extended in the future.

Getting the word out: how to talk to the public about your research.

Communicating to nonspecialist audiences about research has many benefits for both scientists and clinicians. By using techniques and tools for accessible communication, it is possible to convey complex topics in a clear, engaging and sensitive manner. http://bit.ly/39M1oym.

ESR/ERS statement paper on lung cancer screening.

In Europe, lung cancer ranks third among the most common cancers, remaining the biggest killer. Since the publication of the first European Society of Radiology and European Respiratory Society joint white paper on lung cancer screening (LCS) in 2015, many new findings have been published and discussions have increased considerably. Thus, this updated expert opinion represents a narrative, non-systematic review of the evidence from LCS trials and description of the current practice of LCS as well as aspects that have not received adequate attention until now. Reaching out to the potential participants (persons at high risk), optimal communication and shared decision-making will be key starting points. Furthermore, standards for infrastructure, pathways and quality assurance are pivotal, including promoting tobacco cessation, benefits and harms, overdiagnosis, quality, minimum radiation exposure, definition of management of positive screen results and incidental findings linked to respective actions as well as cost-effectiveness. This requires a multidisciplinary team with experts from pulmonology and radiology as well as thoracic oncologists, thoracic surgeons, pathologists, family doctors, patient representatives and others. The ESR and ERS agree that Europe's health systems need to adapt to allow citizens to benefit from organised pathways, rather than unsupervised initiatives, to allow early diagnosis of lung cancer and reduce the mortality rate. Now is the time to set up and conduct demonstration programmes focusing, among other points, on methodology, standardisation, tobacco cessation, education on healthy lifestyle, cost-effectiveness and a central registry.

ESR/ERS statement paper on lung cancer screening.

In Europe, lung cancer ranks third among the most common cancers, remaining the biggest killer. Since the publication of the first European Society of Radiology and European Respiratory Society joint white paper on lung cancer screening (LCS) in 2015, many new findings have been published and discussions have increased considerably. Thus, this updated expert opinion represents a narrative, non-systematic review of the evidence from LCS trials and description of the current practice of LCS as well as aspects that have not received adequate attention until now. Reaching out to the potential participants (persons at high risk), optimal communication and shared decision-making will be key starting points. Furthermore, standards for infrastructure, pathways and quality assurance are pivotal, including promoting tobacco cessation, benefits and harms, overdiagnosis, quality, minimum radiation exposure, definition of management of positive screen results and incidental findings linked to respective actions as well as cost-effectiveness. This requires a multidisciplinary team with experts from pulmonology and radiology as well as thoracic oncologists, thoracic surgeons, pathologists, family doctors, patient representatives and others. The ESR and ERS agree that Europe's health systems need to adapt to allow citizens to benefit from organised pathways, rather than unsupervised initiatives, to allow early diagnosis of lung cancer and reduce the mortality rate. Now is the time to set up and conduct demonstration programmes focusing, among other points, on methodology, standardisation, tobacco cessation, education on healthy lifestyle, cost-effectiveness and a central registry.Key Points• Pulmonologists and radiologists both have key roles in the set up of multidisciplinary LCS teams with experts from many other fields.• Pulmonologists identify people eligible for LCS, reach out to family doctors, share the decision-making process and promote tobacco cessation.• Radiologists ensure appropriate image quality, minimum dose and a standardised reading/reporting algorithm, together with a clear definition of a "positive screen".• Strict algorithms define the exact management of screen-detected nodules and incidental findings.• For LCS to be (cost-)effective, it has to target a population defined by risk prediction models.

Providing answers to respiratory patients' questions during COVID-19.

Quickly publishing questions from people with lung conditions, answered by experts in multiple languages, provided a well-accessed source of evidence-based support for individuals across the globe during the first wave of the #COVID19 pandemic https://bit.ly/2F5ZP4k.

ERS Presidential Summit 2018: multimorbidities and the ageing population.

As the average age of the population increases, so will the prevalence of chronic respiratory diseases and associated multimorbidity. This will result in a more complex clinical environment. Part of the solution will be to allow patients to be co-creators in the design of their care. It will also require clinicians to shift in their current approaches to care, step out of the disease- or pathology-oriented approach and embrace new ideas. In an effort to prepare the respiratory community for the challenge, we reflect on concepts to empower patients via multidisciplinary systems, new technologies and transition from end-of-life care to advanced care planning.

Why is medical oxygen a challenge for people travelling by air?

There are currently 3.5 million people in Europe who require medical oxygen, and as life expectancies increase, this figure is likely to grow. At the same time, air travel is becoming more accessible to a wider range of people, as costs of flights fall, and airlines and airports make improvements to the accessibility of their services. People who need medical oxygen to fly experience a wide range of difficulties when planning to travel by plane, and sometimes during or after the flight. A European Commission Regulation (EC No 1107/2006) sets the standard for airlines when it comes to making air travel accessible, but healthcare professionals and oxygen providers can both help patients to navigate the various requirements for using medical oxygen when travelling. In this review, we discuss the journey of the patient planning to travel by air, from initial consultation and fit-to-fly test, through to planning their air travel and oxygen supply, travelling, and arriving at their destination. We also highlight some common problems at each stage and suggest points for healthcare professionals to discuss with patients. KEY POINTS: Patients who require medical oxygen for air travel should begin planning their trip as far in advance as possible.It is very advantageous for healthcare professionals to be able to advise patients on travelling with oxygen and what they need to do.Requirements and policies can vary greatly between airlines, causing problems for patients who are trying to book their flights.Patients or their carers need to be confident operating their oxygen equipment, as the stress of travel and lack of medical assistance on an airplane can put them at risk.Careful arrangements need to be made by the patient to make sure that they have the correct oxygen therapy at their destination, and can access support if they need it. EDUCATIONAL AIMS: To understand the process and potential challenges for a patient who requires oxygen to travel by plane.To be confident in discussing air travel with patients who are affected by lung disease.