Bronchiectasis is one of the most neglected diseases in respiratory medicine. There are no approved therapies and few large-scale, representative epidemiological studies.The EMBARC (European Multicentre Bronchiectasis Audit and Research Collaboration) registry is a prospective, pan-European observational study of patients with bronchiectasis. The inclusion criterion is a primary clinical diagnosis of bronchiectasis consisting of: 1) a clinical history consistent with bronchiectasis; and 2) computed tomography demonstrating bronchiectasis. Core exclusion criteria are: 1) bronchiectasis due to known cystic fibrosis; 2) age <18 years; and 3) patients who are unable or unwilling to provide informed consent.The study aims to enrol 1000 patients by April 2016 across at least 20 European countries, and 10 000 patients by March 2020. Patients will undergo a comprehensive baseline assessment and will be followed up annually for up to 5 years with the goal of providing high-quality longitudinal data on outcomes, treatment patterns and quality of life. Data from the registry will be available in the form of annual reports. and will be disseminated in conference presentations and peer-reviewed publications.The European Bronchiectasis Registry aims to make a major contribution to understanding the natural history of the disease, as well as guiding evidence-based decision making and facilitating large randomised controlled trials.

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a leading cause of mortality and morbidity worldwide, with high and growing prevalence. Its underdiagnosis and hence under-treatment is a general feature across all countries. This is particularly true for the mild or early stages of the disease, when symptoms do not yet interfere with daily living activities and both patients and doctors are likely to underestimate the presence of the disease. A diagnosis of COPD requires spirometry in subjects with a history of exposure to known risk factors and symptoms. Postbronchodilator forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1)/forced vital capacity <0.7 or less than the lower limit of normal confirms the presence of airflow limitation, the severity of which can be measured by FEV1% predicted: stage 1 defines COPD with mild airflow limitation, which means postbronchodilator FEV1 ≥80% predicted. In recent years, an elegant series of studies has shown that “exclusive reliance on spirometry, in patients with mild airflow limitation, may result in underestimation of clinically important physiologic impairment”. In fact, exercise tolerance, diffusing capacity, and gas exchange can be impaired in subjects at a mild stage of airflow limitation. Furthermore, growing evidence indicates that smokers without overt abnormal spirometry have respiratory symptoms and undergo therapy. This is an essential issue in COPD. In fact, on one hand, airflow limitation, even mild, can unduly limit the patient’s physical activity, with deleterious consequences on quality of life and even survival; on the other hand, particularly in younger subjects, mild airflow limitation might coincide with the early stage of the disease. Therefore, we thought that it was worthwhile to analyze further and discuss this stage of “mild COPD”. To this end, representatives of scientific societies from five European countries have met and developed this document to stimulate the attention of the scientific community on COPD with “mild” airflow limitation. The aim of this document is to highlight some key features of this important concept and help the practicing physician to understand better what is behind “mild” COPD. Future research should address two major issues: first, whether mild airflow limitation represents an early stage of COPD and what the mechanisms underlying the evolution to more severe stages of the disease are; and second, not far removed from the first, whether regular treatment should be considered for COPD patients with mild airflow limitation, either to prevent progression of the disease or to encourage and improve physical activity or both.

Little is known about the characteristics and treatments of patients with severe asthma across Europe, but both are likely to vary. This is the first study in the European Respiratory Society Severe Heterogeneous Asthma Research collaboration, Patient-centred (SHARP) Clinical Research Collaboration and it is designed to explore these variations. Therefore, we aimed to compare characteristics of patients in European severe asthma registries and treatments before starting biologicals.This was a cross-sectional retrospective analysis of aggregated data from 11 national severe asthma registries that joined SHARP with established patient databases.Analysis of data from 3236 patients showed many differences in characteristics and lifestyle factors. Current smokers ranged from 0% (Poland and Sweden) to 9.5% (Belgium), mean body mass index ranged from 26.2 (Italy) to 30.6 kg·m−2 (the UK) and the largest difference in mean pre-bronchodilator forced expiratory volume in 1 s % predicted was 20.9% (the Netherlands versus Hungary). Before starting biologicals patients were treated differently between countries: mean inhaled corticosteroid dose ranged from 700 to 1335 µg·day−1 between those from Slovenia versus Poland when starting anti-interleukin (IL)-5 antibody and from 772 to 1344 µg·day−1 in those starting anti-IgE (Slovenia versus Spain). Maintenance oral corticosteroid use ranged from 21.0% (Belgium) to 63.0% (Sweden) and from 9.1% (Denmark) to 56.1% (the UK) in patients starting anti-IL-5 and anti-IgE, respectively.The severe asthmatic population in Europe is heterogeneous and differs in both clinical characteristics and treatment, often appearing not to comply with the current European Respiratory Society/American Thoracic Society guidelines definition of severe asthma. Treatment regimens before starting biologicals were different from inclusion criteria in clinical trials and varied between countries.

van der Zee 1 on behalf of the SHARP Clinical Research Collaboration 24 @ERSpublications The severe asthma population in Europe is heterogeneous and differs in clinical characteristics and treatment. Harmonisation across registries and guidelines is needed and requires collection of same data across cohorts to enable future research in SHARP.

The developed program for home monitoring of patients with asthma was applicable and offered the patients support in managing their disease. Further studies with more selected patients are needed to confirm its usefulness in improving asthma control.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract