Background: Spirometry is the most common pulmonary function test. It is widely used in the assessment of lung function to provide objective information used in the diagnosis of lung diseases and monitoring lung health. In 2005, the American Thoracic Society and the European Respiratory Society jointly adopted technical standards for conducting spirometry. Improvements in instrumentation and computational capabilities, together with new research studies and enhanced quality assurance approaches, have led to the need to update the 2005 technical standards for spirometry to take full advantage of current technical capabilities. Methods: This spirometry technical standards document was developed by an international joint task force, appointed by the American Thoracic Society and the European Respiratory Society, with expertise in conducting and analyzing pulmonary function tests, laboratory quality assurance, and developing international standards. A comprehensive review of published evidence was performed. A patient survey was developed to capture patients’ experiences. Results: Revisions to the 2005 technical standards for spirometry were made, including the addition of factors that were not previously considered. Evidence to support the revisions was cited when applicable. The experience and expertise of task force members were used to develop recommended best practices. Conclusions: Standards and consensus recommendations are presented for manufacturers, clinicians, operators, and researchers with the aims of increasing the accuracy, precision, and quality of spirometric measurements and improving the patient experience. A comprehensive guide to aid in the implementation of these standards was developed as an online supplement.

Rationale: The use of self-reported race and ethnicity to interpret lung function measurements has historically assumed that the observed differences in lung function between racial and ethnic groups were because of thoracic cavity size differences relative to standing height. Very few studies have considered the influence of environmental and social determinants on pulmonary function. Consequently, the use of race and ethnicity-specific reference equations may further marginalize disadvantaged populations. Objectives: To develop a race-neutral reference equation for spirometry interpretation. Methods: National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) III data (n = 6,984) were reanalyzed with sitting height and the Cormic index to investigate whether body proportions were better predictors of lung function than race and ethnicity. Furthermore, the original GLI (Global Lung Function Initiative) data (n = 74,185) were reanalyzed with inverse-probability weights to create race-neutral GLI global (2022) equations. Measurements and Main Results: The inclusion of sitting height slightly improved the statistical precision of reference equations compared with using standing height alone but did not explain observed differences in spirometry between the NHANES III race and ethnic groups. GLI global (2022) equations, which do not require the selection of race and ethnicity, had a similar fit to the GLI 2012 “other” equations and wider limits of normal. Conclusions: The use of a single global spirometry equation reflects the wide range of lung function observed within and between populations. Given the inherent limitations of any reference equation, the use of GLI global equations to interpret spirometry requires careful consideration of an individual’s symptoms and medical history when used to make clinical, employment, and insurance decisions.

Rationale: In developing countries, poor and rural areas have a high burden of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), and environmental pollutants and indoor burning of biomass have been implicated as potential causal exposures. Less is known about the prevalence of COPD in the United States with respect to urban–rural distribution, poverty, and factors that uniquely contribute to COPD among never-smokers. Objectives: To understand the impact of urban–rural status, poverty, and other community factors on COPD prevalence nationwide and among never-smokers. Methods: We studied a nationally representative sample of adults in the National Health Interview Survey 2012–2015, with data linkage between neighborhood data from the U.S. Census’s American Community Survey and the National Center for Health Statistics Urban–Rural Classification Scheme. The main outcome was COPD prevalence. Measurements and Main Results: The prevalence of COPD in poor, rural areas was almost twice that in the overall population (15.4% vs. 8.4%). In adjusted models, rural residence (odds ratio [OR], 1.23; P < 0.001) and census-level poverty (OR, 1.12; P = 0.012) were both associated with COPD prevalence, as were indicators of household wealth. Among never-smokers, rural residence was also associated with COPD (OR, 1.34; P < 0.001), as was neighborhood use of coal for heating (OR, 1.09; P < 0.001). Conclusions: In a nationally representative sample, rural residence and poverty were risk factors for COPD, even among never-smokers. The use of coal for heating was also a risk factor for COPD among never-smokers. Future disparities research to elucidate contributors to COPD development in poor and rural areas, including assessments of heating sources and environmental pollutants, is needed.

Rationale: Indoor particulate matter is associated with worse chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) outcomes. It remains unknown whether reductions of indoor pollutants improve respiratory morbidity. Objectives: To determine whether placement of active portable high-efficiency particulate air cleaners can improve respiratory morbidity in former smokers. Methods: Eligible former smokers with moderate-to-severe COPD received active or sham portable high-efficiency particulate absolute air cleaners and were followed for 6 months in this blinded randomized controlled trial. The primary outcome was 6-month change in St. George’s Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ). Secondary outcomes were exacerbation risk, respiratory symptoms, rescue medication use, and 6-minute-walk distance (6MWD). Intention-to-treat analysis included all subjects, and per-protocol analysis included adherent participants (greater than 80% use of air cleaner). Measurements and Main Results: A total of 116 participants were randomized, of which 84.5% completed the study. There was no statistically significant difference in total SGRQ score, but the active filter group had greater reduction in SGRQ symptom subscale (β, −7.7 [95% confidence interval (CI), −15.0 to −0.37]) and respiratory symptoms (Breathlessness, Cough, and Sputum Scale, β, −0.8 [95% CI, −1.5 to −0.1]); and lower rate of moderate exacerbations (incidence rate ratio, 0.32 [95% CI, 0.12–0.91]) and rescue medication use (incidence rate ratio, 0.54 [95% CI, 0.33–0.86]) compared with sham group (all P < 0.05). In per-protocol analysis, there was a statistically significant difference in primary outcome between the active filter versus sham group (SGRQ, β −4.76 [95% CI, −9.2 to −0.34]) and in moderate exacerbation risk, Breathlessness, Cough, and Sputum Scale, and 6MWD. Participants spending more time indoors were more likely to have treatment benefit. Conclusions: This is the first environmental intervention study conducted among former smokers with COPD showing potential health benefits of portable high-efficiency particulate absolute air cleaners, particularly among those with greater adherence and spending a greater time indoors.