What defines airflow obstruction in asthma?

Asthma guidelines from the Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) and from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute provide conflicting definitions of airflow obstruction, suggesting a fixed forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV(1))/forced vital capacity (FVC) cut-off point and the lower limit of normality (LLN), respectively. The LLN was recommended by the recent American Thoracic Society/European Respiratory Society guidelines on lung function testing. The problem in using fixed cut-off points is that they are set regardless of age and sex in an attempt to simplify diagnosis at the expense of misclassification. The sensitivity and specificity of fixed FEV(1)/FVC ratios of 0.70, 0.75 and 0.80 versus the LLN were evaluated in 815 subjects (aged 20-44 yrs) with a diagnosis of asthma within the framework of the European Community Respiratory Health Survey. In males, the 0.70 ratio showed 76.5% sensitivity and 100.0% specificity, the 0.75 ratio 100.0% sensitivity and 92.4% specificity, and the 0.80 ratio 100.0% sensitivity but 58.1% specificity. In females, the 0.70 ratio showed 57.3% sensitivity and 100.0% specificity, the 0.75 ratio 91.5% sensitivity and 95.9% specificity, and the 0.80 ratio 100.0% sensitivity but 72.9% specificity. The fixed cut-off points cause a lot of misidentification of airflow obstruction in young adults, with overestimation with the 0.80 ratio and underestimation with the 0.70 ratio. In conclusion, the GINA guidelines should change their criteria for defining airflow obstruction

Defining the scope of the European Antimicrobial Resistance Surveillance network in Veterinary medicine (EARS-Vet): A bottom-up and One Health approach

Background: Building the European Antimicrobial Resistance Surveillance network in Veterinary medicine (EARS-Vet) was proposed to strengthen the European One Health antimicrobial resistance (AMR) surveillance approach. Objectives: To define the combinations of animal species/production types/age categories/bacterial species/specimens/antimicrobials to be monitored in EARS-Vet. Methods: The EARS-Vet scope was defined by consensus between 26 European experts. Decisions were guided by a survey of the combinations that are relevant and feasible to monitor in diseased animals in 13 European countries (bottom-up approach). Experts also considered the One Health approach and the need for EARS-Vet to complement existing European AMR monitoring systems coordinated by the ECDC and the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA). Results: EARS-Vet plans to monitor AMR in six animal species [cattle, swine, chickens (broilers and laying hens), turkeys, cats and dogs], for 11 bacterial species (Escherichia coli, Klebsiella pneumoniae, Mannheimia haemolytica, Pasteurella multocida, Actinobacillus pleuropneumoniae, Staphylococcus aureus, Staphylococcus pseudintermedius, Staphylococcus hyicus, Streptococcus uberis, Streptococcus dysgalactiae and Streptococcus suis). Relevant antimicrobials for their treatment were selected (e.g. tetracyclines) and complemented with antimicrobials of more specific public health interest (e.g. carbapenems). Molecular data detecting the presence of ESBLs, AmpC cephalosporinases and methicillin resistance shall be collected too. Conclusions: A preliminary EARS-Vet scope was defined, with the potential to fill important AMR monitoring gaps in the animal sector in Europe. It should be reviewed and expanded as the epidemiology of AMR changes, more countries participate and national monitoring capacities improve