Journal Information
Vol. 57. Issue 3.
Pages 235 (March 2021)
Letter to the Editor
Full text access
Reply to COPD diagnosis in EPI-SCAN II
Respuesta a «El diagnóstico de la EPOC en EPI-SCAN II»
Visits
1907
Joan B. Soriano
Corresponding author
jbsoriano2@gmail.com

Corresponding author.
, On behalf of the Scientific Committee EPI-SCAN II 1
Servicio de Neumología, Hospital Universitario de la Princesa, Madrid, Spain
Related content
Arch Bronconeumol. 2021;57:23410.1016/j.arbr.2020.11.013
José Luis Lopez-Campos, Bernardino Alcázar Navarrete
This item has received
Article information
Full Text
Bibliography
Download PDF
Statistics
Full Text
To the Editor:

We read with interest the letter from Dr. López-Campos and Dr. Alcázar1 commenting on the EPI-SCAN II2 study, and we thank them for the opportunity to discuss three relevant aspects of population research in general and COPD in particular.

Firstly, we fully agree that it is important to encourage the debate between airflow limitation and clinical COPD. In this respect, EPI-SCAN II used the same COPD criteria universally accepted in epidemiological studies, and that were also used in EPI-SCAN I in order to compare results. Comparisons between participants diagnosed with COPD according to these criteria or by clinical criteria, in addition to spirometry, is one of the secondary objectives of the study that will be analyzed in a future publication.

Secondly, the entire methodology of the EPI-SCAN II study, including its sampling strategy, is summarized in the www.clinicaltrials.gov repository, under number NCT03028207, and in the methods section of our article. It is, furthermore, described in more detail in the protocol previously published in Archivos de Bronconeumología.3

Finally, with regard to possible selection biases, we admit that the methodology we used may not be completely bias-free, but it was the best alternative available to conduct a study of these dimensions. Performing spirometries in the general population is not easy. Choosing major cities or provincial capitals does not in itself constitute a selection bias, but was instead a reasoned methodological decision, since the practical aspects of inviting people who live at some distance from a hospital to participate altruistically in a research study are much more complex and expensive than conducting the study in the inhabitants of an urban capital, where research teams and certified lung function laboratories are concentrated. We agree that telephone sampling may potentially lead to a selection bias, but given the current legal impossibility of performing any kind of census sampling we felt postal or internet sampling alternatives were no better. These limitations have already been recognized in the text of our article: “…The majority of areas studied were urban, and although more than 90% of the Spanish population lives in cities, the population burden of disease in rural areas is expected to be high but underrepresented here”. There is little doubt that the problem of COPD and all other chronic diseases associated with smoking and aging in the so-called “empty Spain” is a specific issue that requires a different approach that was not among the objectives of EPI-SCAN II.

Funding

The EPISCAN II study was funded by GSK.

Appendix A
Annex List of members of the EPI-SCAN II scientific committee

Joan B Soriano (Hospital Universitario de La Princesa, Centro de Investigación en Red de Enfermedades Respiratorias [CIBERES], Instituto de Salud Carlos III [ISCIII], Madrid).

Inmaculada Alfageme (Unidad de Gestión Clínica de Neumología, Hospital Universitario Virgen de Valme, Universidad de Sevilla, Seville).

Marc Miravitlles (Servicio de Neumología, Hospital Universitari Vall d’Hebron, Barcelona, Centro de Investigación en Red de Enfermedades Respiratorias [CIBERES], Instituto de Salud Carlos III [ISCIII], Madrid).

Pilar de Lucas (Servicio de Neumología, Hospital General Gregorio Marañón, Madrid).

Juan José Soler-Cataluña (Servicio de Neumología, Hospital Arnau de Vilanova-Llíria, Valencia).

Francisco García-Río (Servicio de Neumología, Hospital Universitario La Paz-IdiPAZ, Madrid, Centro de Investigación en Red de Enfermedades Respiratorias [CIBERES], Instituto de Salud Carlos III [ISCIII], Madrid).

Ciro Casanova (Servicio de Neumología, Hospital Universitario Nuestra Señora de Candelaria, Tenerife).

José Miguel Rodríguez González-Moro (Servicio de Neumología, Hospital Universitario de Alcalá de Henares, Madrid).

Borja G. Cosío (Servicio de Neumología, Hospital Universitario Son Espases-IdISBa, Palma de Mallorca, Centro de Investigación en Red de Enfermedades Respiratorias [CIBERES], Instituto de Salud Carlos III [ISCIII], Madrid).

Guadalupe Sánchez (Departamento Médico, GSK, Tres Cantos, Madrid).

Julio Ancochea (Hospital Universitario de La Princesa, Centro de Investigación en Red de Enfermedades Respiratorias [CIBERES], Instituto de Salud Carlos III [ISCIII], Madrid)

References
[1]
J.L. López-Campos, B. Alcázar.
El diagnóstico de la EPOC en EPI-SCAN 2.
[2]
J.B. Soriano, I. Alfageme, M. Miravitlles, P. de Lucas, J.J. Soler-Cataluña, F. García-Río, et al.
Prevalencia y determinantes de la EPOC en España: EPISCAN II.
[3]
I. Alfageme, P. de Lucas, J. Ancochea, M. Miravitlles, J.J. Soler-Cataluña, F. García-Río, et al.
Nuevo estudio sobre la prevalencia de la EPOC en España: resumen del protocolo EPISCAN II, 10 años después de EPISCAN.
Arch Bronconeumol, 55 (2019), pp. 38-47

Please cite this article as: Soriano JB. Respuesta a «El diagnóstico de la EPOC en EPI-SCAN II». Arch Bronconeumol. 2021;57:235.

Members of the EPI-SCAN II Scientific committee are listed in the Appendix A.

Copyright © 2020. SEPAR
Archivos de Bronconeumología
Article options
Tools

Are you a health professional able to prescribe or dispense drugs?