Is onsite spirometry quality predicting the quality of home spirometry?


Good quality spirometry according to ATS/ERS standards is essential to accurately interpret parameters like FEV1 and FVC. Home spirometry is becoming a viable alternative or an additional assessment in clinical trials. However, unlike in a clinical setting, patients perform the test on their own at home without direct supervision.


This analysis aimed to determine whether the quality of a patient’s onsite spirometry could predict the quality of their home spirometry.


Spirometry data from 55 patients enrolled in an asthma clinical trial available at randomization clinic visits and more than 20 weeks of weekly home spirometry, were analyzed. The quality of onsite and home spirometry was assessed using AI-based software (ArtiQ.QC v1.5.0, ArtiQ NV, BE). The session was classified as good quality if both FEV1 and FVC were classified as A or B, according to ATS/ERS standards. For home spirometry, the average quality over time was considered.


76.4% of patients had good-quality with the rest achieving suboptimal-quality onsite spirometry (Table 1). Among those with good-quality onsite spirometry, 62% continued to perform good-quality spirometry at home, and only 31% of those with poor-quality onsite spirometry. A Fisher test (alpha = 5%) showed that this result is close to statistically significance (p=0.062). Further analysis with more data is required.


We demonstrated that the quality of onsite spirometry could be one of the indicators of the quality of subsequent home spirometry maneuvers.

Table 1: Comparison of onsite spirometry and home spirometry quality in 55 patients (good quality: both FEV1 and FVC = A or B)

Home spirometry


Onsite spirometry

Good quality Suboptimal quality Total
Good quality 26 16 42
Suboptimal quality 4 9 13
Total 30 25 55

FYI: 1810 characters maximum (277c per figure, for tables, count the number of c in the table + 1c per cell) 
More guidelines:



Desbordes1, B. Cuyvers1, M. Topalovic1, S. Biondaro2, I. Montagna2, S. Corre2, E. Topole2


1.ArtiQ NV, Leuven, Belgium

2.Global Clinical Development, Chiesi Farmaceutici S.p.A; Parma, Italy