Investigating Viral Involvement in Immunocompromised Patients Using Comprehensive Infectious Disease Testing Including FilmArray Respiratory Panel 2.1 on Bronchoscopy: A Retrospective Study.

Introduction Reports are rare on the usefulness of the FilmArray Respiratory Panel 2.1 (FARP) using lower respiratory tract specimens. This retrospective study assessed its use, as part of a comprehensive infectious disease panel, to detect the viral causes of pneumonia using bronchoalveolar lavage samples from immunosuppressed patients. Methods This study included immunocompromised patients who underwent bronchoalveolar lavage or bronchial washing by bronchoscopy between April 1, 2021, and April 30, 2022. The collected samples were submitted for comprehensive testing, including FARP test; reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) for cytomegalovirus, varicella-zoster virus DNA, and herpes simplex virus; PCR for Pneumocystis jirovecii DNA; antigen testing for Aspergillus and Cryptococcus neoformans; and loop-mediated isothermal amplification method for Legionella. Results Out of 23 patients, 16 (70%) showed bilateral infiltrative shadows on computed tomography and three (13%) were intubated. The most common causes of immunosuppression were anticancer drug use (n=12, 52%) and hematologic tumors (n=11, 48%). Only two (9%) patients tested positive for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 and adenovirus by FARP. Four patients (17%) tested positive for cytomegalovirus by RT-PCR, but no inclusion bodies were identified cytologically. Nine (39%) patients tested positive for Pneumocystis jirovecii by PCR, but cytology confirmed the organism in only one case. Conclusions Comprehensive infectious disease testing, performed using bronchoalveolar lavage samples collected from lung lesions in immunosuppressed patients, showed low positive detection by FARP. The viruses currently detectable by FARP may be less involved in viral pneumonia diagnosed in immunocompromised patients.

Difficult removal after bronchial filling of an endobronchial Watanabe spigot with N-butyl-2-cyanoacrylate for intractable pneumothorax: A case report.

A 52-year-old man developed a right pneumothorax during treatment for COVID-19. In a previous case report concerning this patient, his recovery was achieved through implanting four endobronchial Watanabe spigots (EWS) in the right B1 and B3 in two phases and spraying N-butyl-2-cyanoacrylate (NBCA). One year later, EWS removal was planned. He was intubated under bronchoscopic guidance, and the right upper lobe was observed. The right B1 and B3 inlets were found to be covered with granuloma. Despite the presence of a nylon thread for easy retrieval and partial debridement of the granulation, removal of the implanted EWS in the right B1 and B3 using grasping forceps, basket forceps, and two types of balloons under fluoroscopic guidance was challenging. NBCA spraying is a possible cause of foreign body granuloma formation. Therefore, careful consideration of the indications for the combined EWS-NBCA procedure is necessary.

Combined treatment with endobronchial Watanabe spigot and N-butyl-2-cyanoacrylate for refractory pneumothorax in COVID-19.

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) causes pneumothorax or mediastinal emphysema in approximately 1% of patients. According to the British Thoracic Society guidelines, the next treatment option for patients with persistent pneumothorax despite chest drainage is pleurodesis or surgery. In fact, there are reports of autologous blood pleurodesis or surgery for the treatment of pneumothorax caused by COVID-19. However, elderly patients or patients in poor general condition may not be able to tolerate surgical invasion. In this report, we present two patients who did not respond to chest drainage or pleurodesis and who were not suitable for surgery because of their poor general condition. These patients were successfully treated with an endobronchial Watanabe spigot and N-butyl-2-cyanoacrylate. This method may be an option for the treatment of refractory pneumothorax in COVID-19.

Identification of patients with COVID-19 who are optimal for methylprednisolone pulse therapy.

BACKGROUND: Corticosteroids have been reported to reduce the mortality rates in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Additionally, the role of high-dose methylprednisolone pulse therapy in reducing mortality in critically ill patients has also been documented. The purpose of this study is to identify patients with COVID-19 who are suitable for methylprednisolone pulse therapy. METHODS: This was a retrospective study that included patients with COVID-19 receiving methylprednisolone pulse therapy (≥250 mg/day for 3 days) with subsequent tapering doses at our hospital between June 2020 and January 2021. We examined the differences in background clinical factors between the surviving group and the deceased group. RESULTS: Out of 156 patients who received steroid therapy, 17 received methylprednisolone pulse therapy. Ten patients recovered (surviving group) and seven patients died (deceased group). The median age of the surviving and deceased groups was 64.5 years (range, 57-85) and 79 years (73-90), respectively, with a significant difference (p=0.004). Five of the deceased patients (71%) had developed serious complications associated with the cause of death, including pneumothorax, pneumomediastinum, COVID-19-associated pulmonary aspergillosis, cytomegalovirus infection, and bacteremia. On the other hand, out of the 10 survivors, only one elderly person had cytomegalovirus infection and the rest recovered without complications. CONCLUSION: Administration of methylprednisolone pulse therapy with subsequent tapering may be an effective treatment in patients with COVID-19 up to the age of early 70s; however, severe complications may be seen in elderly patients.

Steroid resistance and rebound phenomena in patients with COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: In patients with coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pneumonia, corticosteroids reduce progression to respiratory failure and death. Some patients, however, remain unresponsive to this treatment, or experience a rebound after termination. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study included COVID-19 patients treated with systemic corticosteroids in a Japanese hospital between June 1, 2020, and January 17, 2021. Patients were categorized into three groups: success, rebound, and refractory, and clinical characteristics and outcomes were compared. RESULTS: A total of 319 COVID-19 patients were admitted to our hospital and 113 patients met inclusion criteria. The success group had 83 patients (73.5%), the rebound group had nine patients (8.0%), and the refractory group had 21 patients (18.6%). Compared with the success group, the rebound group received corticosteroids earlier, for a shorter duration, and stopped them sooner. The median time from symptom onset to rebound was 12 days. There was no rebound after 20 days. Compared with the success group, the hazard ratio for the number of days from corticosteroid onset to an improvement of two points on a seven-point ordinal scale was 0.29 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.14-0.60, P < .001) for the rebound group versus 0.13 (95% CI, 0.07-0.25, P < .001) for the refractory group. CONCLUSIONS: COVID-19 patients treated with corticosteroids were classified into three response groups: success, rebound, and refractory, between which recovery time and prognosis differed. It was found that corticosteroid administration may prevent rebound phenomena if administered at least two weeks from symptom onset.

Corticosteroids for hospitalized patients with mild to critically-ill COVID-19: a multicenter, retrospective, propensity score-matched study.

Corticosteroids use in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is controversial, especially in mild to severe patients who do not require invasive/noninvasive ventilation. Moreover, many factors remain unclear regarding the appropriate use of corticosteroids for COVID-19. In this context, this multicenter, retrospective, propensity score-matched study was launched to evaluate the efficacy of systemic corticosteroid administration for hospitalized patients with COVID-19 ranging in the degree of severity from mild to critically-ill disease. This multicenter, retrospective study enrolled consecutive hospitalized COVID-19 patients diagnosed January-April 2020 across 30 institutions in Japan. Clinical outcomes were compared for COVID-19 patients who received or did not receive corticosteroids, after adjusting for propensity scores. The primary endpoint was the odds ratio (OR) for improvement on a 7-point ordinal score on Day 15. Of 1092 COVID-19 patients analyzed, 118 patients were assigned to either the corticosteroid and non-corticosteroid group, after propensity score matching. At baseline, most patients did not require invasive/noninvasive ventilation (85.6% corticosteroid group vs. 89.8% non-corticosteroid group). The odds of improvement in a 7-point ordinal score on Day 15 was significantly lower for the corticosteroid versus non-corticosteroid group (OR, 0.611; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.388-0.962; p = 0.034). The time to improvement in radiological findings was significantly shorter in the corticosteroid versus non-corticosteroid group (hazard ratio [HR], 1.758; 95% CI, 1.323-2.337; p < 0.001), regardless of baseline clinical status. The duration of invasive mechanical ventilation was shorter in corticosteroid versus non-corticosteroid group (HR, 1.466; 95% CI, 0.841-2.554; p = 0.177). Of the 106 patients who received methylprednisolone, the duration of invasive mechanical ventilation was significantly shorter in the pulse/semi-pulse versus standard dose group (HR, 2.831; 95% CI, 1.347-5.950; p = 0.006). In conclusion, corticosteroids for hospitalized patients with COVID-19 did not improve clinical status on Day 15, but reduced the time to improvement in radiological findings for all patients regardless of disease severity and also reduced the duration of invasive mechanical ventilation in patients who required intubation.Trial registration: This study was registered in the University hospital Medical Information Network Clinical Trials Registry on April 21, 2020 (ID: UMIN000040211).

Ultrasonic humidifier lung as a mimic of COVID-19.

Chest computed tomography (CT) has been used to complement coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) diagnosis due to its high sensitivity. However, owing to the low specificity of CT findings, differential diagnosis is essential. The typical CT findings of COVID-19 include ground-glass opacifications and consolidations with predominant distribution in bilateral, peripheral, and subpleural parts of the lung. These imaging findings are non-specific and may resemble other lung conditions, including ultrasonic humidifier lung, which is a condition that develops on inhaling aerosols generated by ultrasonic humidifiers. We present two patients with initial symptoms similar to COVID-19. CT examination revealed centrilobular nodules and consolidations with upper lobe-predominant distribution, although atypical for COVID-19, but key findings for ultrasonic humidifier lung. Therefore, ultrasonic humidifier lung could be a differential diagnosis for COVID-19 in dry environments. Characteristic CT findings and a history of ultrasonic humidifier use are critical to the final diagnosis.

High-dose, short-term corticosteroids for ARDS caused by COVID-19: a case series.

We report a case series of seven mechanically ventilated patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) caused by coronavirus disease (COVID-19) who received early treatment with high-dose, short-term systemic corticosteroids to prevent cytokine overproduction. Of the seven patients, four were male and median age was 69 years. They were intubated within seven days after admission when their respiratory status rapidly worsened. At that time, we administered 1000 or 500 mg/day for three days of methylprednisolone intravenously, followed by 1 mg/kg and tapered off. The median duration for the total administration of corticosteroids was 13 days. This high-dose, short-term corticosteroid therapy enabled extubation of the patients within seven days. Many questions on the clinical management of COVID-19 remain unanswered, and data on corticosteroid therapy as a choice of treatment are mixed. We present the clinical course of our cases, review the previous evidence, and discuss management.