Background and objectives: The aims of the study were to evaluate the utility of neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) and the systemic immune-inflammation index (SII) as inflammation markers and prognostic factors in patients with known interstitial lung disease secondary to connective tissue diseases (CTD-ILD) compared with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF). Materials and Methods: Forty-two patients with known interstitial lung disease (21 with IPF and 21 with CTD-ILD) and 42 control matched healthy patients were included. The NLR was calculated as the absolute neutrophil count divided by the absolute lymphocyte count, and the SII was calculated as follows: SII = platelets × neutrophils/lymphocytes, with the data being obtained from the patients data charts at admission, before any treatment. Results: our hypothesis was that in patients with interstitial lung disease NLR and SII would have higher values compared with patients with CTD-ILD or control healthy patients. The mean NLR value was 3.01 (±1.35) among patients with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis, and 2.38 (±1.08) among patients with CTD-ILD without significant statistical difference (p = 0.92). There was however a clinically significant statistical difference when compared with the control group, where NLR was 2.00 (±1.05) (p = 0.003). SII values were 619.37 (±329.51) in patients with IPF, 671.55 (±365.73) in CTD-ILD group and 569.73 (±326.67) in healthy subjects (p = 0.13) Conclusions: A mean NLR value of 2.8 and a SII value over 500 in patients with connective diseases can become a marker of pulmonary interstitial involvement. In the context of non-exacerbated interstitial lung disease, NLR and SII have reduced numerical values, without being statistically correlated with prognosis when we compared with patients with connective tissue diseases without exacerbation or with healthy people, the cut off being of 2.4. However subsequent studies in larger patient samples might provide changes in these cut-off values.

To date, the percentage composition of the lung microbiome in bronchopulmonary cancer has not been summarized. Existing studies on identifying the lung microbiome in bronchopulmonary cancer through 16S rRNA sequencing have shown variable results regarding the abundance of bacterial taxa. Objective: To identify the predominant bacterial taxa at the phylum and genus levels in bronchopulmonary cancer using samples collected through bronchoalveolar lavage and to determine a potential proportional pattern that could contribute to the diagnosis of bronchopulmonary cancer. Data Sources: A systematic review of English articles using MEDLINE, Embase, and Web of Science. Search terms included lung microbiome, lung cancer, and bronchoalveolar lavage. Study Selection: Studies that investigated the lung microbiome in bronchopulmonary cancer with samples collected via bronchoalveolar lavage. Data Extraction: Independent extraction of articles using predefined data fields, including study quality indicators. Data Synthesis: Nine studies met the inclusion criteria, focusing on those that utilized a percentage expression of the microbiome at the phylum or genus level. There was noted heterogeneity between studies, both in terms of phylum and genus, with a relatively constant percentage of the Firmicutes phylum and the genera Streptococcus and Veillonella being mentioned. Significant differences were also observed regarding the inclusion criteria for study participants, the method of sample collection, and data processing. Conclusions: To date, there is no consistent percentage pattern at the phylum or genus level in bronchopulmonary cancer, with the predominance of a phylum or genus varying across different patient cohorts, resulting in non-overlapping outcomes.

(1) Introduction: Although historically, the lung has been considered a sterile organ, recent studies through 16S rRNA gene sequencing have identified a substantial number of microorganisms. The human microbiome has been considered an “essential organ,” carrying about 150 times more information (genes) than are found in the entire human genome. The purpose of the present study is to characterize and compare the microbiome in three different interstitial lung diseases: idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF), hypersensitivity pneumonitis, and nondifferential interstitial lung disease. (2) Material and methods: This was a prospective cohort study where the DNA of 28 patients with ILD was extracted from the lavage and then processed using the standard technique of 16S RNA gene sequencing. In a tertiary teaching hospital in the northern, western part of Romania, samples were collected through bronchoscopy and then processed. (3) Results: The same four species were found in all the patients but in different quantities and compositions: Firmicutes, Actinobacteria, Proteobacteria and Bacteroides. Streptococcus was the most prevalent genus, followed by Staphylococcus and Prevotella. Statistically significant differences in the OUT count for the ten most abundant taxa were found for the genus: Gemella, Actinobacteria, Prevotella, Neisseria, Haemophilus, and Bifidobacterium. The comparative analysis showed a richer microbiota in patients with IPF, as shown by the alpha diversity index. (4) Conclusions: In interstitial lung diseases, the microorganisms normally found in the lung are reduced to a restricted flora dominated by the Firmicutes family. These changes significantly disrupt the continuity of the observed bacterial pattern from the oropharynx to the bronchial tree and lung, possibly impacting the evolution and severity of interstitial lung diseases.

Background and objectives: This article aims to evaluate the number of days necessary for patients with mild and moderate forms of COVID-19 to reach undetectable levels of SARS-CoV-2 RNA in the upper respiratory tract specimens. As a secondary objective, we sought to establish a correlation between different conditions associated with longer viral load as this could result in a longer period of contagion and infectivity. Materials and Methods: It is a retrospective study. A total of 70 patients with confirmed mild and moderate forms of COVID-19 were enrolled in our study. Results: Number of days with traceable viral load was 25.93 (±6.02) days in patients with mild COVID-19 and 26.97 (±8.30) in moderate form (p = 0.72). Age, male gender, and obesity, along with several chronic conditions (cardiac, liver, renal, and neurological disease), were associated with prolonged positive RT-PCR test from the nasal swab (therefore prolonged viral load). These are in general, risk factors for severe forms of COVID-19. Conclusions: There are several conditions associated with prolonged positive RT-PCR in mild and moderate forms of COVID-19. As to why and what is the significance of it remains to be studied.

Background and Objectives: Pulmonary fibrosis, including idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) and secondary pulmonary fibrosis (SPF), is a progressive lung disease that significantly impairs respiratory function. Accurate differentiation between IPF and SPF is crucial for effective management. This study explores the association between pulmonary fibrosis and hepatic conditions, evaluating the utility of various hemogram-derived ratios and hepatic fibrosis scores in distinguishing between IPF and SPF. Materials and Methods: We conducted a retrospective study involving patients diagnosed with IPF or SPF at the “Leon Daniello” Clinical Hospital of Pneumology in Cluj-Napoca, Romania. Pulmonary fibrosis was confirmed via imaging techniques, and hepatic steatosis and fibrosis were assessed using non-invasive scores. We analyzed clinical, laboratory, and pulmonary function data, focusing on hemogram-derived ratios and hepatic scores. Statistical analyses, including ROC curves, were used to evaluate the effectiveness of these biomarkers in differentiating IPF from SPF. Results: We included a total of 38 patients with IPF and 28 patients with SPF. Our findings revealed that IPF patients had a significantly higher FIB-4 score compared to SPF patients, suggesting increased hepatic fibrosis risk in IPF, as well as an increased RDW/PLT ratio. Conversely, SPF patients exhibited elevated PLR, PNR, and SII, reflecting a more pronounced inflammatory profile. PLR and PNR demonstrated the highest discriminatory ability between IPF and SPF, while traditional hepatic fibrosis scores showed limited differentiation capabilities. No significant differences in pulmonary function tests were observed across hepatic fibrosis risk categories. Conclusions: The study highlights the value of biomarkers like PLR and PNR in differentiating between IPF and SPF, offering additional diagnostic insights beyond traditional imaging. Integrating hepatic assessments into the management of pulmonary fibrosis could improve diagnostic accuracy and patient care.

(1) After one year of treating patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection, physical exhaustion is added to emotional stress and burnout syndrome. (2) By applying specific questionnaires, we evaluated healthcare workers who handled patients infected with SARS-CoV-2in terms of disease perception, perceived stress, emotional distress, and burnout syndrome after one year of the COVID-19 pandemic and compared them with staff who did not handle infected patients. (3) A total of 165 persons were evaluated, with 79 working in the COVID-19 department and 86 working in the non-COVID-19 department. No statistically significant differences were found in the perceived stress scores, emotional distress (functional or dysfunctional), and disease perception among the COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 groups. Also, we did not find any differences between the COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 departments concerning their total Maslach scores—50 in the COVID-19 department and 51 in the non-COVID-19 department, p = 0480—so a moderate level of burnout in the two groups. The only statistical difference was in the Maslach depersonalization scores, which were higher among COVID-19 workers (p = 0.024). (4) In our center, there was no statistically significant difference in perceived stress or emotional distress. The level of burnout syndrome seems to be the same among the two groups, regardless if they worked withCOVID-19-infected patients or not.