Background: Dexamethasone 6 mg daily for 10 days is the recommended treatment for patients with severe or critical coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). The evidence on the benefit of high-dose dexamethasone is limited. The goal of this study was to assess the effects of 6 mg daily vs. 20 mg daily of dexamethasone in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 pneumonia. Methods: We conducted a single-center, randomized, clinical trial involving hospitalized patients with COVID-19 pneumonia. Participants were randomized 1:1 to dexamethasone 6 mg daily or dexamethasone 20 mg daily, and were stratified by the WHO-Ordinal Scale for Clinical Improvement (OSCI). The primary outcome was clinical improvement equal to or greater than 2 points by OSCI on day 28. Secondary outcomes were 28-day mortality, intensive care unit-free days, and ventilator-free days on day 28. Results: Of the 107 patients who enrolled and completed the follow up, 55 patients enrolled in the low-dose group and 52 patients enrolled in the high-dose group. Treatment with dexamethasone 20 mg daily compared with dexamethasone 6 mg daily did not result in better clinical improvement based on OSCI on day 28 (71.2% vs. 78.2%; odds ratio, 1.45 [0.55–3.86]; p = 0.403). For participants who required high-flow oxygen or noninvasive ventilation at randomization, the 6-mg group had better survival than the 20-mg group on day 28 (100% vs. 57.1%; p = 0.025). Although more participants in the 6-mg group received immune modulators (40% vs. 21.2%; p = 0.035), 50% of death cases in the 20-mg group who required high-flow oxygen or noninvasive ventilation at randomization received immune modulators. Conclusions: Dexamethasone 20 mg daily did not result in better clinical outcome improvement, and was probably associated with higher 28-day mortality in patients on high-flow oxygen or noninvasive ventilation, compared with dexamethasone 6 mg daily. Trial registration: Clinialtrials.gov number, NCT04707534, registered January 13, 2021

Tocilizumab is an interleukin receptor inhibitor that has been used in patients with COVID-19 pneumonia. There are recent randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated the efficacy and safety of tocilizumab in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 pneumonia. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of RCTs that evaluated the effectiveness of tocilizumab in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 not requiring mechanical ventilation. RCTs comparing tocilizumab with the standard of care treatment in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 pneumonia not requiring mechanical ventilation at the time of administration were included for analysis. The primary outcome was a composite of mechanical ventilation or 28-day mortality and the secondary outcomes were 28-day mortality and major adverse events. A total of 6 RCTs were included for the analysis. Tocilizumab was associated with a statistically significant reduction in the primary composite outcome of mechanical ventilation or 28-day mortality (risk ratio (RR): 0.83 (95% CI: 0.74 to 0.92, I²=0, tau²=0). Treatment with tocilizumab did not show a statistically significant reduction in 28-day mortality (RR: 0.90 (95% CI: 0.76 to 1.07), I²=0, tau²=0) and rate of serious adverse events (RR: 0.82 (95% CI: 0.62 to 1.10), I²=0, tau²=0). Tocilizumab was associated with a decrease in the incidence of primary outcome, that is, mechanical ventilation or death at 28 days in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 pneumonia.

Despite recent developments, evaluation of peripheral pulmonary lesions (PPL) remains clinically challenging, and the diagnostic yield of many image-guided and bronchoscopy methods is still poor. Furthermore, complications from such procedures, such as pneumothorax and airway hemorrhage, are a major concern. Recently launched robotic-assisted bronchoscopy (RAB) platforms are still in the early exploration stage and may provide another tool for achieving PPL evaluation. We present our experience here as a retrospective cohort study describing the 12-month diagnostic yield with the shape-sensing Ion™ platform for minimally invasive peripheral lung biopsy. The study describes forty-two patients undergoing shape sensing robotic-assisted bronchoscopy (ssRAB) at our institute. The early performance trend reveals a lesion localization of 100% and an overall 12-month diagnostic yield of 88.10%. The diagnostic yield for lesions less than 20 mm was 76% and for lesions greater than 20 mm was 100%. We also report our complication profile; we noted no pneumothoraces, excessive bleeding, or post-operative complications. In comparison to traditional bronchoscopy and image-guided modalities, our experience shows that ssRAB can be utilized successfully to travel to extremely small peripheral lesions with a higher diagnostic yield and better safety profile.

Background and aim: Serum Soluble Interleukin-2 receptor (sIL-2R) levels are used clinically as a disease activity marker for systemic sarcoidosis. Studies have investigated the diagnostic role of serum soluble interleukin-2 receptor (sIL-2R) level for sarcoidosis relative to biopsy. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies evaluating the diagnostic utility of sIL-2R. Methods: We carried out an electronic search in Medline, Embase, Google Scholar, and Cochrane databases using keyword and Medical Subject Heading (MeSH) terms: sarcoidosis and sIL-2R. Studies evaluating-the sIL-2R levels as a diagnostic tool in clinically diagnosed or biopsy-proven sarcoidosis patients compared to control groups with non-sarcoidosis patients were included. Forest plots were constructed using a random effect model depicting pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values, and diagnostic accuracy. Results: We selected ten studies comprising 1477 patients, 592 in the sarcoidosis group and 885 in the non-sarcoidosis group. Pooled sensitivity and specificity of sIL-2R levels were 0.88 (95% CI: 0.75-0.95) and 0.87 (95% CI 0.73-0.94), respectively. Pooled negative predic-tive value and positive predictive value were 0.91 (95% CI 0.77-0.97) and 0.85 (95% CI 0.59-0.96), respectively, with a diagnostic accuracy of 0.86 (95% CI 0.71-0.93). Conclusion: In addition to its utility as a marker of sarcoidosis disease activity, sIL-2R has high diagnostic accuracy. Despite the limitations of the heterogenous sarcoidosis population and different sIL-2R cutoffs, our results suggest that sIL-2R is an important biomarker that can be used to confirm sarcoidosis diagnosis in unconfirmed or unclear cases.

Background/Objectives: Robot-assisted bronchoscopy (RAB) is a novel platform for sampling peripheral pulmonary nodules (PPNs). To further clarify the role robot-assisted platforms have in diagnosing PPNs, we performed a review of the recent literature. Methods: A systematic review was performed in Medline from 2019 to 2024 using the search terms “robotic bronchoscopy”, “diagnostic yield”, “sensitivity”, and “positive predictive value”, alone and in combination. Studies that focused on earlier electromagnetic bronchoscopies were excluded. The patient demographic information, nodule characteristics, intra-procedure imaging modality, biopsy methods, diagnostic yield, sensitivity for malignancy, and adverse outcomes were analyzed. A total of 22 studies were available for the analyses. Results: The diagnostic yield was variable and ranged from 69 to 93%, with a median of 86%. The sensitivity ranged from 69% to 91.7%, with a median of 85%. The effect of the nodule size on the diagnostic yield was variable across the literature. Obtaining an eccentric or concentric view on a radial endobronchial ultrasound (rEBUS) was associated with a higher diagnostic yield than obtaining no view. A nodule appearance on CT imaging and the location were not definitively associated with a higher diagnostic yield. Fine needle aspiration usage ranged from 93.5 to 100%, with a median of 96.95%, while the use of biopsy forceps ranged from 2.7 to 96%, with a median of 69.9%. The most common complication was a pneumothorax, which occurred in 1–5.7% of cases, with a median of 1.6%. Conclusions: Robot-assisted transbronchial biopsies produce diagnostic yields that approach those of transthoracic needle aspirations. The nodule location and appearance may not affect the diagnostic yield. Obtaining a concentric or eccentric view on rEBUS is likely associated with an increased diagnostic yield. Additional prospective studies would better inform practitioners as this technology becomes more widespread.

Introduction Serum Soluble Interleukin-2 Receptor (sIL-2R) levels are used clinically as a disease activity marker for systemic sarcoidosis. Studies have investigated the diagnostic role of serum soluble interleukin-2 receptor (sIL-2R) level for sarcoidosis relative to biopsy. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies evaluating the diagnostic utility of sIL-2R. Methods We carried out an electronic search in Medline, Embase, Google Scholar, and Cochrane databases using keyword and Medical Subject Heading (MeSH) terms: sarcoidosis and sIL-2R. Studies evaluating the sIL-2R levels as a diagnostic tool in clinically diagnosed or biopsy-proven sarcoidosis patients compared to control groups with non-sarcoidosis patients were included. Forest plots were constructed using a random effect model depicting pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values, and diagnostic accuracy. Results We selected ten studies comprising 1477 patients, with 592 in the sarcoidosis group and 885 in the non-sarcoidosis group. Pooled sensitivity and specificity of sIL-2R levels were 0.88 (95% CI: 0.75-0.95) and 0.87 (95% CI 0.73-0.94) respectively. Pooled negative predictive value and positive predictive value were 0.91 (95% CI 0.77-0.97) and 0.85 (95% CI 0.59-0.96) respectively with diagnostic accuracy of 0.86 (95% CI 0.71-0.93). Conclusion In addition to its utility as a marker of sarcoidosis disease activity, sIL-2R has high diagnostic accuracy. Despite the limitations of the heterogenous sarcoidosis population and different sIL-2R cutoffs, our results suggest that sIL-2R is an important biomarker that can be used to confirm sarcoidosis diagnosis in unconfirmed or unclear cases.