Japan's largest platform for academic e-journals: J-STAGE is a full text database for reviewed academic papers published by Japanese societies

Introduction: Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) is caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2. Although most patients with COVID-19 develop asymptomatic or mild disease, some patients develop severe disease. The effectiveness of various therapeutic agents, including antiviral drugs, steroids, and anti-inflammatories for COVID-19, have been being confirmed. The effect of administering steroids in early disease is unclear. This study therefore aimed to evaluate the effectiveness and risk of exacerbation of steroids administered preceding antiviral drugs in patients with COVID-19 pneumonia. Methods: This retrospective, single-center, observational study included consecutive patients with COVID-19 between March 2020 and March 2021. Patients were divided into a steroids-first group and antiviral-drugs-first group. Mortality, duration of hospitalization, incidence rate and duration of intensive care unit (ICU) admission, intubation, and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) induction of the two groups were compared. Results: A total of 258 patients were admitted during the study period. After excluding patients who received symptomatic treatment only, who were taking immunosuppressive drugs, or who were administered antiviral drugs only, 68 patients were included in the analysis, 16 in the steroids-first group and 52 in the antiviral-drugs-first group. The rate of intubation, ICU admission and ECMO induction were significantly higher in the steroids-first group than in the antiviral-drugs-first group (81.3% vs. 33.3, p<0.001, 75.0% vs. 29.4%, p = 0.001, and 31.3% vs. 7.8%, p = 0.017, respectively). Furthermore, patients who received steroids within ten days after starting antiviral drugs had significantly lower rates of ICU admission, intubation, and ECMO induction. (81.3% vs. 42.9% p = 0.011, 75.0% vs. 37.1% p = 0.012, and 31.3% vs. 8.6% p = 0.039, respectively). Conclusions: Administering steroids prior to antiviral drugs soon after symptom onset can aggravate disease severity. When administration of steroids is considered soon after symptom onset, it may be safer to initiate antiviral drugs first.

Background: Bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL) is a useful examination for the evaluation of interstitial lung disease. A high BAL fluid (BALF) recovery rate is desirable because low recovery rates lead to inaccurate diagnoses and increased adverse events. Few studies have explored whether BALF recovery rates are influenced by clinical factors.Objectives: This study aimed to identify the clinical parameters affecting the recovery rates of BALF and the extent of their effects.Method: Data from patients who underwent BAL at the Chiba University Hospital between 2013 and 2019 were retrospectively reviewed. BAL was performed with three aliquots of 50‐ml physiological saline. The potential association of the BALF recovery rate with clinical parameters such as age, sex, smoking status, underlying disease, bronchus used for the procedure and pulmonary function, was analysed.Results: Eight hundred twenty‐six patients had undergone BAL. The average recovery rate was 52.4%. Factors affecting BALF recovery rates included male sex (odds ratio [OR]: 0.32, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.20–0.53, p < 0.001); age ≥ 65 years (OR: 0.50, 95% CI: 0.33–0.76, p < 0.001); use of the left bronchus (OR: 0.46, 95% CI: 0.30–0.71, p = 0.001) and bronchi other than the middle lobe bronchus or lingula (OR: 0.41, 95% CI: 0.25–0.65, p < 0.001); and forced expiratory volume in 1 s divided by forced vital capacity <80% (OR: 0.42, 95% CI: 0.40–1.00, p < 0.001).Conclusion: Sex, age, bronchus used for the procedure and pulmonary function may be useful as pre‐procedural predictors of BALF recovery rates.

Background: Endobronchial ultrasound-guided transbronchial needle aspiration (EBUS-TBNA) has been used to diagnose and stage lung cancer. Acquire™ Pulmonary and Expect™ Pulmonary dedicated EBUS-TBNA needles were introduced as the Franseen and Lancet needles, respectively. It is still unclear whether the Franseen or Lancet needles yield a higher quality specimen especially focusing on next-generation sequencing-based molecular testing. Methods: A single-center, prospective study performed at the Chiba University Hospital randomly assigned patients to two groups: Group A, wherein the first and second EBUS-TBNA were performed using Lancet and Franseen needles, respectively, and Group B, wherein the first and second EBUS-TBNA were performed using Franseen and Lancet needles, respectively. Each specimen was compared and analyzed pathologically. The primary outcome was the histological tissue area except blood clot and the cellularity of each sample. We also examined the success rate of molecular testing. Results: Twelve patients who underwent EBUS-TBNA between November 2022 and February 2023 were enrolled in this study. The tissue area of the specimens obtained by the Franseen and Lancet needles was 13.3 ± 6.4 mm2 and 10.6 ± 6.3 mm2, respectively (P = .355). The tumor cellularity in the specimens obtained using the Franseen and Lancet needles was 54.0 ± 30.3 and 46.2 ± 36.3%, respectively (P = .608). The success rate of molecular testing using the single-pass sample by Franseen needle was 85.7 and 57.1% by Lancet needle. No serious complications were reported. Conclusions: The Franseen needle tended to show a greater amount of specimen with higher tumor cellularity than the Lancet needle which may contribute higher success rate of molecular testing. Further studies must be conducted to validate the results of this study. Key findings: What is known and what is new? What is the implication, and what should change now?