The Role of Lung Microbiome in Fibrotic Interstitial Lung Disease-A Systematic Review.

Interstitial Lung Disease (ILD) involves lung disorders marked by chronic inflammation and fibrosis. ILDs include pathologies like idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF), connective tissue disease-associated ILD (CTD-ILD), hypersensitivity pneumonitis (HP) or sarcoidosis. Existing data covers pathogenesis, diagnosis (especially using high-resolution computed tomography), and treatments like antifibrotic agents. Despite progress, ILD diagnosis and management remains challenging with significant morbidity and mortality. Recent focus is on Progressive Fibrosing ILD (PF-ILD), characterized by worsening symptoms and fibrosis on HRCT. Prevalence is around 30%, excluding IPF, with a poor prognosis. Early diagnosis is crucial for optimizing outcomes in PF-ILD individuals. The lung microbiome comprises all the microorganisms that are in the respiratory tract. Relatively recent research try to evaluate its role in respiratory disease. Healthy lungs have a diverse microbial community. An imbalance in bacterial composition, changes in bacterial metabolic activities, or changes in bacterial distribution within the lung termed dysbiosis is linked to conditions like COPD, asthma and ILDs. We conducted a systematic review of three important scientific data base using a focused search strategy to see how the lung microbiome is involved in the progression of ILDs. Results showed that some differences in the composition and quality of the lung microbiome exist in ILDs that show progressive fibrosing phenotype. The results seem to suggest that the lung microbiota could be involved in ILD progression, but more studies showing its exact pathophysiological mechanisms are needed.

COVID-19 "Nightmare": Perceived Stress, Emotional Distress, and Burnout Syndrome among Medical Staff after One Year of the COVID-19 Pandemic.

(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.