Yoshifuji, Ayumi

写真a

Affiliation

School of Medicine, Department of Infectious Diseases （Shinanomachi）

Position

Senior Assistant Professor (Non-tenured)/Assistant Professor (Non-tenured)
Page Top ▲
 

Papers 【 Display / hide 】

  • Canagliflozin protects the cardiovascular system through effects on the gut environment in non-diabetic nephrectomized rats

    Matsui A., Yoshifuji A., Irie J., Tajima T., Uchiyama K., Itoh T., Wakino S., Itoh H.

    Clinical and Experimental Nephrology （Clinical and Experimental Nephrology)   2023

    ISSN  13421751

    　View Summary

    Background: The gut produces toxins that contribute to the cardiovascular complications of chronic kidney disease. Canagliflozin, a sodium glucose cotransporter (SGLT) 2 inhibitor that is used as an anti-diabetic drug, has a weak inhibitory effect against SGLT1 and may affect the gut glucose concentration and environment. Methods: Here, we determined the effect of canagliflozin on the gut microbiota and the serum gut-derived uremic toxin concentrations in 5/6th nephrectomized (Nx) rats. Results: Canagliflozin increased the colonic glucose concentration and restored the number of Lactobacillus bacteria, which was low in Nx rats. In addition, the expression of tight junction proteins in the ascending colon was low in Nx rats, and this was partially restored by canagliflozin. Furthermore, the serum concentrations of gut-derived uremic toxins were significantly increased by Nx and reduced by canagliflozin. Finally, the wall of the thoracic aorta was thicker and there was more cardiac interstitial fibrosis in Nx rats, and these defects were ameliorated by canagliflozin. Conclusions: The increases in colonic glucose concentration, Lactobacillus numbers and tight junction protein expression, and the decreases in serum uremic toxin concentrations and cardiac interstitial fibrosis may have been caused by the inhibition of SGLT1 by canagliflozin because similar effects were not identified in tofogliflozin-treated rats.

  • Memory B Cells and Memory T Cells Induced by SARS-CoV-2 Booster Vaccination or Infection Show Different Dynamics and Responsiveness to the Omicron Variant

    Mise-Omata S., Ikeda M., Takeshita M., Uwamino Y., Wakui M., Arai T., Yoshifuji A., Murano K., Siomi H., Nakagawara K., Ohyagi M., Ando M., Hasegawa N., Saya H., Murata M., Fukunaga K., Namkoong H., Lu X., Yamasaki S., Yoshimura A.

    Journal of Immunology （Journal of Immunology)  209 （ 11 ） 2104 - 2113 2022.12

    ISSN  00221767

    　View Summary

    Although the immunological memory produced by BNT162b2 vaccination against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has been well studied and established, further information using different racial cohorts is necessary to understand the overall immunological response to vaccination. We evaluated memory B and T cell responses to the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 spike protein before and after the third booster using a Japanese cohort. Although the Ab titer against the spike receptor-binding domain (RBD) decreased significantly 8 mo after the second vaccination, the number of memory B cells continued to increase, whereas the number of memory T cells decreased slowly. Memory B and T cells from unvaccinated infected patients showed similar kinetics. After the third vaccination, the Ab titer increased to the level of the second vaccination, and memory B cells increased at significantly higher levels before the booster, whereas memory T cells recovered close to the second vaccination levels. In memory T cells, the frequency of CXCR5+CXCR3+CCR62 circulating follicular Th1 was positively correlated with RBD-specific Ab-secreting B cells. For the response to variant RBDs, although 60-80% of memory B cells could bind to the omicron RBD, their avidity was low, whereas memory T cells show an equal response to the omicron spike. Thus, the persistent presence of memory B and T cells will quickly upregulate Ab production and T cell responses after omicron strain infection, which prevents severe illness and death due to coronavirus disease 2019.

  • Ceftazidime encephalopathy developed without the elevation of cerebrospinal fluid concentration of ceftazidime: A case report of two cases

    Toda M., Yoshifuji A., Hosoya K., Taguchi K., Komatsu M., Kobayashi E., Fujii K., Kato A., Hasegawa N., Matsumoto K., Ryuzaki M.

    Journal of Infection and Chemotherapy （Journal of Infection and Chemotherapy)  28 （ 12 ） 1667 - 1671 2022.12

    ISSN  1341321X

    　View Summary

    Background: Ceftazidime encephalopathy is reported to be caused by the repeated administration of ceftazidime in patients with renal impairment because of the high serum concentration of ceftazidime. Ceftazidime encephalopathy has been considered to be caused by the elevation of the cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) concentration. However, as no reports have measured CSF concentrations, the relationship with ceftazidime encephalopathy and CSF concentration has not been clarified. Case presentation: Case 1: An 80-year-old Japanese man under a combination therapy with peritoneal dialysis and hemodialysis, who had been treated for a cellulitis with ceftazidime, developed altered consciousness and was diagnosed as ceftazidime encephalopathy. His serum concentration of ceftazidime was elevated, but CSF concentration was only under 0.1 μg/mL. Case 2: An 88-year-old Japanese man with chronic kidney disease, who had been treated for a urinary tract infection with ceftazidime, developed altered consciousness and was diagnosed as ceftazidime encephalopathy. His serum concentration of ceftazidime was elevated, but CSF concentration was within the therapeutic range. However, his serum and CSF concentration of quinolinic acid was markedly increased. Conclusions: Patients with renal failure are more likely to develop ceftazidime encephalopathy. We need to pay attention to the dosage of ceftazidime and to the appearance of neurological symptoms. Ceftazidime encephalopathy was considered to be caused by the high CSF concentration, but it could be caused by quinolinic acid as neurotoxic substance.

  • Committee report: Questionnaire survey on the treatment of COVID-19 in patients receiving dialysis therapy

    Yoshifuji A., Ryuzaki M., Uehara Y., Ohmagari N., Kawai T., Kanno Y., Kikuchi K., Kon H., Sakai K., Shinoda T., Takano Y., Tanaka J., Hora K., Nakazawa Y., Hasegawa N., Hanafusa N., Hinoshita F., Morikane K., Wakino S., Nakamoto H., Takemoto Y.

    Renal Replacement Therapy （Renal Replacement Therapy)  8 （ 1 ）  2022.12

    　View Summary

    Background: Patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) who receive dialysis therapy develop more severe disease and have a poorer prognosis than patients who do not. Although various data on the treatment of patients not receiving dialysis therapy have been reported, clinical practice for patients on dialysis is challenging as data is limited. The Infection Control Committee of the Japanese Society for Dialysis Therapy decided to clarify the status of treatment in COVID-19 patients on dialysis. Methods: A questionnaire survey of 105 centers that had treated at least five COVID-19 patients on dialysis was conducted in August 2021. Results: Sixty-six centers (62.9%) responded to the questionnaire. Antivirals were administered in 27.7% of facilities treating mild disease (most patients received favipiravir) and 66.7% of facilities treating moderate disease (most patients with moderate or more severe conditions received remdesivir). Whether and how remdesivir is administered varies between centers. Steroids were initiated most frequently in moderate II disease (50.8%), while 43.1% of the facilities initiated steroids in mild or moderate I disease. The type of steroid, dose, and the duration of administration were generally consistent, with most facilities administering dexamethasone 6 mg orally or 6.6 mg intravenously for 10 days. Steroid pulse therapy was administered in 48.5% of the facilities, and tocilizumab was administered in 25.8% of the facilities, mainly to patients on ventilators or equivalent medications, or to the cases of exacerbations. Furthermore, some facilities used a polymethylmethacrylate membrane during dialysis, nafamostat as an anticoagulant, and continuous hemodiafiltration in severe cases. There was limited experience of polymyxin B-immobilized fiber column-direct hemoperfusion and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. The discharge criteria for patients receiving dialysis therapy were longer than those set by the Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare in 22.7% of the facilities. Conclusions: Our survey revealed a variety of treatment practices in each facility. Further evidence and innovations are required to improve the prognosis of patients with COVID-19 receiving dialysis therapy.

  • Investigation for the efficacy of COVID-19 vaccine in Japanese CKD patients treated with hemodialysis

    Yoshifuji A., Toda M., Ryuzaki M., Kikuchi K., Kawai T., Sakai K., Oyama E., Koinuma M., Katayama K., Uehara Y., Ohmagari N., Kanno Y., Kon H., Shinoda T., Takano Y., Tanaka J., Hora K., Nakazawa Y., Hasegawa N., Hanafusa N., Hinoshita F., Morikane K., Wakino S., Nakamoto H., Takemoto Y.

    Renal Replacement Therapy （Renal Replacement Therapy)  8 （ 1 ）  2022.12

    　View Summary

    Background: Dialysis patients are predisposed to severe disease and have a high mortality rate in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) due to their comorbidities and immunocompromised conditions. Therefore, dialysis patients should be prioritized for vaccination. This study aimed to examine how long the effects of the vaccine are maintained and what factors affect antibody titers. Methods: Hemodialysis patients (HD group) and age- and sex-matched non-dialysis individuals (Control group), receiving two doses of BNT162b2 vaccine, were recruited through the Japanese Society for Dialysis Therapy (JSDT) Web site in July 2021. Anti-SARS-CoV-2 immunoglobulin (IgG) (SARS-CoV-2 IgG titers) was measured before vaccination, 3 weeks after the first vaccination, 2 weeks after the second vaccination, and 3 months after the second vaccination, and was compared between Control group and HD group. Factors affecting SARS-CoV-2 IgG titers were also examined using multivariable regression analysis and stepwise regression analysis (least AIC). In addition, we compared adverse reactions in Control and HD groups and examined the relationship between adverse reactions and SARS-CoV-2 IgG titers. Results: Our study enrolled 123 participants in the Control group (62.6% men, median age 67.0 years) and 206 patients in the HD group (64.1% men, median age 66.4 years). HD group had significantly lower SARS-CoV-2 IgG titers at 3 weeks after the first vaccination (p < 0.0001), 2 weeks after second vaccination (p = 0.0002), and 3 months after the second vaccination (p = 0.045) than Control group. However, the reduction rate of SARS-CoV-2 IgG titers between 2 weeks and 3 months after the second vaccination was significantly smaller in HD group than in Control (p = 0.048). Stepwise regression analysis revealed that dialysis time was identified as the significant independent factors for SARS-CoV-2 IgG titers at 2 weeks after the second vaccination in HD group (p = 0.002) and longer dialysis time resulted in higher maximum antibody titers. The incidences of fever and nausea after the second vaccination were significantly higher in the HD group (p = 0.039 and p = 0.020). Antibody titers in those with fever were significantly higher than those without fever in both groups (HD: p = 0.0383, Control: p = 0.0096). Conclusion: HD patients had significantly lower antibody titers than age- and sex-matched non-dialysis individuals over 3 months after vaccination. Dialysis time was identified as a factor affecting SARS-CoV-2 IgG titers in HD group, with longer dialysis time resulting in higher maximum SARS-CoV-2 IgG titers.

display all >>

Page Top ▲

Papers, etc., Registered in KOARA 【 Display / hide 】

Page Top ▲

Reviews, Commentaries, etc. 【 Display / hide 】

Page Top ▲
 

Courses Taught 【 Display / hide 】

  • RESEARCH FRONTIERS IN BIOMEDICAL SCIENCE

    2024

  • PATHOPHYSIOLOGY AND CLINICAL ASSESSMENT

    2024

  • INFECTIOUS DISEASES

    2024

  • RESEARCH FRONTIERS IN BIOMEDICAL SCIENCE

    2023

  • PATHOPHYSIOLOGY AND CLINICAL ASSESSMENT

    2023

Page Top ▲