After about 2 years since severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS‑CoV‑2), first infections were detected in Wuhan city of China in December 2019, which was followed by a worldwide pandemic with a record of 5.41 million deaths. Due to urgent need for the development of a safe and effective vaccine for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19), attempts for producing efficient vaccines are inexhaustibly continuing. According to a report by the World Health Organization (WHO) on COVID‐19 vaccine tracker and landscape, there are 149 vaccine candidates all over the world. Inactivated SARS‐CoV‐2 vaccines as a conventional vaccine platform consist of whole virus particles grown in cell culture and inactivated by chemicals. Because of benefits such as antigenic similarity to real virion inducing humoral and cellular immune responses and ease for transport and storage, these vaccines, including the vaccines produced by Bharat Biotech, Sinopharm, and Sinovac, are in use at large scales. In this study, we have a review on inactivated SARS‐CoV‐2 vaccines that are passing their phase 3 and 4 clinical trials, population which was included in the trials, vaccine producers, the efficiency, adverse effects, and components of vaccines, and other vaccine features.

For around three decades, the fluoroquinolone (FQ) antibiotic ciprofloxacin has been used to treat a range of diseases, including chronic otorrhea, endocarditis, lower respiratory tract, gastrointestinal, skin and soft tissue, and urinary tract infections. Ciprofloxacin's main mode of action is to stop DNA replication by blocking the A subunit of DNA gyrase and having an extra impact on the substances in cell walls. Available in intravenous and oral formulations, ciprofloxacin reaches therapeutic concentrations in the majority of tissues and bodily fluids with a low possibility for side effects. Despite the outstanding qualities of this antibiotic, Salmonella typhi, Staphylococcus aureus, Escherichia coli, and Pseudomonas aeruginosa have all shown an increase in ciprofloxacin resistance over time. The rise of infections that are resistant to ciprofloxacin shows that new pharmacological synergisms and derivatives are required. To this end, ciprofloxacin may be more effective against the biofilm community of microorganisms and multi-drug resistant isolates when combined with a variety of antibacterial agents, such as antibiotics from various classes, nanoparticles, natural products, bacteriophages, and photodynamic therapy. This review focuses on the resistance mechanisms of bacteria against ciprofloxacin and new approaches for enhancing its efficacy.

IntroductionReverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) to detect SARS-CoV-2 is time-consuming and sometimes not feasible in developing nations. Rapid antigen test (RAT) could decrease the load of diagnosis. However, the efficacy of RAT is yet to be investigated comprehensively. Thus, the current systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of RAT against RT-PCR methods as the reference standard.MethodsWe searched the MEDLINE/Pubmed and Embase databases for the relevant records. The QUADAS-2 tool was used to assess the quality of the studies. Diagnostic accuracy measures [i.e., sensitivity, specificity, diagnostic odds ratio (DOR), positive likelihood ratios (PLR), negative likelihood ratios (NLR), and the area under the curve (AUC)] were pooled with a random-effects model. All statistical analyses were performed with Meta-DiSc (Version 1.4, Cochrane Colloquium, Barcelona, Spain).ResultsAfter reviewing retrieved records, we identified 60 studies that met the inclusion criteria. The pooled sensitivity and specificity of the rapid antigen tests against the reference test (the real-time PCR) were 69% (95% CI: 68–70) and 99% (95% CI: 99–99). The PLR, NLR, DOR and the AUC estimates were found to be 72 (95% CI: 44–119), 0.30 (95% CI: 0.26–0.36), 316 (95% CI: 167–590) and 97%, respectively.ConclusionThe present study indicated that using RAT kits is primarily recommended for the early detection of patients suspected of having COVID-19, particularly in countries with limited resources and laboratory equipment. However, the negative RAT samples may need to be confirmed using molecular tests, mainly when the symptoms of COVID-19 are present.

Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) is one of the major causes of hospital- and community-acquired infections worldwide. Although S. aureus rarely accounts for urinary tract infections (UTI), untreated UTI can lead to several complications. For decades vancomycin has been used for the treatment of MRSA infections. This study was performed to assess the in vitro activity of vancomycin, tigecycline, linezolid and quinupristin/dalfopristin against MRSA isolates from UTI patients. Thirty MRSA strains from 54 S. aureus isolates were isolated from patients with UTI. The antimicrobial susceptibility patterns of the strains were determined by the Kirby-Bauer disk diffusion and broth microdilution methods. PCR assays were used to detect the vanA gene. The MRSA isolates resistant to vancomycin were confirmed using the broth microdilution method. The results revealed that the MRSA isolates were 100% susceptible to linezolid and quinupristin/dalfopristin but 93.3% susceptible to vancomycin and tigecycline respectively. The broth microdilution method confirmed two MRSA strains (6.6%) to be resistant to vancomycin and tigecycline. The study identified vancomycin resistance among the MRSA isolates from UTI patients. This vancomycin resistance in MRSA isolates poses a challenge in managing S. aureus infections. Our study's results highlight the need to correctly identify patients in whom last-resort therapy such as linezolid and quinupristin/dalfopristin should be administered.

The emergence of a highly pathogenic virus named severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) accounts for severe pneumonia throughout the world. More than 7 million world population have been infected with SARS-CoV-2, and the number of deaths is increasing every day. This study aimed to evaluate the frequency of SARS-CoV-2 in hospitalized patients with acute respiratory infection (ARI). During an outbreak of the SARS-CoV-2, the nasopharyngeal and oropharyngeal swabs were collected from 909 hospitalized patients with severe pneumonia, including 517 (56.9%) males and 392 (43.1%) females. All the collected samples were from different cities of Khuzestan province from 19 February to- 27 March 2020. The RNA was extracted from samples and subjected to real-time polymerase chain reaction (PCR) tests for the detection of the SARS-CoV-2. Simultaneously, the computerized tomography (CT) scan was tested for the presence of ground-glass opacity in the lung among the patients. Of the total number of 909 specimens, 328 (36.08%) cases, including 185 (20.35%) females and 143 (15.73%) males, were positive for the SARS-CoV-2 while, 581 (63.9%) cases, including 374 (41.14%) males and 207 (22.77%) were negative for the SARS-CoV-2 by real-time PCR (p=0.001).Four hundred sixteen (45.76%) cases were positive for ground-glass opacity in the lung by CT scan, while 328/909 (36.08%) trials proved positive for SARS-CoV-2 by the real-time PCR (p=0.003). In this study, 36.08% of patients were positive for SARS-CoV-2. Although the results of positive cases by CT scan showed higher than real-time PCR, screening the SARS-CoV-2 with a real-time PCR method is the first line of choice.