Background Knowledge of infection prevention and control (IPC) procedures among healthcare workers (HCWs) is crucial for effective IPC. Compliance with IPC measures has critical implications for HCWs safety, patient protection and the care environment. Aims To discuss the body of available literature regarding HCWs' knowledge of IPC and highlight potential factors that may influence compliance to IPC precautions. Design A systematic review. A protocol was developed based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analysis [PRISMA] statement. Data sources Electronic databases (PubMed, CINAHL, Embase, Proquest, Wiley online library, Medline, and Nature) were searched from 1 January 2006 to 31 January 2021 in the English language using the following keywords alone or in combination: knowledge, awareness, healthcare workers, infection, compliance, comply, control, prevention, factors. 3417 papers were identified and 30 papers were included in the review. Results Overall, the level of HCW knowledge of IPC appears to be adequate, good, and/or high concerning standard precautions, hand hygiene, and care pertaining to urinary catheters. Acceptable levels of knowledge were also detected in regards to IPC measures for specific diseases including TB, MRSA, MERS-CoV, COVID-19 and Ebola. However, gaps were identified in several HCWs' knowledge concerning occupational vaccinations, the modes of transmission of infectious diseases, and the risk of infection from needle stick and sharps injuries. Several factors for noncompliance surrounding IPC guidelines are discussed, as are recommendations for improving adherence to those guidelines. Conclusion Embracing a multifaceted approach towards improving IPC-intervention strategies is highly suggested. The goal being to improve compliance among HCWs with IPC measures is necessary.

Multiple vaccines have recently been developed, and almost all the countries are presently vaccinating their population to tackle the COVID-19 pandemic. Most of the COVID-19 vaccines in use are administered via intramuscular (IM) injection, eliciting protective humor and cellular immunity. COVID-19 intranasal (IN) vaccines are also being developed that have shown promising ability to induce a significant amount of antibody-mediated immune response and a robust cell-mediated immunity as well as hold the added ability to stimulate protective mucosal immunity along with the additional advantage of the ease of administration as compared to IM injected vaccines. By inducing secretory IgA antibody responses specifically in the nasal compartment, the intranasal SARS-CoV-2 vaccine can prevent virus infection, replication, shedding, and disease development, as well as possibly limits virus transmission. This article highlights the current progress, advantages, prospects, and challenges in developing intranasal COVID-19 vaccines for countering the ongoing pandemic.

Background: Coinfection with bacteria, fungi, and respiratory viruses in SARS-CoV-2 is of particular importance due to the possibility of increased morbidity and mortality. In this meta-analysis, we calculated the prevalence of such coinfections. Methods: Electronic databases were searched from 1 December 2019 to 31 March 2021. Effect sizes of prevalence were pooled with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). To minimize heterogeneity, we performed sub-group analyses. Results: Of the 6189 papers that were identified, 72 articles were included in the systematic review (40 case series and 32 cohort studies) and 68 articles (38 case series and 30 cohort studies) were included in the meta-analysis. Of the 31,953 SARS-CoV-2 patients included in the meta-analysis, the overall pooled proportion who had a laboratory-confirmed bacterial infection was 15.9% (95% CI 13.6–18.2, n = 1940, 49 studies, I2 = 99%, p < 0.00001), while 3.7% (95% CI 2.6–4.8, n = 177, 16 studies, I2 = 93%, p < 0.00001) had fungal infections and 6.6% (95% CI 5.5–7.6, n = 737, 44 studies, I2 = 96%, p < 0.00001) had other respiratory viruses. SARS-CoV-2 patients in the ICU had higher co-infections compared to ICU and non-ICU patients as follows: bacterial (22.2%, 95% CI 16.1–28.4, I2 = 88% versus 14.8%, 95% CI 12.4–17.3, I2 = 99%), and fungal (9.6%, 95% CI 6.8–12.4, I2 = 74% versus 2.7%, 95% CI 0.0–3.8, I2 = 95%); however, there was an identical other respiratory viral co-infection proportion between all SARS-CoV-2 patients [(ICU and non-ICU) and the ICU only] (6.6%, 95% CI 0.0–11.3, I2 = 58% versus 6.6%, 95% CI 5.5–7.7, I2 = 96%). Funnel plots for possible publication bias for the pooled effect sizes of the prevalence of coinfections was asymmetrical on visual inspection, and Egger’s tests confirmed asymmetry (p values < 0.05). Conclusion: Bacterial co-infection is relatively high in hospitalized patients with SARS-CoV-2, with little evidence of S. aureus playing a major role. Knowledge of the prevalence and type of co-infections in SARS-CoV-2 patients may have diagnostic and management implications.

Autoimmune diseases are caused when immune cells act against self-protein. This biological self–non-self-discrimination phenomenon is controlled by a distinct group of lymphocytes known as regulatory T cells (Tregs), which are key inflammatory response regulators and play a pivotal role in immune tolerance and homeostasis. Treg-mediated robust immunosuppression provides self-tolerance and protection against autoimmune diseases. However, once this system fails to operate or poorly operate, it leads to an extreme situation where immune system reacts against self-antigens and destroys host organs, thus causing autoimmune diseases. Tregs can target both innate and adaptive immunity via modulating multiple immune cells such as neutrophils, monocytes, antigen-presenting cells, B cells, and T cells. This review highlights the Treg-mediated immunosuppression, role of several markers and their interplay during Treg development and differentiation, and advances in therapeutic aspects of Treg cells to reduce severity of autoimmunity-related conditions along with emphasizing limitations and challenges of their usages.

Background Currently there is no systematic review and meta-analysis of the global incidence rates of anaphylactic and nonanaphylactic reactions to SARS-CoV-2 vaccines in the general adult population. Objectives To estimate the incidence rates of anaphylactic and nonanaphylactic reactions after COVID-19 vaccines and describe the demographic and clinical characteristics, triggers, presenting signs and symptoms, treatment and clinical course of confirmed cases. Design A systematic review and meta-analysis. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses [PRISMA] statement was followed. Methods Electronic databases (Proquest, Medline, Embase, Pubmed, CINAHL, Wiley online library, and Nature) were searched from 1 December 2020 to 31 May 2021 in the English language using the following keywords alone or in combination: anaphylaxis, non-anaphylaxis, anaphylactic reaction, nonanaphylactic reaction, anaphylactic/anaphylactoid shock, hypersensitivity, allergy reaction, allergic reaction, immunology reaction, immunologic reaction, angioedema, loss of consciousness, generalized erythema, urticaria, urticarial rash, cyanosis, grunting, stridor, tachypnoea, wheezing, tachycardia, abdominal pain, diarrhea, nausea, vomiting and tryptase. We included studies in adults of all ages in all healthcare settings. Effect sizes of prevalence were pooled with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). To minimize heterogeneity, we performed sub-group analyses. Results Of the 1,734 papers that were identified, 26 articles were included in the systematic review (8 case report, 5 cohort, 4 case series, 2 randomized controlled trial and 1 randomized cross-sectional studies) and 14 articles (1 cohort, 2 case series, 1 randomized controlled trial and 1 randomized cross-sectional studies) were included in meta-analysis. Studies involving 26,337,421 vaccine recipients [Pfizer-BioNTech (n = 14,505,399) and Moderna (n = 11,831,488)] were analyzed. The overall pooled prevalence estimate of anaphylaxis to both vaccines was 5.0 (95% CI 2.9 to 7.2, I2 = 81%, p =  < 0.0001), while the overall pooled prevalence estimate of nonanaphylactic reactions to both vaccines was 53.9 (95% CI 0.0 to 116.1, I2 = 99%, p =  < 0.0001). Vaccination with Pfizer-BioNTech resulted in higher anaphylactic reactions compared to Moderna (8.0, 95% CI 0.0 to 11.3, I2 = 85% versus 2.8, 95% CI 0.0 to 5.7, I2 = 59%). However, lower incidence of nonanaphylactic reactions was associated with Pfizer-BioNTech compared to Moderna (43.9, 95% CI 0.0 to 131.9, I2 = 99% versus 63.8, 95% CI 0.0 to 151.8, I2 = 98%). The funnel plots for possible publication bias for the pooled effect sizes to determine the incidence of anaphylaxis and nonanaphylactic reactions associated with mRNA COVID-19 immunization based on mRNA vaccine type appeared asymmetrical on visual inspection, and Egger’s tests confirmed asymmetry by producing p values < 0.05. Across the included studies, the most commonly identified risk factors for anaphylactic and nonanaphylactic reactions to SARS-CoV-2 vaccines were female sex and personal history of atopy. The key triggers to anaphylactic and nonanaphylactic reactions identified in these studies included foods, medications, stinging insects or jellyfish, contrast media, cosmetics and detergents, household products, and latex. Previous history of anaphylaxis; and comorbidities such as asthma, allergic rhinitis, atopic and contact eczema/dermatitis and psoriasis and cholinergic urticaria were also found to be important. Conclusion The prevalence of COVID-19 mRNA vaccine-associated anaphylaxis is very low; and nonanaphylactic reactions occur at higher rate, however, cutaneous reactions are largely self-limited. Both anaphylactic and nonanaphylactic reactions should not discourage vaccination.