Background Sterilization failure is one of the main reasons for surgical site infections (SSIs). The biological indicator (BI) test is the most reliable test to check sterilization efficiencies. But 48 hours BI test result makes the monitoring process time-consuming. Rapid BI testing can be time demanding in this regard. Therefore, the objective is to determine the importance of rapid BI monitoring for the quality assurance of sterile surgical instruments. Methods This study was conducted in the Labaid Cardiac Hospital, Bangladesh from April 1, 2021, to July 8, 2021. A total of 100 steam and 100 ethylene oxide (EO) rapid BIs and an auto reader incubator were used to conduct this research. Quick BI of steam and EO were used once per day and tested by the auto reader. Later, all the tested BIs were incubated for 48 hours by a conventional incubator to confirm the auto reader's rapid BI test results. Result All the EO BI results were found negative, but the BI was found positive twice in steam sterilization. Surgical items of those two loads were re-sterilized. Again, after checking the BI result, the items were released. All BIs except positive steam rapid BIs were found with no growth after 48 hours of incubation for cross-checking of auto reader results. In positive rapid BI of steam, growth was found after 48 hours of incubation. Conclusion When sterilization failure occurred, process recall could not be possible at that time if rapid BI tests were not performed. So, integration of a rapid BI test with an auto reader can save the patient from critical SSI.
COVID-19 vaccines are indispensable, with the number of cases and mortality still rising, and currently no medicines are routinely available for reducing morbidity and mortality, apart from dexamethasone, although others are being trialed and launched. To date, only a limited number of vaccines have been given emergency use authorization by the US Food and Drug Administration and the European Medicines Agency. There is a need to systematically review the existing vaccine candidates and investigate their safety, efficacy, immunogenicity, unwanted events, and limitations. The review was undertaken by searching online databases, i.e., Google Scholar, PubMed, and ScienceDirect, with finally 59 studies selected. Our findings showed several types of vaccine candidates with different strategies against SARS-CoV-2, including inactivated, mRNA-based, recombinant, and nanoparticle-based vaccines, are being developed and launched. We have compared these vaccines in terms of their efficacy, side effects, and seroconversion based on data reported in the literature. We found mRNA vaccines appeared to have better efficacy, and inactivated ones had fewer side effects and similar seroconversion in all types of vaccines. Overall, global variant surveillance and systematic tweaking of vaccines, coupled with the evaluation and administering vaccines with the same or different technology in successive doses along with homologous and heterologous prime-booster strategy, have become essential to impede the pandemic. Their effectiveness appreciably outweighs any concerns with any adverse events.
The reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) test to detect SARS-CoV-2, the virus causing COVID-19, has been regarded as the diagnostic gold standard. However, the excessive sensitivity of RT-PCR may cause false-positive outcomes from contamination. Again, its technical complexity increases the chances of false-negatives due to pre-analytical and analytical errors. This narrative review explores the elements contributing to inaccurate results during the COVID-19 pandemic and offers strategies to minimize these errors. False-positive results may occur due to specimen contamination, non-specific primer binding, residual viral RNA, and false-negatives, which may arise from improper sampling, timing, labeling, storage, low viral loads, mutations, and faulty test kits. Proposed mitigation strategies to enhance the accuracy of RT-PCR testing include comprehensive staff training in specimen collection, optimizing the timing of tests, analyzing multiple gene targets, incorporating clinical findings, workflow automation, and implementing stringent contamination control measures. Identifying and rectifying sources of error in RT-PCR diagnosis through quality control and standardized protocols is imperative for ensuring quality patient care and effective epidemic control.