-
Cureus Jan 2023The whole world got threatened by COVID-19, which made a significant loss in various sectors and pushed the world into a deep valley. Now a new threat, the emerging... (Review)
Review
The whole world got threatened by COVID-19, which made a significant loss in various sectors and pushed the world into a deep valley. Now a new threat, the emerging outbreak of monkeypox is rapidly spreading across the globe and is currently being observed in more than 110 countries with 79,473 confirmed cases and 50 deaths. Data were collected from PubMed, EMBASE, MEDLINE, Cochrane, Scopus database, African Journals OnLine, internet library sub-Saharan Africa, and Google Scholar. Most data were taken from the democratic Republic of Congo, the Central African Republic, Cameroon, the Republic of Congo, Liberia, Nigeria, the US, and the UK. Case reports, outbreak investigations, epidemiological studies, and surveillance studies were reviewed to find epidemiological details about the outbreak. A total of 50 peer-reviewed articles and 20 grey literature articles, including 9050 cases, were identified for data extraction. Our systematic review revealed that the group most affected is male (95.5%), with a median age of 33.8 years. A total of 55% of the transmission was sexually transmitted. The most commonly reported symptoms such as vesicular-pustular rashes (97.54%), fever (55.25%), inguinal lymphadenopathy (53.6%), exanthema (40.21%), fatigue, headache, asthenia (26.32%), myalgia (16.33%), vesicles and ulcers (30.61%) in the anogenital regions were some of the significant findings. The case fatality rate was observed to be up to 8.65%. The most affected country was the USA, which has the most fatalities in younger ages involved in homosexuality, suffering from HIV or sexually transmitted diseases (STDs).
PubMed: 36655160
DOI: 10.7759/cureus.33596 -
American Journal of Otolaryngology 2023MPOX has numerous otolaryngologic presentations that have been recognized as clinically important, especially with the onset of the 2022 outbreak. However, how these... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
PURPOSE
MPOX has numerous otolaryngologic presentations that have been recognized as clinically important, especially with the onset of the 2022 outbreak. However, how these features vary across region and outbreak have yet to be elucidated or supported by meta-analysis. The objective of this study is to identify the otolaryngologic manifestations of MPOX across previous and current outbreaks and among endemic and non-endemic regions.
BASIC PROCEDURES
Data sources of MEDLINE (PubMed), the Cochrane Library, Scopus, Embase, Web of Science, Google Scholar, and OpenGrey were searched through August 2022. All observational studies reporting data on laboratory-confirmed MPOX patients with otolaryngologic symptoms were included. Two authors independently performed the screening process while a third resolved disagreements. Data were extracted into a structured form by two authors independently. We performed a meta-analysis of the prevalence of otorhinolaryngologic symptoms using MetaXL software (version 5.3) under a random-effects model.
MAIN FINDINGS
38 studies with 5952 patients were included. The four most prevalent manifestations were headache at 31 % (95 % CI [0.16-0.49], I = 99 %), sore throat at 22 % (95 % CI [0.09-0.37], I = 99 %), cough at 16 % (95 % CI [0.05-0.30], I = 99 %), and cervical lymphadenopathy at 10 % (95 % CI [0.01-0.26], I = 100 %). Otolaryngologic features were more prevalent in previous outbreaks as compared to the 2022 outbreak including 37 % prevalence of headache (95 % CI [0.11-0.66], I = 100 %), 33 % prevalence of cough (95 % CI [0.21-0.47], I = 98 %), 27 % prevalence of sore throat (95 % CI [0.07-0.53], I = 99 %), 15 % prevalence of cervical lymphadenopathy (95 % CI [0.00-0.428], I = 100 %), 13 % prevalence of oral ulcers (95 % CI [0.02-0.30], I = 99 %), 6 % prevalence of oral exanthem (95 % CI [0.00-0.17], I = 99 %), 5 % prevalence of dysphagia (95 % CI [0.00-0.18], I = 99 %), and 5 % prevalence of tonsillar signs (95 % CI [0.00-0.13], I = 99 %). Features that were more prevalent in endemic areas versus non-endemic areas include 27 % prevalence of cough (95 % CI [0.14-0.41], I = 99 %), 15 % prevalence of oral ulcers (95 % CI [0.02-0.36], I = 99 %), 6 % prevalence of tonsillar signs (95 % CI [0.00-0.18], I = 99 %), and 19 % prevalence of cervical lymphadenopathy (95 % CI [0.00-0.48], I = 100 %), while the only feature more prevalent in non-endemic areas was headache with a prevalence of 36 % (95 % CI [0.24-0.47], I = 96 %).
PRINCIPAL CONCLUSIONS
In this systematic review and meta-analysis, four symptoms - headache, sore throat, cough, and cervical lymphadenopathy - were found to be the most prevalent otolaryngologic features of MPOX. Otolaryngologic manifestations of MPOX were more pronounced in prior outbreaks and in endemic areas as compared to the 2022 outbreak and non-endemic areas. These findings may aid MPOX recognition in an otolaryngology setting.
Topics: Humans; Cough; Headache; Lymphadenopathy; Oral Ulcer; Otolaryngology; Pain; Pharyngitis; Mpox (monkeypox)
PubMed: 37487464
DOI: 10.1016/j.amjoto.2023.103991 -
The Journal of Infectious Diseases Aug 2023This study aims to comparatively analyze clinical features, treatment, and patient outcomes between the previous and the 2022 mpox (monkeypox) outbreaks. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
This study aims to comparatively analyze clinical features, treatment, and patient outcomes between the previous and the 2022 mpox (monkeypox) outbreaks.
METHODS
Five bibliographic databases were searched for studies reporting clinical features, management, and patient outcomes of mpox. Systematic review and meta-analysis were performed.
RESULTS
In total, 73 studies were included in the systematic review, of which 33 studies were subjected to meta-analysis. Previous outbreaks substantially affected children, whereas the 2022 outbreak primarily affected male adults, of which 94.66% (95% confidence interval [CI], 88.03-98.95) were men who have sex with men. Furthermore, 72.47% (95% CI, 51.04-89.71) reported high-risk sexual activity and the overall human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) prevalence was 37.65% (95% CI, 30.09-45.50). Skin lesions remain the typical symptom; however, their anatomic distribution differed. Systemic manifestations were common, but rectal pain was unique to the 2022 outbreak. The estimated overall fatality during past outbreaks in Africa was 4.61% (95% CI, 2.39%-7.35%), whereas 6.34% (95% CI, 3.35%-10.10%) of patients from the 2022 outbreak required hospitalization. Antiviral treatment, in particular tecovirimat, has been prescribed for a subset of patients, but the efficacy remains inconclusive.
CONCLUSIONS
These findings are important for better understanding the disease and guiding adequate response to mpox outbreaks.
Topics: Adult; Child; Humans; Male; Female; Homosexuality, Male; Mpox (monkeypox); Sexual and Gender Minorities; Antiviral Agents; Disease Outbreaks; Pelvic Pain
PubMed: 36735342
DOI: 10.1093/infdis/jiad034 -
BMJ Open Gastroenterology Jan 2024Mpox is a viral infection caused by the monkeypox virus, a member of the Poxviridae family and Orthopoxvirus genus. Other well-known viruses of the Orthopoxvirus genus...
INTRODUCTION
Mpox is a viral infection caused by the monkeypox virus, a member of the Poxviridae family and Orthopoxvirus genus. Other well-known viruses of the Orthopoxvirus genus include the variola virus (smallpox), cowpox virus and vaccinia virus. Although there is a plethora of research regarding the dermatological and influenza-like symptoms of mpox, particularly following the 2022 mpox outbreak, more research is needed on the gastrointestinal (GI) effects.
OBJECTIVES
This systematic review is to outline the GI manifestations of the monkeypox virus.
METHODS
The authors conducted this systematic review using guidelines outlined in the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses. A search was conducted through the PubMed, EMBASE and MEDLINE databases from January 1958 to June 2023. The authors selected English language papers that discussed the GI symptoms in mpox patients. A manual search was also conducted in the reference sections of these publications for other relevant papers.
RESULTS
33 papers involving 830 patients were selected for this review. The GI manifestations in mpox patients are proctitis, vomiting, diarrhoea, rectal pain, nausea, tenesmus, rectal bleeding and abdominal pain. Although various papers explored transmission routes, one paper established a direct connection between anal-receptive sex transmission route and the development of a GI complication (proctitis). Another study reported that the mode of transmission could potentially impact the occurrence of GI symptoms and severity of the disease. The reviewed papers did not discover a relation between the severity of dermatological and influenza-like symptoms and the GI manifestations mentioned.
CONCLUSION
This systematic review confirms that GI manifestations are observed in mpox patients. GI symptoms of mpox are crucial for gastroenterologists and other healthcare professionals to recognise in order to address patient discomfort and further understand the pathophysiology of the virus.
Topics: Humans; Gastrointestinal Hemorrhage; Mpox (monkeypox); Proctitis; Vomiting
PubMed: 38184298
DOI: 10.1136/bmjgast-2023-001266 -
JAAD International Sep 2023
PubMed: 37533687
DOI: 10.1016/j.jdin.2023.05.013 -
Virology Journal Jun 2024Limited data is available regarding the severity and mortality of Mpox in individuals with immunocompromised conditions. Therefore, we performed this meta-analysis to... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Limited data is available regarding the severity and mortality of Mpox in individuals with immunocompromised conditions. Therefore, we performed this meta-analysis to understand the impact of HIV- or non-HIV-associated immunosuppression on the severity of Mpox requiring hospitalization and mortality.
METHODS
A thorough literature search was performed from 2022 up to January 2024. The results were presented as odds ratios (ORs). We only included patients who required hospitalization for severity rather than isolation.
RESULTS
A total of 34 studies were included in this analysis. Our analysis did not find a significant difference in the hospitalization risk between HIV-positive individuals and those who were HIV-negative (OR = 1.03; P = 0.85; 7 studies; CD4 count of fewer than 200 cells/µL was less than 0.5% across all studies). Patients with a CD4 count lower than 200 cells/µL or an unsuppressed RNA viral load (> 200 copies/ml) had a significantly higher hospitalization risk (OR = 5.3, P < 0.001) and (OR = 3, P < 0.001), respectively. Most of the reported deaths were reported in patients with HIV with CD4 counts below 200 cells/µL, with some fatal cases occurring in non-HIV immunosuppressed patients, particularly organ transplant recipients. Based on the autopsy findings, Mpox was confirmed in multiple organs, particularly the digestive tract, lung, and testes. Furthermore, some studies documented cases of death that were suspected to be related to hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis (HLH) and immune reconstitution inflammatory syndrome (IRIS). Most of the death reports showed concomitant non-Mpox infections at the time of hospitalization and death CONCLUSIONS: Our finding shows that Mpox acts as an opportunistic pathogen in immunocompromised individuals. These individuals should be prioritized for early care and closely monitored for signs of deteriorating clinical conditions. Clinical manifestations and autopsy findings strongly suggest Mpox dissemination to multiple organs, particularly the digestive tract, and lungs. However, the presence of concomitant non-Mpox infections complicates the assessment of the attribution of Mpox to death. Caution should be exercised when interpreting data suggesting poorer outcomes in individuals with non-HIV immunosuppression, as current evidence is scarce and further research is needed.
Topics: Humans; Hospitalization; Immunocompromised Host; HIV Infections; CD4 Lymphocyte Count; Mpox (monkeypox); Disease Outbreaks; Immunosuppression Therapy; Viral Load
PubMed: 38840177
DOI: 10.1186/s12985-024-02392-0 -
Frontiers in Public Health 2023Monkeypox (mpox), a zoonotic viral infection, poses a global threat that is being acknowledged at the national and international levels. This systematic review aims to...
BACKGROUND
Monkeypox (mpox), a zoonotic viral infection, poses a global threat that is being acknowledged at the national and international levels. This systematic review aims to identify and characterize interventional clinical trials for mpox.
METHOD
All interventional clinical trials registered at ClinicalTrials.gov for mpox were searched up to January 6, 2023. We described the characteristics of interventional clinical trials, and drug interventions (including drugs and vaccines).
RESULTS
As of January 6, 2023, there were 10 clinical trials in the ClinicalTrials.gov registry that met our criteria. Most of the interventional clinical trials were focused on the treatment ( = 4, 40%) and prevention ( = 4, 40%) of mpox. From the 10 trials, 50% used random treatment allocation, and six (60%) chose the parallel assignment intervention model. All 10 studies were blinded, and six were open-label blinded. The largest proportion of the clinical trials ( = 4, 40%) were registered in Europe, followed by America ( = 3, 30%) and Africa and others ( = 3, 30%). The JYNNEOS vaccine (40%), followed by Tecovirimat (30%) were the most frequently studied drugs used against mpox.
CONCLUSION
A limited number of clinical trials have been registered on ClinicalTrials.gov since the first case of mpox was reported. Therefore, there is an urgent need to conduct large-scale randomized clinical trials to assess the safety and efficacy of the drugs and vaccines being used against the mpox virus.
Topics: Humans; Mpox (monkeypox); Africa; Benzamides; Databases, Factual; Europe
PubMed: 36969617
DOI: 10.3389/fpubh.2023.1144325 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Mar 2023Mpox was declared a Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC) by the World Health Organization (WHO) on 23 July 2022, following the identification of... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Mpox was declared a Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC) by the World Health Organization (WHO) on 23 July 2022, following the identification of thousands of cases in several non-endemic countries in previous months. There are currently no licenced therapeutics for treating mpox; however, some medications may be authorized for use in an outbreak. The efficacy and safety of possible therapeutic options has not been studied in humans with mpox. There is a need to investigate the evidence on safety and effectiveness of treatments for mpox in humans; should any therapeutic option be efficacious and safe, it may be approved for use around the world.
OBJECTIVES
There are two parts to this Cochrane Review: a review of evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs), and a narrative review of safety data from non-randomized studies. Randomized controlled trials review To systematically review the existing evidence on the effectiveness of therapeutics for mpox infection in humans compared to: a) another different therapeutic for mpox, or b) placebo, or c) supportive care, defined as the treatment of physical and psychological symptoms arising from the disease. Non-randomized studies review To assess the safety of therapeutics for mpox infection from non-randomized studies (NRS).
SEARCH METHODS
Randomized controlled trials review We searched the following databases up to 25 January 2023: MEDLINE (OVID), Embase (OVID), Biosis previews (Web of Science), CAB Abstracts (Web of science), and Cochrane CENTRAL (Issue 1 2023). We conducted a search of trial registries (Clinicaltrials.gov and International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP)) on 25 January 2023. There were no date or language limits placed on the search. We undertook a call to experts in the field for relevant studies or ongoing trials to be considered for inclusion in the review. Non-randomized studies review We searched the following databases on 22 September 2022: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; Issue 9 of 12, 2022), published in the Cochrane Library; MEDLINE (Ovid); Embase (Ovid); and Scopus (Elsevier). We also searched the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and ClinicalTrials.gov for trials in progress.
SELECTION CRITERIA
For the RCT review and the narrative review, any therapeutic for the treatment of mpox in humans was eligible for inclusion, including tecovirimat, brincidofovir, cidofovir, NIOCH-14, immunomodulators, and vaccine immune globulin. Randomized controlled trials review Studies were eligible for the main review if they were of randomized controlled design and investigated the effectiveness or safety of therapeutics in human mpox infection. Non-randomized studies review Studies were eligible for inclusion in the review of non-randomized studies if they were of non-randomized design and contained data concerning the safety of any therapeutic in human mpox infection.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Randomized controlled trials review Two review authors independently applied study inclusion criteria to identify eligible studies. If we had identified any eligible studies, we planned to assess the risk of bias, and report results with 95% confidence intervals (CI). The critical outcomes were serious adverse events, development of disease-related complications, admission to hospital for non-hospitalized participants, pain as judged by any visual or numerical pain scale, level of virus detected in clinical samples, time to healing of all skin lesions, and mortality. We planned to perform subgroup analysis to explore whether the effect of the therapeutic on the planned outcomes was modified by disease severity and days from symptom onset to therapeutic administration. We also intended to explore the following subgroups of absolute effects: immunosuppression, age, and pre-existing skin disease. Non-randomized studies review One review author applied study inclusion criteria to identify eligible studies and extracted data. Studies of a non-randomized design containing data on the safety of therapeutics could not be meta-analyzed due to the absence of a comparator; we summarized these data narratively in an appendix.
MAIN RESULTS
Randomized controlled trials review We did not identify any completed RCTs investigating the effectiveness of therapeutics for treating mpox for the main review. We identified five ongoing trials that plan to assess the effectiveness of one therapeutic option, tecovirimat, for treating mpox in adults and children. One of these ongoing trials intends to include populations with, or at greater risk of, severe disease, which will allow an assessment of safety in more vulnerable populations. Non-randomized studies review Three non-randomized studies met the inclusion criteria for the narrative review, concerning data on the safety of therapeutics in mpox. Very low-certainty evidence from non-randomized studies of small numbers of people indicates no serious safety signals emerging for the use of tecovirimat in people with mpox infection, but a possible safety signal for brincidofovir. All three participants who received brincidofovir had raised alanine aminotransferase (ALT), but not bilirubin, suggesting mild liver injury. No study reported severe drug-induced liver injury with brincidofovir.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Randomized controlled trials review This review found no evidence from randomized controlled trials concerning the efficacy and safety of therapeutics in humans with mpox. Non-randomized studies review Very low-certainty evidence from non-randomized studies indicates no serious safety signals emerging for the use of tecovirimat in people with mpox infection. In contrast, very low-certainty evidence raises a safety signal that brincidofovir may cause liver injury. This is also suggested by indirect evidence from brincidofovir use in smallpox. This warrants further investigation and monitoring. This Cochrane Review will be updated as new evidence becomes available to assist policymakers, health professionals, and consumers in making appropriate decisions for the treatment of mpox.
Topics: Adult; Child; Humans; Mpox (monkeypox); Organophosphonates; Immunoglobulins
PubMed: 36916727
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD015769 -
International Journal of Infectious... Feb 2023Human monkeypox virus (MPXV) infection is a recently declared public health emergency of international concern by the World Health Organization. Besides, there is scant...
OBJECTIVES
Human monkeypox virus (MPXV) infection is a recently declared public health emergency of international concern by the World Health Organization. Besides, there is scant literature available on the use of antivirals in MPXV infection. This systematic review compiles all evidence of various antivirals used on their efficacy and safety and summarizes their mechanisms of action.
METHODS
A review was done of all original studies mentioning individual patient data on the use of antivirals in patients with MPXV infection.
RESULTS
Of the total 487 non-duplicate studies, 18 studies with 71 individuals were included. Tecovirimat was used in 61 individuals, followed by cidofovir in seven and brincidofovir (BCV) in three individuals. Topical trifluridine was used in four ophthalmic cases in addition to tecovirimat. Of the total, 59 (83.1%) were reported to have complete resolution of symptoms; one was experiencing waxing and waning of symptoms, only one (1.8%) had died, and the others were having a resolution of symptoms. The death was thought unrelated to tecovirimat. Elevated hepatic panels were reported among all individuals treated with BCV (leading to treatment discontinuation) and five treated with tecovirimat.
CONCLUSION
Tecovirimat is the most used and has proven beneficial in several aggravating cases. No major safety concerns were detected upon its use. Topical trifluridine was used as an adjuvant treatment option along with tecovirimat. BCV and cidofovir were seldom used, with the latter often being used due to the unavailability of tecovirimat. BCV was associated with treatment discontinuation due to adverse events.
Topics: Humans; Antiviral Agents; Benzamides; Cidofovir; Disease Outbreaks; Isoindoles; Mpox (monkeypox); Monkeypox virus; Trifluridine
PubMed: 36470502
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijid.2022.11.040 -
BMC Public Health Jan 2024Monkeypox (Mpox) virus infection is a topic of growing interest today because of its potential public health impact and concern about possible outbreaks. Reliable and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Monkeypox (Mpox) virus infection is a topic of growing interest today because of its potential public health impact and concern about possible outbreaks. Reliable and up-to-date sources of information that provide accurate data on its transmission, symptoms, prevention, and treatment are essential for understanding and effectively addressing this disease. Therefore, the aim of the present study is to determine the prevalence of sources of information on Mpox virus infection.
METHODS
An exhaustive systematic review and meta-analysis was carried out using the information available in the PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Embase, and ScienceDirect databases up to August 3, 2023. The data were analyzed using R software version 4.2.3. The quality of the cross-sectional studies that formed part of this review was assessed using the Joanna Briggs Institute Meta-Analysis of Statistics Assessment and Review Instrument (JBI-MAStARI) tool. In addition, a subgroup analysis was performed based on the study populations.
RESULTS
Through electronic searches of five databases, a total of 1833 studies were identified. Twenty-four cross-sectional articles were included, with a total sample of 35,959 participants from 34 countries. The pooled prevalence of each of the included information sources was: social networks reached 59% (95% CI: 50-68%; 29,146 participants; 22 studies; I = 100%; p < 0.01); the Internet was 61% (95% CI: 44-77%; 14,002 participants; 5 studies; I = 100%; p < 0.01), radio reached 10% (95% CI: 07-13%; 8917 participants; 4 studies; I = 93%; p < 0.01), television accounted for 24% (95% CI: 09-43%; 14,896 participants; 8 studies; I = 100%; p < 0.01), and the combination of radio and television accounted for 45% (95% CI: 31-60%; 4207 participants; 7 studies; I = 99%; p < 0.01); for newspapers, it was 15% (95% CI: 05-27%; 2841 participants; 6 studies; I = 99%; p < 0.01), friends and relatives accounted for 19% (95% CI: 12-28%; 28,470 participants; 19 studies; I = 100%; p < 0.01), the World Health Organization (WHO) accounted for 17% (95% CI: 07-29%; 1656 participants; 3 studies; I = 97%; p < 0.01), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) accounted for 10% (95% CI: 03-21%; 2378 participants; 3 studies; I = 98%; p < 0.01), and the combination of WHO and CDC websites accounted for 60% (95% CI: 48-72%; 1828 participants; 4 studies; I = 96%; p < 0.01), and finally, scientific articles and journals accounted for 24% (95% CI: 16-33%; 16,775 participants; 13 studies; I = 99%; p < 0.01).
CONCLUSION
The study suggests that people access a variety of information sources to gain knowledge about Mpox virus infection, with a strong emphasis on online sources such as social networks and the Internet. However, it is important to note that the quality and accuracy of information available from these sources can vary, underscoring the need to promote access to reliable and up-to-date information about this disease to ensure public health.
Topics: United States; Humans; Monkeypox virus; Cross-Sectional Studies; Mpox (monkeypox); Academies and Institutes; Information Sources
PubMed: 38263135
DOI: 10.1186/s12889-024-17741-5