Enhanced surveillance of monkeypox in Bas-Uélé, Democratic Republic of Congo: the limitations of symptom-based case definitions

Background

Monkeypox virus (MPXV) is a DNA virus belonging to the Poxviridae family, which includes vaccinia, cowpox and variola (smallpox) viruses. MPXV is currently the most prevalent human Orthopoxvirus and has been re-emerging since the eradication of smallpox in 1980. In humans, it causes a disease similar to smallpox, called monkeypox (Durski et al., 2018). Two clades of MPXV have been identified: the West African clade (MPXV-WA) occurring in forest areas situated west of Nigeria, and the Congo Basin clade (MPXV-CB) in Central Africa (Sklenovská and Van Ranst, 2018). After an incubation period of usually 7 to 14 days (range from 5 to 21 days), human monkeypox typically begins with systemic symptoms (i.e. fever, myalgia) followed by a rash, starting on the face before centrifugally spreading to other parts, including hands and feet. The skin lesions generally appear all at the same stage (monomorphic), evolving within 2 to 4 weeks from macules to papules, vesicles, pustules, crusts, and scabs. Complications are frequent and mortality may be up to 10% in children. People (primary cases) get infected through contact with infected animals during farming, hunting, or bushmeat preparation activities, and human-to-human transmission (secondary cases) also occurs by respiratory droplets or by close contact with infected lesions or bodily fluids (Diaz, 2021, Makhani et al., 2019, Petersen et al., 2019).

Human monkeypox was first described in 1970 in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) (Ladnyj et al., 1972). It is now found in more than half of the health zones of the country, reaching an incidence exceeding 5000 cases per year. More than 35 epidemics have been reported in other African countries and in recent years cases have also been increasing in returning travelers (Erez et al., 2019, Hobson et al., 2021, Mauldin et al., 2020, Rao et al., 2022, Yong et al., 2020) culminating in 2022 in an unprecedented multi-country outbreak (WHO, 2022). Since 2002, monkeypox is a notifiable disease in DRC and part of the nationwide implemented Integrated Disease Surveillance and Response (IDSR) system (DRC, 2011, 2012). All suspected clinical cases (and deaths) that meet the clinical case definition have to be reported weekly by each health zone to the national level (Hoff et al., 2017). As shown in Table 1, two case definitions of “suspect monkeypox cases” are provided in the national IDSR guideline: one for use in health facilities by nurses/doctors and a second one much broader (“fever and cutaneous rash”) designed for surveillance by community health workers.

Due to the remoteness of the endemic areas confirmatory testing by PCR, only available in the national reference laboratory (“Institut National de Recherche Biomédicale”, INRB, Kinshasa), is rarely performed. As a result, the robustness of field surveillance based on clinical suspicion has so far been difficult to evaluate. Several diseases with generalized skin eruption may mimic monkeypox, such as chickenpox, measles, molluscum contagiosum, or rickettsioses. The field differential diagnosis between monkeypox and chickenpox is particularly challenging (Jezek et al., 1988, Leung et al., 2019, MacNeil et al., 2009) and coinfections are frequent (Hughes et al., 2020). Recent attempts to design clinical case definitions with a higher specificity for surveillance or care purposes have not yet undergone external validation (Osadebe et al., 2017). Following alerts from several health zones of the Bas-Uélé province, northeastern DRC (Aketi, Buta, and Titule; Figure 1) of a sharp increase of suspect monkeypox cases a first exploratory mission was conducted in 2016 and confirmed an ongoing outbreak of febrile illness with skin eruption, suspect monkeypox. It also identified important challenges and gaps impacting the quality of the surveillance and outbreak data, including the non-systematic registration of cases and the scarcity of sampling kits in the field. An active surveillance component was added, and access to confirmatory testing was reinforced through the project entitled “Strengthening academic capacity to respond to Monkeypox epidemics: discrimination and origin of eruptive fevers in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC)” (Laudisoit, 2017).

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 1:

Map of the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) indicating the Bas-Uélé province and the health zones of Aketi, Buta, and Titule (study area).

Methods

Data Availability Statement

De-identified data and R code for the predictive model are deposited on Zenodo at https://dx.doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6574450 (Mande et al. 2022).

Results

Generalized skin eruption with fever evocative of human monkeypox was notified in 143 households, making a total of 948 people (median number of members/household: 6; interquartile range [IQR] 4-9) and reported by the RECO to the local health staff. These households were visited by the study teams between September 2017 and May 2019 (94 in the first year and 49 in the second year of the project). In a total of 106 households (106/143; 74.1%), representing 678 household members, the study team confirmed that at least one case responded to the study definition of suspected MPX. Overall, 138 patients (of whom 74 or, 54%, were aged <15 years) fulfilled the study definition of suspect monkeypox case (Table 2). The cases resided in 32 villages distributed in 12 health areas within three health zones (Aketi, Buta, Titule). Eighty-nine households (89/106; 84.0%) had one suspect case, 10 had two, four had three, one had four, and within two families, all members (6 and 7, respectively) had an active generalized vesicular-pustular rash fitting the study definition at the time of the household visit. During site visits, among households with active cases of skin eruption, 23/100 (n=100, info missing for 6 households) also reported recent and distant past episodes of fever with generalized skin eruption in their households (distant, i.e., >3 months earlier for 13; recent, i.e., within the last 3 months for 10).

Complete PCR results were obtained for 77 out of the 138 active suspect monkeypox cases (55.8%). Twenty-one of 77 patients (27.3%) tested positive for MPXV, and 45, out of the 56 MPXV-negatives, were positive for VZV. The remaining 11 cases remained negative for both MPXV and VZV. One suspect monkeypox case, negative for MPXV, was not tested for VZV. Next, we compared the socio-demographic, clinical characteristics, and risk factors between the 21 confirmed monkeypox cases, the 45 confirmed chickenpox cases, and the 11 cases reported as negative for both PCR assays (Table 3).

Sociodemographic characteristics (age, gender) were similar in the three groups. In terms of clinical signs and symptoms, rash characteristics were the only symptoms that differed significantly between monkeypox and chickenpox cases. Monkeypox confirmed cases more often presented with cutaneous lesions in the same stage of the skin eruption (monomorphic) (85.7% vs 40.0% for the chickenpox cases; p=0.001); and more often had lesions on hands palms (85.7% vs 33.3%; p<0.001) and feet soles (71.4% vs 17.8%; p<0.001) compared to chickenpox patients. Forty percent of both confirmed monkeypox and chickenpox patients presented with ocular lesions/corneal opacities. Similarly, the frequency of cervical/submandibular lymphadenopathy was not significantly different between the two groups.

Contact with a person with generalized skin eruption within the past 3 weeks was reported in 70% of the cases of all three groups with no statistical difference. The presence of another suspect monkeypox case (according to the study definition) in the household tended to be more frequent in confirmed chickenpox cases than in MPX cases. Recent bushmeat consumption (giant pouched rat, primates, squirrels,…) was very common (>80%) in all three groups, with no statistical difference.

A similar number of confirmed monkeypox patients was reported from the three health areas (Area 1: 3/20, Area 2: 5/20, Area 3: 6/14) surveyed within the Aketi health zone. Of note, in one study household, MPXV- and VZV-positive cases were found concomitantly. Of note, in the 7-member household of which each individual presented with a rash, two persons were sampled, and one tested positive for MPX and the other patient tested positive for VZV. For the child, concurrent infection with MPX and VZV was not excluded. When comparing the clinical and socio-demographic features of suspect monkeypox cases with and without molecular results (Supplementary Table 1), no difference was observed except for the duration of fever (7 days [IQR 3-10] versus 9 days [6-12], respectively; p=0.008).

Based on the PCR results, the case definition used in this study led to a false positive rate of 73% (56 out of 77 tested samples were not confirmed as monkeypox). As detailed in Table 4, the case definition for “health facility” of the DRC national program would have decreased the false positive rate to 20% (corresponding to a specificity of 80%) but would have missed one-third of the true monkeypox cases (sensitivity of 67%). The proposed alternative case definition (18), would have an excellent sensitivity but a very low specificity (with >95% of false positives for monkeypox). All three identified discriminative features (“monomorphic rash”, “rash on palms”, “rash on soles”) had a weak confirming power for monkeypox (LR+ <3) when taken separately. Only the presence of all three features together has a good predictive value (LR+ >3), slightly better than that of the “health facility” case definition, increasing the probability of confirmed monkeypox above 50% (from a baseline frequency of 27% in suspect cases). In contrast, the absence of all three discriminative features would virtually exclude the diagnosis of monkeypox. The predictive model (Figure 2). had 97% specificity and 80% sensitivity in predicting PCR-confirmed monkeypox for in-sample cases, but only 80% specificity and 33% sensitivity for out-of-sample cases. Only one feature – the interaction of “rash on palms” in male patients” was a consistent predictor in >95% of model posterior samples. Other features that were positive predictors in >80% of posterior samples were all interactions including “rash on palms”, “rash on soles” and “monomorphic rash”. Prior vaccination against smallpox confirmed by presence of vaccinia vaccine scar was the strongest predictor against PCR-confirmed monkeypox (in 93% of samples).

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 2.

Coefficients for all variables and interactions (features) in the predictive model, scaled as odds ratios (OR). Mean OR is printed in the parentheses of each feature, with mean (dots), 66% posterior interval (thick lines), 95% posterior interval (thin lines), and full posterior shape (density plots) shown in the plot.

Discussion

The enhanced surveillance of monkeypox in Bas-Uélé province by a dedicated “One Health” team confirmed that only 27% of suspect cases, as identified by an adapted “community” case definition, were confirmed as monkeypox. Most cases were finally diagnosed as chickenpox. The investigation did not identify clear epidemiological risk factors for monkeypox. Only three clinical features (monomorphic rash, rash on palms of hands, and rash on soles of feet) had some discriminative value for monkeypox, but no combination of symptoms and no alternative case definitions had a strong confirming power for decisive diagnosis.

This study has several limitations, inherent to the project and the health system in which it was embedded. First, the central objective of the project was education rather than research, with a progressive improvement of generic capacities towards monkeypox surveillance and detection. The clinical data collected during the project have thus evolved in terms of quality as the capacity increased over time, but some differences may have persisted between examinations made by medical doctors (during the field visits) and by nurses during the absence of supervision. Second, the intermittent provision of standard kits led to gaps in systematic skin sampling (which could be better addressed during the field visits). While we can consider that the subset of patients who were sampled for the molecular workup was selected at random, some bias may have occurred during these periods of higher availability. The technical difficulties related to sample preservation and transportation may have impacted the quality of the DNA and hence of the molecular results because laboratory staff and resources had on several occasions to be redirected to the reference diagnosis of Ebola during the successive outbreaks in DRC at that time. This has likely caused some false-negative results, as reflected by the clinical presentation of the 11 PCR-negative patients that was quite similar to that of confirmed monkeypox cases. Finally, as a result of the sequential INRB testing protocol, we cannot report the proportion of monkeypox cases concomitantly infected with VZV.

The low specificity of the case definition for community surveillance of monkeypox implies the inclusion of many false positives in both the epidemiological and clinical records scattered in peripheral health structures, with some under- and over-estimation of the actual caseload. Most captured cases were in fact chickenpox patients, confirming that the epidemiological characterization and clinical identification of monkeypox in Bas-Uélé are also seriously blurred by the co-endemicity of both conditions that share many similar and overlapping features (Jezek et al., 1988, Leung et al., 2019, MacNeil et al., 2009). It is expected that cases first captured by the very sensitive “community” case definition are assessed through the more restrictive “health facility” case definition, but this two-step clinical strategy may be not very well apprehended by less trained health workers. In addition, the latter case definition still includes a substantial number of non-monkeypox cases while it may create difficulties to classify the subgroup captured by the “community” definition which is secondarily rejected. Based on our limited dataset, we confirmed the discriminative value of some features such as the monomorphic aspect of the rash (all body lesions presenting at the same stage) and the preferential localization on palms and soles but also highlighted that their confirming power for monkeypox is limited. In contrast with others, we did not observe any predictive value for other characteristics such as cervical lymphadenopathy, ocular opacities, presence of other suspect cases in households - indicative of chickenpox in our dataset - or consumption of bushmeat, since they were all frequently reported in monkeypox and chickenpox confirmed patients. The negative correlation with prior vaccination against smallpox further supports high residual protection against monkeypox clinical diseases outcome, which is also supported by the generational divide in susceptibility since smallpox vaccination was discontinued (Rimoin et al., 2010). Looking for alternative case definitions, based on novel combinations of symptoms, did not substantially improve the diagnostic performance. Our predictive model also highlighted the importance of a monomorphic rash and localization on palms and soles. However, the model’s low predictive power, given its inclusion of all combinations of symptoms, shows the fundamental limitation on diagnosis without point-of-care tests. Because of its epidemic potential and substantial mortality and morbidity, accurate and swift diagnosis of monkeypox is crucial. There is a pressing need for peripheral laboratories with easy-to-use molecular diagnostic devices (Li et al., 2017) or the further provision and development of rapid point-of-care diagnostic tests such as ABICAP (Stern et al., 2016), suited to the remote harsh environments where monkeypox may break out at any moment.

Moreover, MPX antiviral treatment trials also should be conducted in Africa. For example, with the antiviral tecovirimat which received approval by both FDA and EMA for the treatment of MPX based on animal experiments (Grosenbach et al., 2018, Laudisoit et al., 2018). In addition, the efficacy of third generation smallpox vaccines in preventing MPX is being studied in the DRC. A smallpox-monkeypox vaccine has recently been validated by the FDA based on positive trials in other parts of DRC (Petersen et al., 2019).

In conclusion, this field investigation confirmed the difficulty observed elsewhere for health and community workers to clinically distinguish between monkeypox and chickenpox, two conditions that with similar symptoms but have increasingly divergent management. Combining lesion distribution and number, size, shape, and rugosity of lesions could potentially improve field discrimination between the two diseases. Development and field evaluation of breakthrough diagnostics and encouraging “One Health” intervention teams are key to timely and adequately address the variety and complexity of epidemic-prone diseases such as monkeypox, especially in areas with increasing evidence of co-circulation of zoonotic and anthroponotic pathogens (Bunge et al., 2022). The current outbreak of monkeypox outside Africa illustrates also the importance of intensified monkeypox surveillance in Africa among human and animal populations.

Supplementary Material

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: Table S1: Comparison of sociodemographic and clinical characteristics of enrolled suspect monkeypox cases with versus without molecular results.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, Robert Colebunders, Erik Verheyen, Herwig Leirs and Anne Laudisoit; Data curation, Gaspard Mande, Anja De Weggheleire and Anne Laudisoit; Formal analysis, Anja De Weggheleire and Noam Ross; Funding acquisition, Robert Colebunders, Erik Verheyen, Herwig Leirs and Anne Laudisoit; Investigation, Gaspard Mande, Innocent Akonda, Emmanuel Bottieau, Guy-Crispin Gembu, Erik Verheyen and Anne Laudisoit; Methodology, Anja De Weggheleire, Emmanuel Bottieau, Anne Laudisoit and Noam Ross; Project administration, Robert Colebunders, Erik Verheyen and Anne Laudisoit; Supervision, Anja De Weggheleire, Emmanuel Bottieau, Erik Verheyen and Anne Laudisoit; Visualization, Anne Laudisoit and Noam Ross; Writing – original draft, Gaspard Mande, Innocent Akonda, Anja De Weggheleire and Emmanuel Bottieau; Writing – review & editing, All authors. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Funding

This research was funded by the Flemish Interuniversity Council for University Development Cooperation (VLIR-UOS) through the VLIR TEAM SI project CD2017SIN199A102 “Strengthening the academic capacity to respond to Monkeypox Outbreaks: Discrimination and Origin of Eruptive Fevers in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) (2017-2019)”. ADW, EB, and LL were members of the Institute of Tropical Medicine’s Outbreak Research Team which is financially supported by the Department of Economy, Science, and Innovation (EWI) of the Flemish government.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted following the Declaration of Helsinki and approved by the Ethics Committee of Antwerp University Hospital, Belgium (reference 18/01/012), and the Ethics Committee of the School of Public Health of the University of Kinshasa (approval number ESP/CE/077/2018). In addition to the household level consent signed by the household head for the home visit and data collection, individual written informed consent was obtained from each participant or its guardian in case of sample collection or picture capture.