Abstract
Background Monkeypox (MPX) is an important human orthopoxvirus infection. There has been an increase in MPX cases and outbreaks in endemic and non-endemic regions in recent decades. We appraised the availability, scope, quality, and inclusivity of clinical management guidelines for MPX globally.
Methods For this systematic review, we searched six databases from inception until 14 Oct. 2021, augmented by a grey literature search until 17 May 2022. MPX guidelines providing treatment and supportive care recommendations were included, with no exclusions for language. Two reviewers assessed the guidelines. Quality was assessed using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE) II tool.
Results Of 2026 records screened, 14 guidelines were included. Overall, most guidelines were of low-quality with a median score of 2 out of 7 (range: 1-7), lacked detail and covered a narrow range of topics. Most guidelines focused on adults, five (36%) provided some advice for children, three (21%) for pregnant women, and three (21%) for people living with HIV. Treatment guidance was mostly limited to advise on antivirals; seven guidelines advised cidofovir (four specified for severe MPX only); 29% (4/14) tecovirimat, and 7% (1/14) brincidofovir. Only one guideline provided recommendations on supportive care and treatment of complications. All guidelines recommended vaccination as post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP). Three guidelines advised on vaccinia immune globulin as PEP for severe cases in people with immunosuppression.
Conclusion Our results highlight a concerning lack of evidence-based clinical management guidelines for MPX globally. There is a clear and urgent need for research into treatment and prophylaxis including for different risk populations. The current outbreak provides an opportunity to accelerate this research through coordinated high-quality studies. New evidence should be incorporated into globally accessible guidelines, to benefit patient and epidemic outcomes. A ‘living guideline’ framework is recommended.
Systematic review registration PROSPERO CRD42020167361
Funding statement This work was supported by the UK Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office and Wellcome [215091/Z/18/Z] and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation [OPP1209135].
Competing Interest Statement
Peter Hart is a senior research advisor and Helen Groves is a research manager at the Wellcome Trust, which provided part of the funding for this work, but neither had a role in data collection, analysis nor interpretation of the findings. Wellcome supports a range of research funding activities including awards made to ISARIC.
Funding Statement
This work was supported by the UK Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office and Wellcome [215091/Z/18/Z] and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation [OPP1209135]. For the purpose of Open Access, the author has applied a CC BY public copyright licence to any Author Accepted Manuscript version arising from this submission. SL is an MRC Clinical Research Training fellow (MR/T001151/1).
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
All data generated or analysed during this study are available on reasonable requests from the corresponding author.
List of abbreviations
- AGREE
- Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation
- A
- Adults
- C
- Considered
- CADTH
- Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health
- CDC
- Centre for Disease Control
- C
- Children
- DRC
- Democratic Republic of Congo
- ECDC
- European Centres for Disease Control and Prevention
- FDA
- Food and Drug Administration
- FETP
- Singapore Field Epidemiology Training Program
- HIC
- High-income country
- HIV
- Human immunodeficiency virus
- HPSC
- Health Protection Surveillance Centre
- H
- People living with HIV/Immunosuppression
- ISARIC
- International Severe Acute Respiratory and Emerging Infection Consortium
- IQR
- interquartile range
- IV
- Intravenous
- LMIC
- Lower-middle income country
- MESH
- Medical Subject Headings
- MoH
- Ministry of Health
- MPX
- Monkeypox
- MPXV
- Monkeypox virus
- MVA-BN
- Modified Vaccinia Ankara - Bavarian Nordic
- NA
- Not applicable
- NCDC
- Nigeria Centre for Disease Control
- NG
- nasogastric
- NS
- Not specified
- NSAID
- Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs
- O
- Older adults
- ORS
- oral rehydration salts
- PCR
- Polymerase chain reaction
- PEP
- post-exposure prophylaxis
- PHE
- Public Health England
- PRISMA
- Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses
- P
- Pregnant Women
- PROSPERO
- The International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews
- R
- Recommended
- UK
- United Kingdom
- UKHSA
- United Kingdom Health Security Agency
- UMC
- Upper-Middle Income Country
- US
- United States of America
- VIG
- Vaccinia Immune Globulin
- WHO
- World Health Organisation