Availability, scope, and quality of monkeypox clinical management guidelines globally: a systematic review

Introduction

Monkeypox (MPX) is a zoonotic disease caused by an Orthopoxvirus belonging to the same genus as smallpox. The MPX virus was discovered in 1958,^1–4 with the first human infection identified in 1970 in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC).⁵ Since then human MPX has mostly been reported in Central and Western African countries. Two distinct genetic clades of the virus have been identified – the Congo Basin and the West African clades, with a case fatality rate of 1-3.6% and 10.6%, respectively estimated in earlier outbreaks.⁶ The number of human monkeypox cases has been rising since the 1970s, with the highest increases reported in the DRC and an increase in travel-imported cases outside of Africa. In 2003, 37 confirmed cases were detected in the US, linked to contact with pet prairie dogs infected by rodents from Africa.^7,8 This was followed by sporadic travel imported cases in the UK (2018, 2021), Israel (2018), Singapore (2019).^9–12 From December 2021 to 1 May 2022 there were 1315 cases and 57 deaths reported from four countries in Africa.⁶

The ongoing outbreak in 2022 is the first documented multi-country outbreaks in non-endemic countries, with 257 confirmed cases in 23 countries reported as of 26^th May 2022.^{13, 14} The current outbreaks are assessed by the WHO as medium risk for the general population with low risk for pandemic potential. MPX presents as a vesicular-pustular illness, which may be preceded by fever, headache, tonsillitis, cough, myalgia and fatigue.¹⁵ Fever can be absent. Lymphadenopathy if present may distinguish it from chickenpox and smallpox.^16,17 Complications include painful lesions, secondary infections, bronchopneumonia, encephalitis, keratitis and psychological symptoms.^15–18 Younger children and pregnant women are at higher risk of severe disease.¹⁵ The incubation period is up to 21 days. Interactions with infected animals and individuals is associated with risk of infection.¹⁹ Human-to-human transmission occurs through direct contact (body fluids, skin lesions, mucosal surfaces, respiratory droplets), indirectly (contaminated objects), and vertically from mother-to-foetus through the placenta.^18,20,21 Polymerase chain reaction (PCR) is the preferred diagnostic test. ²² Due to orthopoxviruses serological cross-reactivity, antigen and antibody detection methods do not provide MPX-specific confirmation. Previous smallpox vaccination may lead to false positive results.¹⁸ The smallpox vaccine has been estimated to be 85% protective against MPX.^23,24 The first generation live smallpox vaccine is not recommended in pregnancy or in people with immunosuppression.^25,26 Newer third generation live, non-replicating vaccines, are approved in certain regions for smallpox and monkeypox in adults.²⁷ None are part of routine vaccination programs, and not readily available for public use globally.²⁸

Therapeutic options are limited. Tecovirimat is licensed in some countries for the treatment of smallpox in adults and children (>13kg),²⁹ and MPX during outbreaks. ¹⁷ Two other treatments; cidofovir and brincidofovir have been shown to be active against poxviruses,^30–32 with cidofovir having broad-spectrum activity against DNA viruses, including herpes-, adeno-, polyoma-, papilloma-and poxviruses.³¹ Both have been shown efficacy in in vitro and animal studies but data on treatment in humans with MPX is limited,³² and they are only authorised for use in certain countries.

Even when the evidence-base is limited, clinical management guidelines are important tools for guiding clinical decision-making, and standardising the best available care between sites.^33–35 Guidelines must be readily available, of good quality and inclusive of vulnerable patient groups. Standardisation of care will benefit patients and can also facilitate the implementation of needed multi-sites trials for therapeutics and vaccines. The increase in MPX cases in recent decades highlights the need to ensure that clinicians worldwide have access to clinical management guidelines to guide treatment, to benefit patient care and outcomes. This review aims to assess the availability, quality, scope, and inclusivity of clinical guidelines for MPX.

Methods

This is a systematic review of the availability, inclusivity, scope, and quality of clinical management guidelines for MPX.³⁶ We included guidelines that provided advice on treatment or supportive care for MPX.³⁷ This study is nested within an extensive systematic review of supportive care and clinical management guidelines for high consequence infectious diseases. The study is registered with the prospective international register of systematic reviews (PROSPERO) (CRD42020167361)³⁸ and follows the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines on the conduct of systematic reviews.

Results

Of the 2026 records screened, 14 guidelines met the eligibility criteria for inclusion.^18,44–56 (Figure 1) Forty-three percent (6/14) were aimed for global use, 21% (3/14) for Asia, 21% (3/14) for Europe, 7% (1/14) for Africa and 7% (1/14) for North America (Table 1). Most were produced by organisations in high-or upper-middle income countries. 86% (12/14) were in English, 14% (2/14) in Mandarin.^45,54 There was a lack of comprehensive clinical management guidelines identified, only one guideline, which was produced by the Nigerian Centre for Disease Control (NCDC) provided more detailed guidance including detailed recommendations on supportive care and treatment of complications.⁴⁴ The guidelines made limited provision for different risk groups such as children, pregnant women and people living with HIV or immunocompromised patients.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 1. PRISMA Diagram

Quality assessment

Overall quality was low (Figure 2).⁴³ The median overall quality was 2 out of 7 points (range: 1-7). Only one guideline was assessed as of high quality.⁵⁰ The domain that scored the highest across the guidelines was clarity of presentation (median (IQR): 61% (50-64)). Domains in which all of the guidelines scored poorly in were rigour of development (median (IQR): 16% (8-20)), applicability (median (IQR): 15% (12-21)), scope and purpose (median (IQR): 19% (19-42)), stakeholder involvement (median (IQR): 22% (19-44)) and editorial independence 0% (0-33). The low score for certain domains, such as editorial independence, may be partly due to a lack of information provided. We observed a lack of documentation of the methodology used to develop the guidance, few guidelines used systematic reviews, and clear links to evidence were lacking. Often clinical guidance was embedded within a document that primarily focused on infection control.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 2. Combined AGREE II assessment of the guidelines

Figure legend: The violin plots depict the variation in scores of individual CMGs in each domain. Each dot represents a CMG’s proportional score per domain. The width of each curve represents the frequency of CMGs scoring that corresponding value in each domain.

Abbreviations: AGREE: Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II

Discussion

Our review identified a lack of up-to-date, high quality evidence-based clinical management guidelines for MPX infection. As we continue to experience an increase in MPX cases and outbreaks including in regions, with limited clinical experience in managing cases, there is a need for clinical management guidelines to guide patient care. Clinical management guidelines are important tools for frontline clinicians during outbreaks. Guidelines should be developed using robust methodologies for clinicians to be able to assess their validity. However, we found that most guidelines did not document the methodology used, which is reflected in the quality assessment, with most guidelines identified assessed as of poor quality. The low scores seen for the rigour of development reflect a lack of systematic methods, documentation and clear links to the evidence supporting recommendations.

The most marked difference across the guidelines was the antivirals and vaccines recommendations. Most guidelines that advised antiviral treatments recommended cidofovir, whereas more recently updated guidelines, such as the WHO guideline advised to consider tecovirimat.¹⁸ Similar variations in guidance, was observed for post-exposure prophylaxis, with more recently updated guidelines advising use of the newer generation smallpox/MPX vaccines.^{44,49–51,53,55,56} This highlights a fundamental issue in the development of guidelines for the management of neglected infectious diseases, which was also observed in other reviews ^42,58 We observe a tendency of guidelines being developed rapidly in response to outbreaks, never to be revisited again, but still being available in public domains. Failure to recall out of date guidelines as new evidence emerges, pose a risk to patient care. Few guidelines report mechanisms for updates or monitoring.

Our review also identified a concerning lack of guidance on the treatment and PEP, and at times contradictory advice, for different population groups such as children, pregnant women and people living with immunosuppression, which could exacerbate their vulnerability in outbreaks.

Variations in the recommendations may reflect that some guidelines were produced before newer treatments were authorized in various regions. Most are only authorized in a limited number of countries, which raises important questions on equity in access to best available care worldwide. Considering MPX is a mild disease in most, there was a surprising lack of advice on the management based on the severity of illness. Only one guideline identified produced by NCDC gave detailed supportive care recommendations, including on the management of symptoms and secondary complications, such as bacterial infections, encephalitis, ophthalmological and psychological conditions.⁴⁴ Many guidelines were positioned within public health guidance, which may partly explain the limited details provided to guide treatment and patient management. There is an argument for combining clinical management and hospital infection control advise to protect healthcare workers and reduce risk of nosocomial transmission. This requires that the guidance is supported by evidence, as the implementation of control measures may have wide direct and indirect impact on healthcare systems, especially in resource constraint settings and context.

Even with a limited evidence base, clinical management guidelines are important tools for guiding decision making and to reduce risk of inappropriate treatments. The variation seen, and the lack of recommendations for high-risk populations underline the importance of a gold standard framework for guideline development. The lack of clarity between guidelines creates uncertainty for clinicians treating patients with MPX which may impact patient care.

This review is not without its limitations. Firstly, most guidelines were published as grey literature, and although we made an extensive search in different languages, we may have missed additional guidelines available. Secondly, even though guidelines that required translations were assessed by a reviewer with good knowledge of the language, there is a risk that finer nuances may have been lost in translation. Thirdly, the AGREE II tool was primarily designed for guidelines produced in non-emergent settings, and although we are confident of its applicability to a variety of settings, it may contribute to the lower average quality scores. Finally, the quality assessment focuses on the development process, but does not assess the validity of the recommendations. Nevertheless, we identified limited availability of comprehensive clinical management guidelines for people affected by MPX, which may have impact on patient care.

Our study highlights a need for a rigorous framework for producing guidelines ahead of epidemics and a recognised platform for rapidly reviewing and updating guidance during outbreaks, as new evidence emerges. Human MPX is providing a challenge even in high-resource settings with well-resourced healthcare systems. The lack of guidelines may especially impact clinics with limited previous experience in managing patients with MPX. Given the recent global publicity surrounding MPX, this is an opportune moment for harnessing interest and investment for research into the efficacy of therapeutics and vaccines, to inform optimal treatment and prophylaxis strategies for the whole population.

Developing guidelines is resource intensive. The most comprehensive guideline identified was developed by a national public health organization (NCDC) based in an endemic country.⁴⁴ This emphasizes the need for wide stakeholder involvement in guideline development, including experienced topic experts and affected communities. Guidelines developed by global organisations in collaboration with clinicians with experience in managing patients in different settings may be the optimal solution to improve quality, standardisation of recommendations and applicability. Ensuring that organisations that clinicians may turn to for guidance during outbreaks, such as the WHO, has the resources to provide the best possible guidelines and for these to be updated is important. A ‘living guideline’ framework for infectious disease is recommended to improve availability of up-to-date clinical management guidelines, developed using robust methodologies and inclusive of different at-risk populations. Urgent investments into research to identify optimal treatment and prophylaxis strategies are needed for the whole population to benefit patient care and outcomes.

Data availability statement

All data generated or analysed during this study are available on reasonable requests from the corresponding author.

Consent for publication

Not Applicable

Author contributions

AD, SL, VC, LS, EH, SJ, LB, PH, HG, TF, EW, MM, IR informed the study protocol. EW, IR, LS led on writing the manuscript with input from all co-authors. EH, AD carried out the database search with input from MM, EW and IR. EW, MM, IR, AD, EC, SK conducted the grey literature search. EW, RJ, AD, MM screened the retrieved articles for inclusion. AD, EW, IR, RJ, MM extracted the data and completed the risk of bias analysis. LS, EW, MM, RJ, SL, IR, SK, MC, AR, AN lead on the data analysis and presentation of the results. LS, LS, MM, IR, STJ, TF, SK, AD, MC, AR, AN informed the interpretation of the results. LS, PH, TF and STJ Provided overall supervision, leadership and advice. PH, HG, STJ, TF, PH, LS, AD, and LB conceptualised the project. All authors reviewed and approved the final version of the manuscript.