Infection prevention and control measures to reduce the transmission of mpox: a systematic review

Rebecca Kuehn, Tilly Fox, Gordon Guyatt, Vittoria Lutje, Susan Gould
doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2023.02.13.23285871

Abstract

Objectives To assess the effectiveness of respiratory interventions and case isolation measures in reducing or preventing the transmission of mpox in humans and to inform future focused reviews on mpox transmission.

Methods The WHO Clinical Management and Infection Prevention and Control guideline 2022 development group developed three structured research questions concerning respiratory and isolation infection prevention control measures for mpox. We conducted a systematic review that included a broad search of five electronic databases. In a two-stage process, we initially sought only randomized controlled trials and observational comparative studies; when the search failed to yield eligible studies, the subsequent search included all study designs including clinical and environmental sampling studies.

Results To inform the questions the review team synthesized route of transmission data in mpox. There were 2420/3924 (61.7%) cases in which investigators identified transmission occurring through direct physical sexual contact. There proved to be no reported mpox cases in which investigators identified inhalation as a single route of transmission. There were 2/3924 (0.05%) cases in which investigators identified fomite as a single route of transmission. Clinical and environmental sampling studies generally failed to isolate mpox virus in saliva, oropharangeal swabs, mpox skin lesions, and hospital room air.

Conclusions Current findings provide compelling evidence that transmission of mpox occurs through direct physical contact. Because investigators have not reported any cases of transmission via inhalation alone the impact of respiratory infection prevention control measures in reducing transmission will be minimal. Avoiding physical contact with others, covering mpox lesions and wearing a medical mask is likely to reduce onward mpox transmission; there may be minimal reduction in transmission from additionally physically isolating patients.

Introduction

Mpox is a zoonotic disease caused by mpox virus, an enveloped double-stranded DNA virus in the Orthopoxvirus genus of the Poxviridae family. The World Health Organization (WHO) declared mpox (then termed monkeypox) a Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC) on July 23rd, 2022. The 2022 mpox outbreak was associated with sustained human-to-human transmission that had not been previously described; historically mpox occurred primarily in west and central Africa, with infection commonly reported in persons who had contact with probable animal reservoirs with cases of secondary transmission reported in household contacts. Incidence in endemic areas of central and West Africa had been increasing rapidly over the past decades, coinciding with cessation of smallpox vaccination and eradication programmes.

Mpox incubates between five to 21 days and typically presents symptoms in two stages: the invasion period lasting from zero to five days characterized by fever, headache, lymphadenopathy, back pain, myalgia, and asthenia; following this, skin symptoms may appear between one to three days from onset of fever, with a rash evolving from macules to papules, vesicles, pustules and then crusts, often affecting the face, extremities, oral mucous membranes and genitalia.

The effectiveness of any infection prevention and control measures for mpox will depend on route(s) of transmission. Suspected or confirmed transmission routes include direct physical contact with an infected patient (non-sexual physical contact or sexual physical contact), indirect contact (fomite transmission) inhalation of fomites or infectious droplets and transplacental transmission. Human infection is also possible from contact with infected animals (scratches, bites, preparing, eating or using infected meat and animal products). Areas of uncertainty exist concerning the potential for asymptomatic transmission or the transmission potential of other possible routes, such as breastmilk, semen, vaginal fluids, urine, faeces or insect vectors.

There is a need for effective interventions to prevent the transmission of mpox. The WHO Clinical Management and Infection Prevention and Control 2022 guideline development group developed two research questions concerning airborne and respiratory infection prevention and control interventions and one question concerning case physical isolation interventions in mpox. It was expected that scarce evidence, if any, from randomized controlled trials or comparative interventional trials to inform the research questions would exist. As such, it was anticipated that the review questions would be informed indirectly using data on the number of incident cases of mpox by route of transmission and clinical and environmental sampling studies demonstrating viral culture positivity. This is based on the inference that, if there are a significant number of cases transmitted by inhalation or fomites and/or strong viral culture positivity from samples representative of these routes of transmission, interventions directed at preventing transmission via these route(s) would be of importance. Therefore, we conducted a systematic review to provide evidence for guideline recommendations regarding use of respiratory barriers to mpox transmission and physical isolation of mpox patients.

Objective

To assess the effectiveness of respiratory and case isolation infection precaution measures in reducing or preventing the transmission of mpox in humans.

Methods

1. Interventions for preventing transmission of mpox virus

The review research questions developed by WHO Clinical Management and Infection Prevention and Control 2022 guideline development group for this review were:

View this table:

To provide direct evidence on these review questions, in collaboration with members of the WHO Clinical Management and Infection Prevention and Control 2022 guideline development, the author team developed a protocol and then undertook this systematic review process using the following methods:

Inclusion Criteria

Population

Humans with laboratory confirmed mpox infection; or

humans with laboratory confirmed mpox-like infection; or

humans with exposure to a laboratory confirmed mpox infection or mpox-like infection.

Mpox-like infection is defined for the purposes of the review as infection due to orthopox viruses other than mpox that are capable of human-to-human transmission, namely buffalopox, cowpox, vaccinia and variola.

Types of interventions

  1. Respiratory precautions including medical masks or use of respirators.

  2. Personal contact precautions including use of gloves, gowns, eye protection.

  3. Isolation of cases

  4. Ventilation including natural, mechanical, negative pressure gradient, positive pressure ventilated lobby.

The administration of any type of vaccine to health care workers or contacts of mpox or mpox-like virus confirmed patients was not to be considered as an intervention type.

Control

  • No intervention or;

  • Any different intervention measure used as a comparator to the intervention group in the study.

Outcomes

  1. Confirmed secondary mpox or mpox-like virus infection expressed as an absolute number or rate of secondary transmission.

  2. All reported adverse effects related to the interventions.

Settings

All countries and the following contexts were eligible for this review: households, congregate-living, community and healthcare settings.

Types of studies

  • RCTs, controlled before-and-after studies, observational comparative studies in participants with confirmed mpox or exposed to mpox virus.

  • RCTs or observational comparative studies in participants with exposure to or confirmed mpox-like virus infection.

Exclusion Criteria

  1. Studies published in a language other than English.

  2. Studies of designs other than RCTs, controlled before-and-after studies, or observational comparative studies for participants with confirmed mpox infection or exposure to mpox.

  3. Studies of designs other than RCTs or observational comparative studies in participants with viruses other than viruses defined as mpox-like viruses.

  4. Studies that do not include a review question-specific intervention to reduce or prevent the transmission of mpox or mpox-like viruses.

  5. Studies conducted in animals.

Literature Search Strategy

Using broad search terms including terms for mpox-like viruses and without date or language limits, the search in September 2022 included the following databases: Medline (OVID), Embase (OVID), Biosis previews (Web of Science), CAB Abstracts (Web of science), and Global Index Medicus (Appendix 1). The author team instituted a call to topic experts for papers concerning the review questions for relevant studies up to 15th December 2022.

Selection of Studies

The team uploaded the results of the literature searches into Distiller SR (DistillerSR 2021) and multiple authors independently undertook screening of title and abstract literature search results according to the Cochrane Collaboration’s Rapid Review Methods (Garritty 2020). One author assessed a study as eligible for full text screening; two authors assessed a study as requiring exclusion. Multiple authors independently undertook full text screening according to review inclusion criteria. One author assessed a study as eligible for inclusion for data extraction; two reviewers assessed a study for exclusion. Authors resolved disagreement at any stage by discussion.

2. Transmission of mpox virus

A second review protocol had been prospectively written and confirmed with members of the WHO Clinical Management and Infection Prevention and Control guideline development group in the event of no randomized controlled trials or comparative observational studies being identified in the first review (see methods section 1 ‘Interventions for preventing transmission of mpox virus’ above).

This second review aimed to identify and synthesize evidence on transmission that could indirectly inform the research questions by answering the following:

  1. What is the proportion of new incident cases of mpox disaggregated by route of transmission?

  2. What is the infectious period of mpox, disaggregated by route of transmission? The infectious period is defined as the number of days since the onset of symptoms.

Inclusion criteria

Population

Human participant of any age with laboratory confirmed mpox infection or exposure of a human to a laboratory-confirmed mpox patient or exposure to a suspected human mpox case.

The WHO definition of a suspected case of mpox infection was used (WHO 2022).

Laboratory confirmed infection was defined as reverse-transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) positive or viral culture positive.

Outcomes

1. Mpox infection

Type of study

any scientific article of any design including clinical and environmental sampling studies.

Setting

All countries and all contexts.

Exclusion criteria

  1. Studies not including a human case of laboratory confirmed mpox infection or exposure to a laboratory-confirmed mpox patient or exposure to a suspected mpox case.

  2. Studies concerning animal-to-animal mpox transmission or animal-to-human transmission.

  3. Studies not published in English.

  4. Experimental laboratory transmission studies.

  5. Studies meeting the inclusion criteria but not otherwise containing information relevant to the review questions.

Literature Search strategy

The review team used the same search strategy as for methods section 1 ‘Interventions for reducing the risk of transmission of mpox virus’ (above).

Selection of studies

The results of the literature searches were uploaded into Distiller SR (DistillerSR 2021). Screening of results was undertaken according to the Cochrane Collaboration’s Rapid Review Methods (Garritty 2020). Title and abstract screening of all studies identified in the literature searches was undertaken independently by multiple authors; one author was required to assess a study as eligible for full text screening; two authors were required to assess a study as requiring exclusion. Full text screening against the review inclusion criteria was undertaken independently by multiple authors. One author was required to assess a study as eligible for inclusion to data extraction; two reviewers were required to assess a study for exclusion. Authors resolved disagreement at any stage by discussion.

Data extraction and management

Two authors extracted data from all included studies using a pre-piloted data extraction form within Distiller SR. One author extracted all relevant data and the second author cross-checked all extracted data. Data was extracted concerning characteristics of the study participants including number of primary and/or secondary cases, country, year of study, setting of transmission (such as household, healthcare), clade of mpox, reported nature of contact of participants to a potential or confirmed course of mpox, study author reported modes or potential modes of transmission, and data concerning clinical or environmental sampling including sample type, and day of sample PCR or viral culture positivity from symptom onset.

Risk of bias assessment

No risk of bias assessment was undertaken; no randomized controlled trials or observational comparative studies had been identified.

Data synthesis

  1. What is the proportion of new incident cases of mpox disaggregated by route of transmission?

    Two authors independently categorized reported human mpox cases from identified studies by route(s) of transmission. Authors resolved disagreement at any stage by discussion. Authors assigned the following route(s) of transmission to each case as applicable: direct sexual physical contact, direct non-sexual physical contact, fomite, inhalation, transplacental, needlestick, ingestion or unknown.

    The routes of transmission are defined as:

    • Direct sexual physical contact: transmission occurring in the context of any type of sexual activity, including oral sex, penetrative anal or vaginal sex (insertive and receptive), or hand-to-genital contact.

    • Direct non-sexual physical contact: direct physical touch with the exclusion of any sexual physical as defined above.

    • Fomite: indirect contact transmission involving contact of a susceptible host with a contaminated object or surface.

    • Inhalation: occurs when infectious particles, of any size, travel through the air, enter and are deposited at any point within the respiratory tract of a (susceptible) person. This form of transmission can occur when the infectious particles have travelled either a short-or long-range from the infected person.

    • Transplacental: transmission via the placenta from mother to foetus.

    • Percutaneous injury: transmission via percutaneous injury with a contaminated object, such as a needle.

The review team then categorised all cases into one of three categories: (i) single route of transmission reasonably identified, (ii) multiple routes of transmission possible, and (iii) unknown. The category of a single route of transmission applied when sufficient data concerning the case history, epidemiology and/or clinical details was reported to reasonably judge that a single route of transmission had occurred. The category of multiple possible routes of transmission applied when more than one route of transmission was judged as reasonably possible based on reported information. Authors applied the category of unknown when there was insufficient information reported in the study to assign or hypothesize any route of transmission.

The number of cases for each route and category of transmission is reported as a whole number and percentage of the total. Data are presented for each route of transmission category, by mpox clade, and by route of transmission in the healthcare and household settings. Data that could inform the subgroups within the research questions is summarized.

2. What is the infectious period of mpox, disaggregated by route of transmission?

Authors separated data from included studies into either human mpox clinical samples or environmental samples from an environment occupied by an mpox case. The review team assigned data concerning environmental air sampling, mask sampling, and upper respiratory tract clinical sampling to the review questions concerning prevention of airborne transmission. Data concerning environmental surface sampling and clinical sampling of active skin lesions were assigned to the review question concerning case isolation measures.

Within these categories the review team identified and summarized longitudinal studies and summarized cross-sectional studies that attempted viral isolation. The number of samples for each category is presented. Data that could inform the subgroups within the review questions is summarized.

Results

Search Results

The searches identified 2514 unique records. Authors assessed the full text of 725 studies; 127 studies were included and 598 studies were excluded. The study selection process is seen in Appendix 2.

Included studies

No randomized controlled trials or observational comparative studies were identified that directly informed any of the IPC review questions. No studies concerning mpox-like viruses met the inclusion criteria.

119 studies reported cases of human-to-human mpox transmission. 35 studies were published prior to the 2022 outbreak, and 84 studies were published during 2022. Of the included studies, 46 studies concerned cases acquired from Africa, 42 studies from Europe, 16 studies from the USA, 5 studies from the United Kingdom, 3 studies from Brazil, 1 study from Canada and 6 studies did not report the country of acquisition of infection.

Included cases

There were 3924 cases of human-to-human transmission. Typical cases were males over the age of 18 years; it was not possible to disaggregate age and gender for 35% of cases (Table 1).

View this table:
Table 1:

Characteristics of reported cases

Results: Review Question 1 and 2

Review questions 1 and 2 are considered together as they both concern respiratory infection prevention control interventions.

Number of incident cases by route of transmission

Where they could identify a single route of human-to-human transmission, investigators reported no cases in which inhalation could have been the exclusive mode of mpox virus transmission (Table 2).

View this table:
Table 2:

Incident cases of mpox by route of transmission

What is the proportion of new incident cases of mpox, by route of transmission

Population: Adults and children with confirmed mpox

Setting: All settings

Transmission: A single route of transmission was identified

Table 3 displays the clade of mpox by route of transmission in cases where a single route of transmission could be identified. Studies not reporting on clade have been split into those published in 2022 (likely to be clade IIb) and those published prior to 2022 (less likely to be clade IIb).

View this table:
Table 3:

What is the proportion of new incident cases of mpox, by route of transmission for each clade of mpox?

Population: Adults and children with confirmed mpox

Setting: All settings

Transmission: A single route of transmission was identified

For transmission reported within a healthcare setting, investigators considered 117/120 (97.5%) cases to either be transmitted through physical touch (non-sexual), fomite or inhalation, and 3/120 (2.5%) to be either transmitted through fomite or inhalation (Table 4). Due to limited information reported by study authors, the review team was unable to disaggregate further.

View this table:
Table 4:

Proportion of new incident cases of mpox by route of transmission in the healthcare setting?

Population: Adults and children with confirmed mpox

Setting: Healthcare

Transmission: More than one route of transmission was identified as possible by authors. Possible routes: direct physical non- sexual contact, fomite, inhalation.

There were 808 cases that authors reported to have occurred within a household setting; however, due to limited reported information, no further disaggregation by route of transmission proved possible (Table 5). Authors reported possible routes of human-to-human transmission as inhalation, fomite, direct sexual physical contact and direct physical non-sexual contact.

View this table:
Table 5:

Proportion of new incident cases of mpox by route of transmission in the household setting

Population: Adults and children with confirmed mpox

Setting: Household

Transmission: More than one route of transmission was identified as possible by authors.

Clinical and environmental sampling

Two studies (Hernaez 2022, Mileto 2022) attempted viral isolation from respiratory tract samples; mpox virus was isolated from saliva in 22/33 (66.7%) of samples between days 3 and 9 from symptom onset and in 1/4 (25%) oropharyngeal samples taken on day 9 from symptom onset (Table 6).

View this table:
Table 6:

Clinical samples of viral isolation attempts from adults or children with confirmed mpox infection

Authors identified two studies in which viral isolation was attempted from air samples collected in rooms occupied by an individual with mpox (Hernaez 2022, Gould 2022); replication competent virus was identified in one air sample collected in a hospital room (Table 7).

View this table:
Table 7:

Air sampling in environments occupied by adults with confirmed mpox infection

Subgroups

Health care worker transmission

Health care workers were the population of interest in review questions 1 and 2.

A health care worker in the United Kingdom in 2018 was diagnosed with mpox after changing the bed linen of a confirmed mpox patient using an apron and gloves; there was no direct contact with the mpox patient (Vaughan 2018). Investigators judged that transmission was possible either by fomite or inhalational route.

Three studies reported mpox infection in a healthcare worker through percutaneous injury with a contaminated sharp object that had been in contact with an mpox lesion (Caldas 2022, Carvalho 2022, Mendoza 2022).

Patient-to-patient transmission

An outcome in review question 2 concerned the risk of transmission to patients. Two studies were identified that provided relevant data (Jezek 1986, Learned 2003). Jezek 1986 reported mpox in a child in the Democratic Republic of the Congo who had visited a hospital several times where another child with confirmed mpox had been admitted; there was no known physical contact between the two. Authors hypothesized fomite or inhalation transmission. Learned 2003 reported a case of mpox in a patient during a hospital stay for malaria and in the same hospital as patients with mpox; authors reported no further information.

Results: Review Question 3

Review question 3 concerned IPC interventions related to the physical isolation of patients with active lesions.

Incident cases by route of transmission

In situations in which investigators could identify a single route of human-to-human transmission, 2420/3924 (61.7%) cases were transmitted via direct physical sexual contact, 36/3924 (0.09%) cases were transmitted via direct physical non-sexual contact, and 2/3924 (0.05%) cases via fomites (Table 2). The majority of data is from Clade IIb cases (Table 3).

The two cases transmitted via fomites occurred in health care workers who visited a patient’s home for one hour, wore PPE during the visit (N95 masks, eye protection, gowns), used gloves only when taking clinical samples from patients, and did not directly physically touch the patient (Salvato 2022).

Clinical and environmental samples

Eight studies reported attempts to isolate virus from lesion samples. In four studies reporting the date of clinical sampling from symptom onset, 8/10 (80%) of lesion samples contained replication competent virus (Table 8) (Lapa 2022, Learned 2005, Mileto 2022, Noe 2022). In four studies in which the day of sampling was not documented, virus isolation was reported in 46.7% of lesion samples (Table 8) (Breman 1980, Erez 2019, Hughes 2021, Rimoin 2007).

View this table:
Table 8:

Mpox lesion clinical samples in which viral isolation was attempted

Five studies attempted viral isolation from environmental surface samples (Atkinson 2022, Morgan 2022, Norz 2022, Gould 2022, Pfeiffer 2022). The frequency of detection of replication competent virus was between 0 and 60% in surface samples (Table 9).

View this table:
Table 9:

Surface Sampling in environments occupied by adults with confirmed mpox infection

Discussion

There is no evidence from randomized controlled trials or observational comparative studies concerning respiratory interventions or case physical isolation measures in mpox or mpox-like viruses capable of human-to-human transmission. Investigators reported zero cases of instances of respiratory (inhalation) transmission of mpox as a single route of transmission. Investigators reported 2 out of 3924 (0.05%) cases in which mpox virus could have reasonably been exclusively transmitted through fomites (Salvato 2022). In comparison, in 2420/3924 (61.7%) cases investigators identified transmission occurring through direct physical sexual contact.

Study investigators identified infectious mpox virus in saliva (Hernaez 2022) and oropharyngeal swabs (Mileto 2022), and identified competent virus in 1/28 (3.6%) air samples (Hernaez 2022, Gould 2022). Viral isolation was successful in 101/209 (48%) of lesion samples from 8 studies; surface sampling in domestic and healthcare environments in 5 studies detected viable mpox virus in 16.2% of samples (range 0-60%). The presence of infectious virus in clinical samples and environmental samples provides only very low certainty evidence regarding risk of transmission.

There is scarce data concerning transmission of mpox to health care workers. Transmission of mpox to healthcare workers was identified through percutaneous injury in three cases (Caldas 2022, Carvalho 2022, Mendoza 2022) and through possible fomite or inhalation in one case (Vaughan 2018).

Strengths and limitations

This review is strengthened by a comprehensive search strategy and authors independently assessed all studies for eligibility in duplicate to identify all possible relevant literature. Further, a clear conceptual data framework to address the research questions was undertaken; key data from all available literature that could inform the research questions was identified and synthesized.

This review is limited by the existing available evidence base on mpox. The review team utilized only broad search terms inclusive of terms for mpox-like viruses however no comparative interventional studies were identified. There is limited epidemiological evidence on the risk of fomite and inhalational transmission, and limited evidence on the infectious period for different routes of transmission.

To our knowledge there is no known prior systematic review investigating respiratory or case isolation infection prevention control for mpox or mpox-like viruses.

Implications for practice and research

The findings of this review provide compelling evidence that transmission of mpox occurs primarily through direct physical contact. Epidemiological evidence and data from clinical and environmental sampling does not support the hypothesis that respiratory or fomite modes of transmission are significant. The impact of respiratory infection prevention control measures in reducing transmission may be small. There is potential for shedding of infectious virus onto surfaces from lesions of detached scabs; covering mpox lesions is likely to reduce onward transmission however there is probably minimal reduction in transmission from added physical isolation of patients. Multiple factors such as route of exposure, infecting dose, susceptibility of the exposed individual would affect the relative risk of transmission. Currently, recommendations for respiratory and case isolation infection prevention control measures in mpox rely on expert opinion and inferences from data concerning transmission frequency by route of transmission.

Conclusion

No available evidence from comparative interventional studies addressing respiratory and case isolation infection prevention control measures to prevent the transmission of mpox exists. Current findings suggest that transmission occurs primarily through direct physical contact. No cases of transmission via inhalation were identified; the impact of respiratory infection prevention control measures in reducing transmission may be minimal. Covering mpox lesions, wearing a medical mask and avoiding physical contact with others is likely to reduce onward transmission; there is probably minimal additional reduction in transmission from also physically isolating patients. Further research is needed into effective infection prevention control measures to reduce the transmission of mpox.

Data Availability

All data produced in the present work are contained in the manuscript

Studies included in the systematic review

Acknowledgments

Gemma Villaneuva, Anders Bach-Mortensen, Ferrucio Pelone.

Appendix 1. Search Strategy

Search: Monkeypox virus only

Ovid MEDLINE(R) and In-Process, In-Data-Review & Other Non-Indexed Citations and Embase (OVID)

Date of search: 8th September 2022

  1. Monkeypox virus/ or Monkeypox/

  2. monkeypox.ti,ab.

  3. monkey pox.mp.

  4. 1 or 2 or 3

Biosis previews (Web of Science) and CAB Abstracts (Web of science)

Date of search: 8th September 2022

Topic = monkeypox*

Global Index Medicus

Date of search: 26th September 2022

Search term: “monkeypox”

Search: Mpox-like viruses

Ovid MEDLINE(R) and In-Process, In-Data-Review & Other Non-Indexed Citations <1946 to September 27, 2022>

Date of search: 28th September 2022

  1. 1 orthopoxvirus/ or cowpox virus/ or ectromelia virus/ or vaccinia virus/ or variola virus/

  2. (orthopox* or cowpox or vaccinia or variola or buffalopox).tw.

  3. 1 or 2

  4. Masks/ or mask*.mp.

  5. Ventilation/ or ventilation.mp.

  6. air quality.mp.

  7. patient isolation.mp. or Patient Isolation/

  8. 8 or 9 or 10 or 11

  9. 3 and 12

  10. nosocomial transmission.mp. or Infection Control/

  11. hospital transmission.mp.

  12. 15 or 16

  13. 3 and 17

  14. 18 or 14

Embase 1947-Present

Date of search: 28th September 2022

  1. orthopoxvirus/ or cowpox virus/ or ectromelia virus/ or vaccinia virus/ or variola virus/

  2. (orthopox* or cowpox or vaccinia or variola or buffalopox).tw.

  3. 1 or 2

  4. Masks/ or mask*.mp.

  5. Ventilation/ or ventilation.mp.

  6. air quality.mp.

  7. patient isolation.mp. or Patient Isolation/

  8. 4 or 5 or 6 or 7

  9. 3 and 8

  10. nosocomial transmission.mp. or Infection Control/

  11. hospital transmission.mp.

  12. 10 or 11

  13. 3 and 12

  14. 9 or 13

  15. monkeypox.m_titl.

  16. 15 not 16

Web of Science (BIOSIS Previews, CABI: CAB Abstracts®)

Date of search: 28th September 2022 #6 #4 OR #5

#5 #1 AND #3

#4 #1 AND #2

#3 “nosocomial transmission” or “Infection Control” or “hospital transmission” (Topic)

#2 mask* or Ventilation or “air quality” or “patient isolation” (Topic)

#1 orthopoxvirus* or cowpox or vaccinia or variola or buffalopox (Topic)

Global Index medicus

Date of search: 28th September 2022

tw:((tw:(orthopoxvirus* OR cowpox OR vaccinia OR variola OR buffalopox)) AND (tw:(mask* OR ventilation OR “air quality” OR “patient isolation” OR “nosocomial transmission” OR “Infection Control” OR “hospital transmission”)))

Appendix 2.

Fig. A2.
Fig. A2. PRISMA flowchart

Units and Abbreviations

ACH
Air changes per hour
IPC
Infection Prevention Control
RT-PCR
Reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction
WHO
World Health Organization

References

  1. 1.
    Adler H, Gould S, Hine P, Snell LB, Wong W, Houlihan CF, et al; NHS England High Consequence Infectious Diseases (Airborne) Network. Clinical features and management of human monkeypox: a retrospective observational study in the UK. Lancet Infectious Diseases. 2022;22(8):1153–62. doi: 10.1016/S1473-3099(22)00228-6.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  2. 2.
    Alpalhão M, Frade JV, Sousa D, Patrocínio J, Garrido PM, Correia C, et al. Monkeypox: a new (sexually transmissible) epidemic? Journal of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology. 2022;36(12):e1016–7. doi: 10.1111/jdv.18424.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  3. 3.
    Anderson MG, Frenkel LD, Homann S, Guffey J. A case of severe monkeypox virus disease in an American child: emerging infections and changing professional values. Pediatric Infectious Disease Journal. 2003;22(12):1093–6; discussion 1096-8. doi: 10.1097/01.inf.0000101821.61387.a5.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  4. 4.
    Antinori A, Mazzotta V, Vita S, Carletti F, Tacconi D, Lapini LE, et al; INMI Monkeypox Group. Epidemiological, clinical and virological characteristics of four cases of monkeypox support transmission through sexual contact, Italy, May 2022. Euro Surveillance. 2022;27(22):2200421. doi: 10.2807/1560-7917.ES.2022.27.22.2200421.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  5. 5.↵
    Atkinson B, Burton C, Pottage T, Thompson KA, Ngabo D, Crook A, et al. Infection-competent monkeypox virus contamination identified in domestic settings following an imported case of monkeypox into the UK. Environmental Microbiology. 2022;24(10):4561–9. doi: 10.1111/1462-2920.16129.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  6. 6.
    Benatti SV, Venturelli S, Comi N, Borghi F, Paolucci S, Baldanti F. Ophthalmic manifestation of monkeypox infection. ancet Infectious Diseases. 2022;22(9):1397. doi: 10.1016/S1473-3099(22)00504-7.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  7. 7.
    Besombes C, Gonofio E, Konamna X, Selekon B, Grant R, Gessain A, et al. Intrafamily transmission of monkeypox virus, Central African Republic, 2018. Emerging Infectious Diseases. 2019;25(8):1602–4. doi: 10.3201/eid2508.190112.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  8. 8.
    Bížová B, Veselý D, Trojánek M, Rob F. Coinfection of syphilis and monkeypox in HIV positive man in Prague, Czech Republic. Travel Medicine and Infectious Disease. 2022;49:102368. doi: 10.1016/j.tmaid.2022.102368.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  9. 9.
    Bociąga-Jasik M, Raczyńska A, Lara M, Kalinowska-Nowak A, Garlicki A. Monkeypox presenting with genital ulcers: a challenging clinical problem. Polish Archives of Internal Medicine. 2022;132(10):16304. doi: 10.20452/pamw.16304.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  10. 10.↵
    Breman JG, Kalisa-Ruti, Steniowski MV, Zanotto E, Gromyko AI, Arita I. Human monkeypox, 1970-79. Bulletin of the World Health Organization. 1980;58(2):165–82.
    OpenUrlPubMedWeb of Science
  11. 11.
    Brito Caldeira M, Fernandes C. Cutaneous lesions from monkeypox infection. Sexually Transmitted Diseases. 2022;49(9):595. doi: 10.1097/OLQ.0000000000001674.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  12. 12.
    Brundu M, Marinello S, Scaglione V, Ferrari A, Franchin E, Mazzitelli M, et al. The first case of monkeypox virus and acute HIV infection: should we consider monkeypox a new possible sexually transmitted infection? Journal of Dermatology. 2022. doi: 10.1111/1346-8138.16556.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  13. 13.
    Bruno G, Fabrizio C, Rodano L, Buccoliero GB. Monkeypox in a 71-year-old woman. Journal of Medical Virology. 2023;95(1):e27993. doi: 10.1002/jmv.27993.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  14. 14.↵
    Caldas JP, Valdoleiros SR, Rebelo S, Tavares M. Monkeypox after occupational needlestick injury from pustule. Emerging Infectious Diseases. 2022;28(12):2516–9. doi: 10.3201/eid2812.221374.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  15. 15.
    Carannante N, Tiberio C, Bellopede R, Liguori M, Di Martino F, Maturo N, et al. Monkeypox clinical features and differential diagnosis: first case in Campania Region. Pathogens. 2022;11(8):869. doi: 10.3390/pathogens11080869.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  16. 16.↵
    Carvalho LB, Casadio LVB, Polly M, Nastri AC, Turdo AC, de Araujo Eliodoro RH, et al. Monkeypox virus transmission to healthcare worker through needlestick injury, Brazil. Emerging Infectious Diseases. 2022;28(11):2334–6. doi: 10.3201/eid2811.221323.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  17. 17.
    Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Human monkeypox--Kasai Oriental, Democratic Republic of Congo, February 1996-October 1997. JAMA. 1998;279(3):189–90.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  18. 18.
    Costello V, Sowash M, Gaur A, Cardis M, Pasieka H, Wortmann G, et al. Imported monkeypox from international traveler, Maryland, USA, 2021. Emerging Infectious Diseases. 2022;28(5):1002–5. doi: 10.3201/eid2805.220292.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  19. 19.
    Croft DR, Sotir MJ, Williams CJ, Kazmierczak JJ, Wegner MV, Rausch D, et al. Occupational risks during a monkeypox outbreak, Wisconsin, 2003. Emerging Infectious Diseases. 2007;13(8):1150–7. doi: 10.3201/eid1308.061365.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  20. 20.
    Damon IK, Roth CE, Chowdhary V. Discovery of monkeypox in Sudan. New England Journal of Medicine. 2006;355(9):962–3. doi: 10.1056/NEJMc060792.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  21. 21.
    Davido B, D’Anglejan E, Baudoin R, Dahmane L, Chaud A, Cortier M, et al. Monkeypox outbreak 2022: an unusual case of peritonsillar abscess in a person previously vaccinated against smallpox. Journal of Travel Medicine. 2022;29(6):taac082. doi: 10.1093/jtm/taac082.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  22. 22.
    De Baetselier I, Van Dijck C, Kenyon C, Coppens J, Michiels J, de Block T, et al; ITM Monkeypox study group. Retrospective detection of asymptomatic monkeypox virus infections among male sexual health clinic attendees in Belgium. Nature Medicine. 2022;28(11):2288–92. doi: 10.1038/s41591-022-02004-w.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  23. 23.
    de Nicolas-Ruanes B, Vivancos MJ, Azcarraga-Llobet C, Moreno AM, Rodriguez-Dominguez M, Berna-Rico ED, et al. Monkeypox virus case with maculopapular exanthem and proctitis during the Spanish outbreak in 2022. Journal of European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology. 2022;36(8):e658–60. doi: 10.1111/jdv.18300.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  24. 24.
    de Sousa D, Patrocínio J, Frade J, Correia C, Borges-Costa J, Filipe P. Human monkeypox coinfection with acute HIV: an exuberant presentation. International Journal of STD & AIDS. 2022;33(10):936–8. doi: 10.1177/09564624221114998.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  25. 25.
    Doshi RH, Guagliardo SAJ, Doty JB, Babeaux AD, Matheny A, Burgado J, et al. Epidemiologic and ecologic investigations of monkeypox, Likouala Department, Republic of the Congo, 2017. Emerging Infectious Diseases. 2019;25(2):281–9. doi: 10.3201/eid2502.181222.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  26. 26.
    Eltvedt AK, Christiansen M, Poulsen A. A case report of monkeypox in a 4-year-old boy from the DR Congo: challenges of diagnosis and management. Case Reports in Pediatrics. 2020;2020:8572596. doi: 10.1155/2020/8572596.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  27. 27.↵
    Erez N, Achdout H, Milrot E, Schwartz Y, Wiener-Well Y, Paran N, et al. Diagnosis of imported monkeypox, Israel, 2018. Emerging Infectious Diseases. 2019;25(5):980–3. doi: 10.3201/eid2505.190076.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  28. 28.
    Escudero-Tornero R, Sobral-Costas TG, De Moraes-Souza R. Monkeypox lesions affecting the nose: a therapeutical challenge. Journal of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology. 2022 [online ahead of print]. doi: 10.1111/jdv.18540.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  29. 29.
    Escudero-Tornero R, Sobral-Costas TG, Servera-Negre G. Monkeypox infection. JAMA Dermatology. 2022;158(10):1203. doi: 10.1001/jamadermatol.2022.3975.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  30. 30.
    European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control. Rapid risk assessment: monkeypox cases in the UK imported by travellers returning from Nigeria, 21 September 2018. https://www.ecdc.europa.eu/sites/default/files/documents/13-09-2018-RRA-Monkeypox-Nigeria-United-Kingdom.pdf (accessed dd Month yyyy).
  31. 31.
    Ferraro F, Caraglia A, Rapiti A, Cereda D, Vairo F, Mattei G, et al. Letter to the editor: multiple introductions of MPX in Italy from different geographic areas. Euro Surveillance. 2022;27(23):2200456. doi: 10.2807/1560-7917.ES.2022.27.23.2200456.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  32. 32.
    Ferré VM, Bachelard A, Zaidi M, Armand-Lefevre L, Descamps D, Charpentier C, et al. Detection of monkeypox virus in anorectal swabs from asymptomatic men who have sex with men in a sexually transmitted infection screening program in Paris, France. Annals of Internal Medicine. 2022;175(10):1491–2. doi: 10.7326/M22-2183.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  33. 33.
    Fleischauer AT, Kile JC, Davidson M, Fischer M, Karem KL, Teclaw R, et al. Evaluation of human-to-human transmission of monkeypox from infected patients to health care workers. Clinical Infectious Diseases. 2005;40(5):689–94. doi: 10.1086/427805.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  34. 34.
    Formenty P, Muntasir MO, Damon I, Chowdhary V, Opoka ML, Monimart C, et al. Human monkeypox outbreak caused by novel virus belonging to Congo Basin clade, Sudan, 2005. Emerging Infectious Diseases. 2010;16(10):1539–45. doi: 10.3201/eid1610.100713.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  35. 35.
    Girometti N, Byrne R, Bracchi M, Heskin J, McOwan A, Tittle V, et al. Demographic and clinical characteristics of confirmed human monkeypox virus cases in individuals attending a sexual health centre in London, UK: an observational analysis. Lancet Infectious Diseases. 2022;22(9):1321–8. doi: 10.1016/S1473-3099(22)00411-X.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  36. 36.↵
    Gould S, Atkinson B, Onianwa O, Spencer A, Furneaux J, Grieves J, et al; NHS England Airborne High Consequence Infectious Diseases Network. Air and surface sampling for monkeypox virus in a UK hospital: an observational study. Lancet Microbe. 2022;3(12):e904–11. doi: 10.1016/S2666-5247(22)00257-9.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  37. 37.
    Griffiths-Acha J, Vela-Ganuza M, Sarró-Fuente C, López-Estebaranz JL. Monkeypox: a new differential diagnosis when addressing genital ulcer disease. British Journal of Dermatology. 2022;187(6):1050–2. doi: 10.1111/bjd.21834.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  38. 38.
    Hammarlund E, Lewis MW, Carter SV, Amanna I, Hansen SG, Strelow LI, et al. Multiple diagnostic techniques identify previously vaccinated individuals with protective immunity against monkeypox. Nature Medicine. 2005;11(9):1005–11. doi: 10.1038/nm1273.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  39. 39.
    Hammerschlag Y, MacLeod G, Papadakis G, Adan Sanchez A, Druce J, Taiaroa G, et al. Monkeypox infection presenting as genital rash, Australia, May 2022. Euro Surveillance. 2022;27(22):2200411. doi: 10.2807/1560-7917.ES.2022.27.22.2200411.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  40. 40.
    Hernaez B, Muñoz-Gómez A, Sanchiz A, Orviz E, Valls-Carbo A, Sagastagoitia I, et al. Monitoring monkeypox virus in saliva and air samples in Spain: a cross-sectional study. Lancet Microbe. 2023;4(1):e21–8. doi: 10.1016/S2666-5247(22)00291-9.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  41. 41.
    Heskin J, Belfield A, Milne C, Brown N, Walters Y, Scott C, et al. Transmission of monkeypox virus through sexual contact - a novel route of infection. Journal of Infection. 2022;85(3):334–63. doi: 10.1016/j.jinf.2022.05.028.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  42. 42.
    Hobson G, Adamson J, Adler H, Firth R, Gould S, Houlihan C, et al. Family cluster of three cases of monkeypox imported from Nigeria to the United Kingdom, May 2021. Euro Surveillance. 2021;26(32):2100745. doi: 10.2807/1560-7917.ES.2021.26.32.2100745.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  43. 43.
    Hughes CM, Liu L, Davidson WB, Radford KW, Wilkins K, Monroe B, et al. A tale of two viruses: coinfections of monkeypox and Varicella Zoster virus in the Democratic Republic of Congo. American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene. 2020;104(2):604–11. doi: 10.4269/ajtmh.20-0589.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  44. 44.
    Huhn GD, Bauer AM, Yorita K, Graham MB, Sejvar J, Likos A, et al. Clinical characteristics of human monkeypox, and risk factors for severe disease. Clinical Infectious Diseases. 2005;41(12):1742–51. doi: 10.1086/498115.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  45. 45.
    Hutin YJ, Williams RJ, Malfait P, Pebody R, Loparev VN, Ropp SL, et al. Outbreak of human monkeypox, Democratic Republic of Congo, 1996 to 1997. Emerging Infectious Diseases. 2001;7(3):434–8. doi: 10.3201/eid0703.010311.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  46. 46.
    Iñigo Martínez J, Gil Montalbán E, Jiménez Bueno S, Martín Martínez F, Nieto Juliá A, Sánchez Díaz J, et al. Monkeypox outbreak predominantly affecting men who have sex with men, Madrid, Spain, 26 April to 16 June 2022. Euro Surveillance. 2022;27(27):2200471. doi: 10.2807/1560-7917.ES.2022.27.27.2200471.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  47. 47.
    Jang YR, Lee M, Shin H, Kim JW, Choi MM, Kim YM, et al. The first case of monkeypox in the Republic of Korea. Journal of Korean Medical Science. 2022;37(27):e224. doi: 10.3346/jkms.2022.37.e224.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  48. 48.
    Jezek Z, Arita I, Mutombo M, Dunn C, Nakano JH, Szczeniowski M. Four generations of probable person-to-person transmission of human monkeypox. American Journal of Epidemiology. 1986;123(6):1004–12. doi: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a114328.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  49. 49.
    Jezek Z, Grab B, Szczeniowski M, Paluku KM, Mutombo M. Clinico-epidemiological features of monkeypox patients with an animal or human source of infection. Bulletin of the World Health Organization. 1988;66(4):459–64.
    OpenUrlPubMedWeb of Science
  50. 50.
    Jezek Z, Marennikova SS, Mutumbo M, Nakano JH, Paluku KM, Szczeniowski M. Human monkeypox: a study of 2,510 contacts of 214 patients. Journal of Infectious Diseases. 1986;154(4):551–5. doi: 10.1093/infdis/154.4.551.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  51. 51.
    Kalthan E, Tenguere J, Ndjapou SG, Koyazengbe TA, Mbomba J, Marada RM, et al. Investigation of an outbreak of monkeypox in an area occupied by armed groups, Central African Republic. Medicines et Maladies Infectieuses. 2018 Jun;48(4):263–8. doi: 10.1016/j.medmal.2018.02.010.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  52. 52.
    Karan A, Styczynski AR, Huang C, Sahoo MK, Srinivasan K, Pinsky BA, et al. Human monkeypox without viral prodrome or sexual exposure, California, USA, 2022. Emerging Infectious Diseases. 2022;28(10):2121–3. doi: 10.3201/eid2810.221191.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  53. 53.
    Karem KL, Reynolds M, Hughes C, Braden Z, Nigam P, Crotty S, et al. Monkeypox-induced immunity and failure of childhood smallpox vaccination to provide complete protection. Clinical and Vaccine Immunology. 2007;14(10):1318–27. doi: 10.1128/CVI.00148-07.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  54. 54.
    Kawsar A, Hussain K, Roberts N. Monkeypox: key pointers for dermatologists. Clinical and Experimental Dermatology. 2022 Dec;47(12):2282–4. doi: 10.1111/ced.15357.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  55. 55.
    Kile JC, Fleischauer AT, Beard B, Kuehnert MJ, Kanwal RS, Pontones P, et al. Transmission of monkeypox among persons exposed to infected prairie dogs in Indiana in 2003. Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine. 2005;159(11):1022–5. doi: 10.1001/archpedi.159.11.1022.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  56. 56.
    Koh XQ, Chio MTW, Tan M, Leo YS, Chan RKW. Global monkeypox outbreak 2022: first case series in Singapore. Annals of the Academy of Medicine, Singapore. 2022;51(8):462–72. doi: 10.47102/annals-acadmedsg.2022269.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  57. 57.
    Kreuter A, Grossmann M, Müller VL, Michalowitz AL, Oellig F, Silling S, et al. Monkeypox infection with concomitant penile lymphoedema. Journal of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology. 2022. doi: 10.1111/jdv.18502. Epub ahead of print.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  58. 58.
    Lapa D, Carletti F, Mazzotta V, Matusali G, Pinnetti C, Meschi S, et al; INMI Monkeypox Study Group. Monkeypox virus isolation from a semen sample collected in the early phase of infection in a patient with prolonged seminal viral shedding. Lancet Infectious Diseases. 2022;22(9):1267–9. doi: 10.1016/S1473-3099(22)00513-8.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  59. 59.
    Learned LA, Reynolds MG, Wassa DW, Li Y, Olson VA, Karem K, et al. Extended interhuman transmission of monkeypox in a hospital community in the Republic of the Congo, 2003. American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene. 2005;73(2):428–34.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  60. 60.
    Lewis A, Josiowicz A, Hirmas Riade SM, Tous M, Palacios G, Cisterna DM. Introduction and differential diagnosis of monkeypox in Argentina, 2022. Emerging Infectious Diseases. 2022;28(10):2123–5. doi: 10.3201/eid2810.221075.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  61. 61.
    Lucar J, Roberts A, Saardi KM, Yee R, Siegel MO, Palmore TN. Monkeypox virus-associated severe proctitis treated with oral tecovirimat: a report of two cases. Annals of Internal Medicine. 2022;175(11):1626–7. doi: 10.7326/L22-0300.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  62. 62.
    Mailhe M, Beaumont AL, Thy M, Le Pluart D, Perrineau S, Houhou-Fidouh N, et al. Clinical characteristics of ambulatory and hospitalized patients with monkeypox virus infection: an observational cohort study. Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases. 2022:S1198-743X(22)00428-1. doi: 10.1016/j.cmi.2022.08.012. Epub ahead of print.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  63. 63.
    Mande G, Akonda I, De Weggheleire A, Brosius I, Liesenborghs L, Bottieau E, et al. Enhanced surveillance of monkeypox in Bas-Uélé, Democratic Republic of Congo: the limitations of symptom-based case definitions. International Journal of Infectious Diseases. 2022;122:647–55. doi: 10.1016/j.ijid.2022.06.060.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  64. 64.
    Maronese CA, Beretta A, Avallone G, Boggio FL, Marletta DA, Murgia G, et al. Clinical, dermoscopic and histopathological findings in localized human monkeypox: a case from northern Italy. British Journal of Dermatology. 2022;187(5):822–3. doi: 10.1111/bjd.21773.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  65. 65.
    Mathieson T, Dulguerov N, Mermod M. Monkeypox mucosal lesions. IDCases. 2022;29:e01600. doi: 10.1016/j.idcr.2022.e01600.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  66. 66.
    Mazzotta V, Mondi A, Carletti F, Baldini F, Santoro R, Meschi S, et al. Ocular involvement in monkeypox: description of an unusual presentation during the current outbreak. Journal of Infection. 2022;85(5):573–607. doi: 10.1016/j.jinf.2022.08.011.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  67. 67.
    Mbala PK, Huggins JW, Riu-Rovira T, Ahuka SM, Mulembakani P, Rimoin AW, et al. Maternal and fetal outcomes among pregnant women with human monkeypox infection in the Democratic Republic of Congo. Journal of Infectious Diseases. 2017;216(7):824–8. doi: 10.1093/infdis/jix260.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  68. 68.↵
    Mendoza R, Petras JK, Jenkins P, Gorensek MJ, Mableson S, Lee PA, et al. Monkeypox virus infection resulting from an occupational needlestick – Florida, 2022. MMWR Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. 2022;71(42):1348–9. doi: 10.15585/mmwr.mm7142e2.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  69. 69.
    Menezes YR, Miranda AB. Severe disseminated clinical presentation of monkeypox virus infection in an immunosuppressed patient: first death report in Brazil. Revista da Sociedade Brasileira de Medicina Tropical. 2022;55:e0392. doi: 10.1590/0037-8682-0392-2022.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  70. 70.↵
    Mileto D, Riva A, Cutrera M, Moschese D, Mancon A, Meroni L, et al. New challenges in human monkeypox outside Africa: a review and case report from Italy. Travel Medicine and Infectious Disease. 2022;49:102386. doi: 10.1016/j.tmaid.2022.102386.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  71. 71.↵
    Morgan CN, Whitehill F, Doty JB, Schulte J, Matheny A, Stringer J, et al. Environmental persistence of monkeypox virus on surfaces in household of person with travel-associated infection, Dallas, Texas, USA, 2021. Emerging Infectious Diseases. 2022;28(10):1982–9. doi: 10.3201/eid2810.221047.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  72. 72.
    Müller G, Meyer A, Gras F, Emmerich P, Kolakowski T, Esposito JJ. Monkeypox virus in liver and spleen of child in Gabon. Lancet. 1988;1(8588):769–70. doi: 10.1016/s0140-6736(88)91580-2.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  73. 73.
    Nakoune E, Lampaert E, Ndjapou SG, Janssens C, Zuniga I, Van Herp M, et al. A nosocomial outbreak of human monkeypox in the Central African Republic. Open Forum Infectious Diseases. 2017;4(4):ofx168. doi: 10.1093/ofid/ofx168.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  74. 74.
    Ng OT, Lee V, Marimuthu K, Vasoo S, Chan G, Lin RTP, Leo YS. A case of imported monkeypox in Singapore. Lancet Infectious Diseases. 2019 Nov;19(11):1166. doi: 10.1016/S1473-3099(19)30537-7.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  75. 75.
    Noe S, Zange S, Seilmaier M, Antwerpen MH, Fenzl T, Schneider J, et al. Clinical and virological features of first human monkeypox cases in Germany. Infection. 2023;51(1):265–70. doi: 10.1007/s15010-022-01874-z.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  76. 76.
    Nolasco S, Vitale F, Geremia A, Tramuto F, Maida CM, Sciuto A, et al. First case of monkeypox virus, SARS-CoV-2 and HIV co-infection. Journal of Infection. 2023;86(1):e21–3. doi: 10.1016/j.jinf.2022.08.014.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  77. 77.
    Nolen LD, Osadebe L, Katomba J, Likofata J, Mukadi D, Monroe B, et al. Extended human-to-human transmission during a monkeypox outbreak in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Emerging Infectious Diseases. 2016;22(6):1014–21. doi: 10.3201/eid2206.150579.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  78. 78.
    Nolen LD, Osadebe L, Katomba J, Likofata J, Mukadi D, Monroe B, et al. Introduction of monkeypox into a community and household: risk factors and zoonotic reservoirs in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene. 2015;93(2):410–5. doi: 10.4269/ajtmh.15-0168.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  79. 79.
    Nörz D, Pfefferle S, Brehm TT, Franke G, Grewe I, Knobling B, et al. Evidence of surface contamination in hospital rooms occupied by patients infected with monkeypox, Germany, June 2022. Euro Surveillance. 2022;27(26):2200477. doi: 10.2807/1560-7917.ES.2022.27.26.2200477.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  80. 80.
    Ogoina D, Yinka-Ogunleye A. Sexual history of human monkeypox patients seen at a tertiary hospital in Bayelsa, Nigeria. International Journal of STD & AIDS. 2022;33(10):928–32. doi: 10.1177/09564624221119335.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  81. 81.
    Ogoina D, Izibewule JH, Ogunleye A, Ederiane E, Anebonam U, Neni A, et al. The 2017 human monkeypox outbreak in Nigeria-report of outbreak experience and response in the Niger Delta University Teaching Hospital, Bayelsa State, Nigeria. PLoS One. 2019;14(4):e0214229. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0214229.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  82. 82.
    Oprea C, Ianache I, Piscu S, Tardei G, Nica M, Ceausu E, et al. First report of monkeypox in a patient living with HIV from Romania. Travel Medicine and Infectious Diseases. 2022;49:102395. doi: 10.1016/j.tmaid.2022.102395.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  83. 83.
    Ortiz-Martínez Y, Rodríguez-Morales AJ, Franco-Paredes C, Chastain DB, Gharamti AA, Vargas Barahona L, et al. Monkeypox - a description of the clinical progression of skin lesions: a case report from Colorado, USA. Therapeutic Advances in Infectious Disease. 2022;9:20499361221117726. doi: 10.1177/20499361221117726.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  84. 84.
    Orviz E, Negredo A, Ayerdi O, Vázquez A, Muñoz-Gomez A, Monzón S, et al; Grupo Viruela del Simio Madrid CNM/ISCIII/HCSC/Sandoval. Monkeypox outbreak in Madrid (Spain): Clinical and virological aspects. Journal of Infection. 2022;85(4):412–7. doi: 10.1016/j.jinf.2022.07.005.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  85. 85.
    Paparizos V, Nicolaidou E, Tryfinopoulou K, Papa A, Rigopoulos D, Tsiodras S, Stratigos A. Monkeypox virus infection: First reported case in Greece in a patient with a genital rash. Journal of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology. 2022 Aug 14. doi: 10.1111/jdv.18521. Epub ahead of print.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  86. 86.
    Paran N, Yahalom-Ronen Y, Shifman O, Lazar S, Ben-Ami R, Yakubovsky M, Levy I, Wieder-Feinsod A, Amit S, Katzir M, Carmi-Oren N, Levcovich A, Hershman-Sarafov M, Paz A, Thomas R, Tamir H, Cherry-Mimran L, Erez N, Melamed S, Barlev-Gross M, Karmi S, Politi B, Achdout H, Weiss S, Levy H, Schuster O, Beth-Din A, Israely T. Monkeypox DNA levels correlate with virus infectivity in clinical samples. Eurosurveillance. 2022;27(35):pii=2200636. https://doi.org/10.2807/1560-7917.ES.2022.27.35.2200636
  87. 87.
    Patel A, Bilinska J, Tam JCH, Da Silva Fontoura D, Mason CY, Daunt A, et al. Clinical features and novel presentations of human monkeypox in a central London centre during the 2022 outbreak: descriptive case series. BMJ. 2022 Jul 28;378:e072410. doi: 10.1136/bmj-2022-072410.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  88. 88.
    Patrocinio-Jesus R, Peruzzu F. Monkeypox Genital Lesions. New England Journal of Medicine. 2022 Jul 7;387(1):66. doi: 10.1056/NEJMicm2206893.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  89. 89.
    Peiró-Mestres A, Fuertes I, Camprubí-Ferrer D, Marcos MÁ, Vilella A, Navarro M, et al; Hospital Clinic de Barcelona Monkeypox Study Group. Frequent detection of monkeypox virus DNA in saliva, semen, and other clinical samples from 12 patients, Barcelona, Spain, May to June 2022. Euro Surveillance. 2022;27(28):2200503. doi: 10.2807/1560-7917.ES.2022.27.28.2200503.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  90. 90.
    Pembi E, Awang S, Salaudeen SO, Agaba IA, Omoleke S. First confirmed case of monkeypox in Adamawa State, Nigeria: a clinico-epidemiological case report. Pan African Medical Journal. 2022;42:38. doi: 10.11604/pamj.2022.42.38.34715.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  91. 91.
    Perez Duque M, Ribeiro S, Martins JV, Casaca P, Leite PP, Tavares M, et al. Ongoing monkeypox virus outbreak, Portugal, 29 April to 23 May 2022. Euro Surveillance. 2022;27(22):2200424. doi: 10.2807/1560-7917.ES.2022.27.22.2200424.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  92. 92.
    Pfäfflin F, Wendisch D, Scherer R, Jürgens L, Godzick-Njomgang G, Tranter E, et al. Monkeypox in-patients with severe anal pain. Infection. 2022. doi: 10.1007/s15010-022-01896-7. Epub ahead of print.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  93. 93.↵
    Pfeiffer JA, Collingwood A, Rider LE, Minhaj FS, Matheny AM, Kling C, et al. High-contact object and surface contamination in a household of persons with monkeypox virus infection - Utah, June 2022. MMWR Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. 2022;71(34):1092–4. doi: 10.15585/mmwr.mm7134e1.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  94. 94.
    Philpott D, Hughes CM, Alroy KA, Kerins JL, Pavlick J, Asbel L, et al; CDC Multinational Monkeypox Response Team. Epidemiologic and clinical characteristics of monkeypox cases - United States, May 17-July 22, 2022. MMWR Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. 2022;71(32):1018–22. doi: 10.15585/mmwr.mm7132e3.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  95. 95.
    Pipitò L, Cascio A. Monkeypox virus infection and creatine phosphokinase increase: a case from Italy. Travel Medicine and Infectious Diseases. 2022;50:102412. doi: 10.1016/j.tmaid.2022.102412.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  96. 96.
    Pittman PR, Martin JW, Kingebeni PM, Tamfum JJM, Wan Q, Reynolds MG, et al. Clinical characterization of human monkeypox infections in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. 2022. medRxiv 2022.05.26.22273379; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2022.05.26.22273379
  97. 97.
    Portela-Dias J, Sereno S, Falcão-Reis I, Rasteiro C. Monkeypox infection with localized genital lesions in women. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology. 2022;227(6):906. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2022.08.046.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  98. 98.
    Quattri E, Avallone G, Maronese CA, Cusini M, Carrera CG, Marzano AV, Ramoni S. Unilesional monkeypox: a report of two cases from Italy. Travel Medicine and Infectious Diseases. 2022;49:102424. doi: 10.1016/j.tmaid.2022.102424.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  99. 99.
    Raccagni AR, Mileto D, Canetti D, Tamburini AM, Rizzo A, Bruzzesi E, et al. Monkeypox and pan-resistant Campylobacter spp infection in Entamoeba histolytica and Chlamydia trachomatis re-infection in a man who have sex with men. Journal of Infection. 2022;85(4):436–80. doi: 10.1016/j.jinf.2022.06.028.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  100. 100.
    Rao AK, Schulte J, Chen TH, Hughes CM, Davidson W, Neff JM, et al; July 2021 Monkeypox Response Team. Monkeypox in a traveler returning from Nigeria - Dallas, Texas, July 2021. MMWR Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. 2022;71(14):509–16. doi: 10.15585/mmwr.mm7114a1.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  101. 101.
    Reynolds MG, Emerson GL, Pukuta E, Karhemere S, Muyembe JJ, Bikindou A, et al. Detection of human monkeypox in the Republic of the Congo following intensive community education. American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene. 2013;88(5):982–5. doi: 10.4269/ajtmh.12-0758.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  102. 102.
    Reynolds MG, Wauquier N, Li Y, Satheshkumar PS, Kanneh LD, Monroe B, et al. Human monkeypox in Sierra Leone after 44-year absence of reported cases. Emerging Infectious Diseases. 2019 May;25(5):1023–5. doi: 10.3201/eid2505.180832.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  103. 103.↵
    Rimoin AW, Kisalu N, Kebela-Ilunga B, Mukaba T, Wright LL, Formenty P, et al. Endemic human monkeypox, Democratic Republic of Congo, 2001-2004. Emerging Infectious Diseases. 2007 Jun;13(6):934–7. doi: 10.3201/eid1306.061540.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  104. 104.
    Sadeuh-Mba SA, Yonga MG, Els M, Batejat C, Eyangoh S, Caro V, Etoundi A, Carniel E, Njouom R. Monkeypox virus phylogenetic similarities between a human case detected in Cameroon in 2018 and the 2017-2018 outbreak in Nigeria. Infection, Genetics and Evolution. 2019;69:8–11. doi: 10.1016/j.meegid.2019.01.006.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  105. 105.
    Salvato RS, Rodrigues Ikeda ML, Barcellos RB, Godinho FM, Sesterheim P, Bitencourt LCB, et al. Possible occupational infection of healthcare workers with monkeypox virus, Brazil. Emerging Infectious Diseases. 2022;28(12):2520–3. doi: 10.3201/eid2812.221343.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  106. 106.
    Seang S, Burrel S, Todesco E, Leducq V, Monsel G, Le Pluart D, et al. Evidence of human-to-dog transmission of monkeypox virus. Lancet. 2022;400(10353):658–9. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(22)01487-8.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  107. 107.
    Suárez Rodríguez B, Guzmán Herrador BR, Díaz Franco A, Sánchez-Seco Fariñas MP, Del Amo Valero J, Aginagalde Llorente AH, et al. Epidemiologic features and control measures during monkeypox outbreak, Spain, June 2022. Emerging Infectious Diseases. 2022;28(9):1847–51. doi: 10.3201/eid2809.221051.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  108. 108.
    Sukhdeo SS, Aldhaheri K, Lam PW, Walmsley S. A case of human monkeypox in Canada. CMAJ. 2022;194(29):E1031–5. doi: 10.1503/cmaj.220886.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  109. 109.
    Tan DHS, Jaeranny S, Li M, Sukhdeo SS, Monge JC, Callejas MF, et al. Atypical clinical presentation of monkeypox complicated by myopericarditis. Open Forum Infectious Diseases. 2022;9(8):ofac394. doi: 10.1093/ofid/ofac394.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  110. 110.
    Tan WYT, Wong CS, Ho MZJ, Said Z, Cui L, Lin RTP, et al. The first imported case of monkeypox in Singapore during the 2022 outbreak - reflections and lessons. Travel Medicine and Infectious Diseases. 2022;50:102431. doi: 10.1016/j.tmaid.2022.102431.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  111. 111.
    Tarín-Vicente EJ, Alemany A, Agud-Dios M, Ubals M, Suñer C, Antón A, et al. Clinical presentation and virological assessment of confirmed human monkeypox virus cases in Spain: a prospective observational cohort study. Lancet. 2022;400(10353):661–9. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(22)01436-2.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  112. 112.
    Thornhill JP, Barkati S, Walmsley S, Rockstroh J, Antinori A, Harrison LB, et al; SHARE-net Clinical Group. Monkeypox virus infection in humans across 16 countries - April-June 2022. New England Journal of Medicine. 2022;387(8):679–91. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2207323.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  113. 113.
    Torster L, Tegtmeyer J, Kött J, Christolouka M, Schneider SW. Localized monkeypox infestation in MSM on pre-exposure prophylaxis. Journal of European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology. 2022. doi: 10.1111/jdv.18539. Epub ahead of print.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  114. 114.
    Turco M, Mancuso FR, Pisano L. A monkeypox virus infection mimicking primary syphilis. British Journal of Dermatology. 2022;187(6):e194–5. doi: 10.1111/bjd.21847.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  115. 115.
    Tutu van Furth AM, van der Kuip M, van Els AL, Fievez LC, van Rijckevorsel GG, van den Ouden A, et al. Paediatric monkeypox patient with unknown source of infection, the Netherlands, June 2022. Euro Surveillance. 2022;27(29):2200552. doi: 10.2807/1560-7917.ES.2022.27.29.2200552.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  116. 116.
    Vallée A, Farfour E, Zucman D. Monkeypox virus: a novel sexually transmitted disease? A case report from France. Travel Medicine and Infectious Disease. 2022;49:102394. doi: 10.1016/j.tmaid.2022.102394.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  117. 117.↵
    Vaughan A, Aarons E, Astbury J, Balasegaram S, Beadsworth M, Beck CR, et al. Two cases of monkeypox imported to the United Kingdom, September 2018. Euro Surveillance. 2018;23(38):1800509. doi: 10.2807/1560-7917.ES.2018.23.38.1800509.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  118. 118.
    Vaughan A, Aarons E, Astbury J, Brooks T, Chand M, Flegg P, et al. Human-to-human transmission of monkeypox virus, United Kingdom, October 2018. Emerging Infectious Diseases. 2020;26(4):782–5. doi: 10.3201/eid2604.191164.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  119. 119.
    Veintimilla C, Catalán P, Alonso R, de Viedma DG, Pérez-Lago L, Palomo M, et al. The relevance of multiple clinical specimens in the diagnosis of monkeypox virus, Spain, June 2022. Euro Surveillance. 2022;27(33):2200598. doi: 10.2807/1560-7917.ES.2022.27.33.2200598.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  120. 120.
    Vusirikala A, Charles H, Balasegaram S, Macdonald N, Kumar D, Barker-Burnside C, et al. Epidemiology of early monkeypox virus transmission in sexual networks of gay and bisexual men, England, 2022. Emerging Infectious Diseases. 2022;28(10):2082–6. doi: 10.3201/eid2810.220960.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  121. 121.
    Whitehouse ER, Bonwitt J, Hughes CM, Lushima RS, Likafi T, Nguete B, et al. Clinical and epidemiological findings from enhanced monkeypox surveillance in Tshuapa Province, Democratic Republic of the Congo during 2011-2015. Journal of Infectious Diseases. 2021;223(11):1870–8. doi: 10.1093/infdis/jiab133.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  122. 122.
    Yadav PD, Reghukumar A, Sahay RR, k S, Shete AM, Raman A, et al. First two cases of Monkeypox virus infection in travellers returned from UAE to India, July 2022. Journal of Infection. 2022;85(5):e145–8. doi: 10.1016/j.jinf.2022.08.007.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  123. 123.
    Yang ZS, Lin CY, Urbina AN, Wang WH, Assavalapsakul W, Tseng SP, et al. The first case of monkeypox virus infection detected in Taiwan: awareness and preparation. International Journal of Infectious Diseases. 2022;122:991–5. doi: 10.1016/j.ijid.2022.07.051.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  124. 124.
    Yinka-Ogunleye A, Aruna O, Dalhat M, Ogoina D, McCollum A, Disu Y, et al; CDC Monkeypox Outbreak Team. Outbreak of human monkeypox in Nigeria in 2017-18: a clinical and epidemiological report. Lancet Infectious Diseases. 2019;19(8):872–9. doi: 10.1016/S1473-3099(19)30294-4.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  125. 125.
    Yinka-Ogunleye A, Aruna O, Ogoina D, Aworabhi N, Eteng W, Badaru S, et al. Reemergence of human monkeypox in Nigeria, 2017. Emerging Infectious Diseases. 2018;24(6):1149–51. doi: 10.3201/eid2406.180017.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  126. 126.
    Yong SEF, Ng OT, Ho ZJM, Mak TM, Marimuthu K, Vasoo S, et al. Imported monkeypox, Singapore. Emerging Infectious Diseases. 2020;26(8):1826–30. doi: 10.3201/eid2608.191387.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  127. 127.
    Zlámal M, Bartovská Z, Burantová A, Zákoucká H, Jiřincová H, Chmel M, Holub M. Monkeypox and Herpes Simplex Virus Type 2 coinfection: case report of perianal lesions in HIV-positive patient. Sexually Transmitted Diseases. 2022;49(11):769–70. doi: 10.1097/OLQ.0000000000001694.
    OpenUrlCrossRef

Other references

  1. ↵
    DistillerSR. Version 2.35. Evidence Partners; 2021. Accessed September 2022. https://www.evidencepartners.com
  2. ↵
    Garritty C, Gartlehner G, Kamel C, King VJ, Nussbaumer-Streit B, Stevens A, Hamel C, Affengruber L. Cochrane Rapid Reviews. Interim Guidance from the Cochrane Rapid Reviews Methods Group. March 2020.
  3. ↵
    WHO 2022. Surveillance, case investigation and contact tracing for monkeypox. Interim guidance. 25 August 2022. World Health Organization. WHO reference number: WHO/MPX/Surveillance/2022.3
Back to top
Posted February 15, 2023.
Download PDF
Data/Code
Email
Infection prevention and control measures to reduce the transmission of mpox: a systematic review
Rebecca Kuehn, Tilly Fox, Gordon Guyatt, Vittoria Lutje, Susan Gould
medRxiv 2023.02.13.23285871; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2023.02.13.23285871
Twitter logo Facebook logo LinkedIn logo Mendeley logo
Citation Tools

Subject Area