https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4556-1752
Figures
Abstract
Objectives
To make inferences regarding the effectiveness of respiratory interventions and case isolation measures in reducing or preventing the transmission of mpox based on synthesis of available literature.
Methods
The WHO Clinical Management and Infection Prevention and Control 2022 guideline and droplet precautions in healthcare facilities and home isolation infection prevention control measures for patients with 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
No studies were identified that directly addressed airborne and droplet precautions and home isolation infection prevention control measures. To inform the review questions the review team synthesized route of transmission data in mpox. There were 2366/4309 (54.9%) cases in which investigators identified mpox infection occurring following transmission through direct physical sexual contact. There were no reported mpox cases in which investigators identified inhalation as a single route of transmission. There were 2/4309 cases in which investigators identified fomite as a single route of transmission. Clinical and environmental sampling studies isolated mpox virus in a minority of 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 airborne and droplet 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 with mild disease at home.
Citation: Kuehn R, Fox T, Guyatt G, Lutje V, Gould S (2024) Infection prevention and control measures to reduce the transmission of mpox: A systematic review. PLOS Glob Public Health 4(1): e0002731. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgph.0002731
Editor: Sukanta Chowdhury, ICDDR B: International Centre for Diarrhoeal Disease Research Bangladesh, BANGLADESH
Received: March 31, 2023; Accepted: November 28, 2023; Published: January 18, 2024
Copyright: © 2024 Kuehn et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Data Availability: All relevant data for this study are available within the paper and its Supporting Information files.
Funding: RK, TF and VL are supported by the Research, Evidence and Development Initiative (READ-It). The editorial base of the Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group and READ-It (project number 300342-104) are funded by UK aid from the UK government for the benefit of low- and middle-income countries (project number 300342-104). The views expressed do not necessarily reflect the UK government’s official policies. SG is supported by the National Institute for Health Research Health Protection Research Unit in Emerging and Zoonotic Infections. SG is also supported by the Research, Evidence, and Development Initiative, which is funded by UK aid from the UK government (project number 300342–104). The views expressed here do not necessarily reflect the UK government's official policies.
Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
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) between July2022 and May 2023. The 2022 mpox outbreak was associated with sustained human-to-human transmission that had not been previously described [1]. Historically, mpox occurred primarily in Central and West Africa, with infection commonly reported in persons who had contact with probable animal reservoirs, cases of secondary transmission were most often reported in household contacts [2]. Increased incidence in endemic areas of central and West Africa over the past forty to fifty years coincides with the cessation of smallpox vaccination and eradication programmes [3]. There are two distinct clades of mpox virus, Clade I (formerly known as the Central African or Congo Basin clade) and Clade II (formerly known as the West African clade). Clade II consists of two subclades, Clade IIa and Clade IIb.
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 [4].
Suspected or confirmed transmission routes of mpox 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, inoculation and transplacental transmission [2]. Human infection is also possible from contact with infected animals (scratches, bites, preparing, eating or using infected meat and animal products) [2]. 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 interventions to prevent the transmission of mpox. The effectiveness of any IPC measures for mpox depends on route(s) of transmission of mpox virus. The WHO Clinical Management and Infection Prevention and Control 2022 guideline development group developed two research questions concerning airborne and droplet IPC 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 would exist to inform the research questions. As such, it was anticipated that the review questions could 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 mpox infections will be reduced through interventions targeting the most frequently reported routes of transmission of mpox virus. In the case of IPC interventions targeting airborne and droplet precautions and interventions targeting physical home isolation of cases, if there are a significant number of cases of infection transmitted by inhalation of virus aerosols, droplets 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 in two stages—the first stage seeks evidence from comparative interventional trials, and the second stage seeks evidence from all other study designs—to inform the infection prevention and control guideline recommendations regarding use of airborne and droplet precautions to mpox transmission and physical isolation of mpox patients.
Objective
- To make inferences regarding the effectiveness of airborne and droplet interventions and case home isolation measures in reducing or preventing the transmission of mpox based on synthesis of available literature.
Review questions
The review followed two pre-planned protocols (available on request to corresponding author). The review addresses three research questions developed by the WHO Clinical Management and Infection Prevention and Control 2022 guideline development group [5] (for full review questions see S1–S3 Tables):
1. Does healthcare worker use of respirator versus a medical mask when interacting with a confirmed/suspect mpox patient during the infectious period reduce mpox infections?
2. Does the use of an airborne precaution room versus an adequately ventilated room in a healthcare facility for a mpox patient in the infectious period reduce mpox infection in health workers or patients?
3. Does isolating a person with mpox until all lesions are fully healed versus not isolating reduce mpox infections?
Review stage one: Review of infection prevention and control interventions for preventing mpox infection
In the first stage, we aimed to synthesize evidence concerning the review question interventions from available interventional comparative studies.
Methods
Inclusion criteria.
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.
Population
Humans with laboratory confirmed mpox infection; or
humans with laboratory confirmed mpox-like infection; or
humans with symptoms consistent with mpox and exposure to a laboratory confirmed mpox infection or mpox-like infection.
Mpox-like infection is defined for the purposes of this 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
- Airborne and droplet precautions including medical masks or use of respirators.
- Personal contact precautions including use of gloves, gowns, eye protection.
- Isolation of cases
- 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 considered an intervention type.
Control
- No intervention or;
- Any different intervention measure used as a comparator to the intervention group in the study.
Outcomes
- Confirmed secondary mpox or mpox-like virus infection expressed as an absolute number or rate of secondary transmission.
- 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.
Exclusion criteria
Studies were excluded if any of the following criteria were met:
- Studies published in a language other than English.
- 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.
- Studies of designs other than RCTs or observational comparative studies in participants with viruses other than viruses defined as mpox-like viruses.
- Studies that did not include a review question-specific intervention to reduce or prevent the transmission of mpox or mpox-like viruses.
- 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 (S1 Appendix). The review 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 results of the literature searches were uploaded into Distiller SR software [6]. Screening of results was undertaken according to the Cochrane Collaboration’s Rapid Review Methods due to the time-sensitivity of the review findings to inform guideline development [7]. Title and abstract screening of all studies identified in the literature searches was undertaken independently by multiple review 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 inclusion criteria was undertaken independently by multiple review authors. One author was required to assess a study as eligible for inclusion to data extraction; two review authors were required to assess a study for exclusion. Authors resolved disagreement at any stage by discussion.
Data extraction and management
We planned for two authors to extract data from all included studies using a pre-piloted data extraction form within Distiller SR, however no eligible studies were identified.
Risk of bias assessment
It was planned for two authors to independently conduct risk of bias assessments using the Cochrane Risk of bias 2 tool [8,9] for included randomized controlled trials and the ROBINS-I tool [10] for included non-randomised comparative studies; however no comparative trials were identified.
Review stage two: Transmission route of mpox virus
The second stage of the review aimed to synthesize evidence on mpox infection as a result of transmission using a wider range of study designs that could indirectly inform the review questions by answering the following:
- What is the proportion of incident cases of mpox disaggregated by route of transmission?
- An incident case is defined as an individual changing from a state of non-disease to disease over a specific period of time, as reported by study authors.
- 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.
Methods
Inclusion criteria.
Population: Human participant of any age with laboratory-confirmed mpox infection or symptoms consistent with mpox and exposure 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 [11].
Laboratory-confirmed infection was defined as reverse-transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) positive or viral culture positive.
Outcomes:
- 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
Studies were excluded if any of the following criteria were met:
- 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.
- Studies solely concerning animal-to-animal mpox transmission or animal-to-human transmission.
- Studies not published in English.
- Experimental laboratory transmission studies.
- Studies meeting the inclusion criteria but not otherwise containing information relevant to the review questions.
Literature search strategy and selection of studies
The review team used the same search strategy and methods for the selection of studies as for the first review stage (S1 Appendix).
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.
Appraisal of study quality
Risk of bias assessments are related to study design. We did not identify any applicable pre-existing tool to assess the risk of bias in included case reports and case series. We therefore constructed and piloted a series of questions to appraise the quality of included case reports and case series covering aspects of representativeness and comprehensiveness of included participants (S2 Appendix). Quality appraisal assessments were then undertaken independently by the review authors for all included studies; differences were resolved by discussion.
Data synthesis
What is the proportion of incident cases of mpox disaggregated by route of transmission?
Two authors independently categorized all 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 contact 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 (aerosols or droplets), 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 categorized all cases into one of three categories: (i) single route of transmission resulting in infection reasonably identified, (ii) multiple routes of transmission resulting in infection possible, and (iii) unknown route of transmission resulting in infection. 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 leading to an mpox infection had occurred. The category of multiple possible routes of transmission applied when more than one route of transmission was judged as reasonably possible to result in an mpox infection 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 in a case of mpox infection.
The number of incident mpox 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 of the full review questions (S1–S3 Tables) within the research questions is summarized.
- 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 cross-sectional studies that attempted viral isolation. The number of samples for each category is presented.
Summary of findings and assessment of certainty of the evidence
A summary of findings table is presented for each review question. Data to inform the outcome of mpox infection is inferred from the number of reported mpox cases by route of transmission. Data from clinical and environmental sampling studies, representing lower quality evidence, is narratively summarized in the results section.
The rating of the certainty of evidence is based on the GRADE approach for observational studies following the GRADE guidance as recommended in the GRADE Handbook [12].
Search results
The searches identified 2514 unique records. Authors assessed the full text of 725 studies; 122 studies were included and 603 studies were excluded. The study selection process is presented in S1 Fig.
Included studies
114 studies reported cases of human-to-human mpox as a result of transmission [13–126]. 39 studies were conducted prior to the 2022 outbreak [15,16,19,21,24,31,32,35,38,43,46,49,50,53–56,62,66,69,73,74,76,77,80–83,95,99–102,116,117,120,123–125] and 75 studies were published during 2022 [13,14,17,18,20,22,23,25–30,33,34,36,37,39,40–42,44,45,47,48,51,52,57–61,63–65,67,68,70–72,75,78,79,84,85–94,96–98,103–115,118,119,121,122,126].
The region of acquisition of infection was reported as follows: 37 studies from Africa [15,19,21, 24,31,32,35,38,43,49,50,53–56,62,66,69,73,74,76,77,80–83,90,95,99–102,116,120,123–125], 1 study from the Eastern Mediterranean Region [121], 48 studies from Europe [13,14,18,20,22,23,25–29,33,36,37,39,40,42,44,45,47,48,51,52,57,58,60,61,67,72,78,79,84,86,88,89,92,94,97,98,104,109,111–115,122,126], 8 studies from North America [17,46,64,70,85,93,106,107], and 3 studies from South America [30,71,103]. 11 studies reported on cases acquired from multiple world regions [16,34,41,59,63,65,87,91,110,117,119], and 6 studies did not report the country of infection acquisition [68,75,96,105,108,118].
No studies concerning mpox-like viruses met the inclusion criteria.
There were 14 studies that provided data concerning clinical and environmental sampling [24,61,62,72,73,78,127–134]. Studies in which a denominator was not reported (that is, how many samples were taken in total) were not included.
Quality assessment of included studies
The quality of assessment results are available in S3 Appendix. Studies generally differed in active case finding and in the reporting of sufficient information to hypothesize route(s) of transmission of mpox virus.
Included cases
There were 4309 cases of human-to-human transmission resulting in mpox infection [113–126]. All cases of human-to-human acquisition were included; it was not always possible to determine whether a case was a primary or index case.
Table 1 displays included cases by age and gender. Most cases were males over the age of 18 years.It was not possible to disaggregate age and gender for 1062/4309 (24.6%) of cases (Table 1).
Results: Review question 1 and 2
Review questions 1 and 2 are considered together as they concern airborne and droplet IPC interventions. The summary of findings for review question 1 are presented in Table 2 and the summary of findings for review question 2 are presented in Table 3.
Number of incident cases by route of transmission
Most cases of mpox infection reasonably concluded by review authors to have resulted from a single transmission route occurred through direct physical sexual contact (Table 4). Where they could identify a single route of human-to-human transmission resulting in mpox infection, investigators reported no cases in which inhalation could reasonably have been the singular mode of mpox virus transmission (Table 4).
Nine studies reported cases of Clade IIa [31, 49,82,83,99,101,102,124,125] and four studies reported cases of Clade IIb [17,103,104,113]. Nineteen studies reported cases as West African clade in 2022 before the change in clade nomenclature in August 2022. Since they occurred in 2022, it is assumed these cases are likely to be clade IIb [13,14,22,29,47,51,57,63,78,79,86,91,105,108,109,118,121,122,126]. Twenty-eight studies were published prior to 2022 that did not report clade of included cases [15,16,19,21,24,35,38,46,50,53–56,62,66,69,73,74,76,77,80,81,95,100,116,117,120,123]. Fifty-two studies were published in 2022 that did not report a clade of included cases [18,20,23,25–28,30,33,34,36,37,39–42,44,45,48,52,58–61,64,65,67,68,70–72,75,84,85,87–90,92–94,96–98,106,107,110–112,114,115,119].
Most cases of mpox infection resulting from direct physical sexual contact as a single route of transmission were considered to be likely to be Clade IIb, the clade associated with the 2022–2023 mpox outbreak (Table 5). The two cases of mpox infection resulting from fomite transmission were Clade IIb. There were no cases of mpox virus Clade I reported in which a single route of transmission resulting in infection could reasonably be identified [32,43].
Reported cases by clade in which multiple routes of transmission were judged as reasonably possible by review authors, or the route of transmission was unknown, are available in the S4 Table.
Eight studies reported 120 cases of transmission resulting in mpox infection within a healthcare setting in which route of transmission may have been direct physical contact (non-sexual), fomite or inhalation [16,55,62,76,82,102,120,123]. Due to limited information reported by study authors, the review team were unable to disaggregate data further.
There were 538 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 [21,16,19,24,32,49,50,52,54,56,62,76,81,120].Authors reported possible routes of human-to-human transmission resulting in infection as inhalation, fomite, direct sexual physical contact and direct physical non-sexual contact.
Clinical and environmental sampling
Two studies [72,129] attempted viral isolation from respiratory tract samples of patients with mpox; 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 (S5 Table).
Authors identified two studies in which viral isolation was attempted from air samples collected in hospital rooms solely occupied by individuals with mpox [128,129]; replication competent virus was identified in one air sample in one study [128] (S6 Table).
Subgroups
Health care worker transmission.
Health care workers were the population of interest in review questions 1 and 2 (S1 and S2 Tables).
A healthcare 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 physical contact with the mpox patient [116]. Investigators judged that transmission was possibly 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 [28,30,70].
Patient-to-patient transmission.
An outcome in review question 2 concerned the risk of transmission to patients (S2 Table). Two studies were identified that provided relevant data [53,62]. Jezek et al 1986 [53] 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. The child with subsequent mpox infection had walked past the mpox infected child in an outdoor space in the hospital grounds and past the mpox patient isolation area. The mpox infected child and the child who subsequently developed mpox had also received injections on the same day at the hospital in which one syringe and 35 needles were being reused for all injections (study authors stated the two children had different needles). Review authors hypothesized fomite or inhalation transmission. Learned et al 2003 [62] reported a case of mpox in a patient hospitalized for malaria and in the same hospital as patients with mpox; authors reported no further information.
Certainty of the evidence.
Certainty of evidence commenced at a rating of low due to inclusion of observational study designs [12]. Evidence from observational studies indicated that mpox was transmitted, in almost all occasions, by direct physical contact. We further found compelling evidence that mpox transmission by inhalation did not occur, or if it did, was extremely unusual. For review question 1, the logical inference was made that if there are no or almost no cases of transmission by inhalation, use of a respirator by a health care worker would prevent either none or very few mpox transmissions (Table 2). The evidence is therefore at least moderate certainty of little or no benefit in preventing transmission from respirator use. Similarly, for review question 2, the evidence is at least moderate that the use of an airborne precaution room probably has little to no impact on preventing mpox transmission (Table 3). The certainty of the evidence for review questions 1 and 2 is thus based on logical inferences in this situation in which a formal comparison is lacking [12,135].
Results: Review question 3
Review question 3 concerned IPC interventions related to the physical isolation of mpox 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 resulting in infection, 2366/4309 (54.9%) cases were transmitted via direct physical sexual contact, 6/4309 (0.1%) cases were transmitted via direct physical non-sexual contact, and 2/4309 (0.0%) cases via fomites (Table 2). Confirmed Clade IIb or cases likely to be Clade IIb form the majority of the data (Table 5).
The two cases of infection transmitted via fomites occurred in healthcare workers who visited a patient’s home for one hour, wore personal protective equipment during the visit (N95 masks, eye protection, gowns), used gloves when taking clinical samples, and did not directly physically touch the patient. It was identified that some equipment used by the healthcare workers may not have been decontaminated before being handled without personal protective equipment [103].
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 (S7 Table) [61,62,72,78]. In four studies in which the day of sampling was not documented, virus isolation was reported in 46.73% of lesion samples (S7 Table) [24,127,130,131].
Five studies attempted viral isolation from environmental surface samples [73,128,132–134]. Each study sampled high-touch surfaces (for example door handles and switches) and items that had been in close contact with infected persons (including towels and clothes). Studies conducted within hospitals included sampling of the anterooms in which personal protective equipment was doffed and disposed, and sampling of the personal protective equipment [128,133]. Gould et al 2022 [128] included sampling of a deposition area in each room which was unlikely to have been touched by patients or staff. Morgan et al 2022 [73] compared the frequency and quantity of virus detection from samples of non-porous and porous articles; authors reported that detection of viable virus was significantly more frequent from samples collected from porous materials. The frequency of detection of replication competent virus was between 0 and 60% in surface samples (S8 Table).
Certainty of the evidence
Certainty of evidence commenced at a rating of low due to inclusion of observational study designs [12]. Evidence from observational studies indicated that mpox was transmitted, in almost all occasions, by direct physical contact. There were very few cases of fomite transmission. The logical inference was made that there may be minimal added benefits to physically isolating cases provided all lesions are covered, direct physical contact with others is avoided and a medical mask is worn (low to moderate certainty, downgraded one to two levels for serious risk of indirectness; Table 6). The certainty of the evidence for review question 3 is based on a logical inference in this situation in which a formal comparison is lacking [12,135].
Discussion
We found no evidence from randomized controlled trials or observational comparative studies concerning airborne and droplet interventions or case physical isolation measures in mpox or mpox-like viruses capable of human-to-human transmission. Investigators reported no cases of mpox infection in which transmission by inhalation could reasonably be identified as the single route of transmission. Investigators reported 2 out of 4309 cases in which mpox virus could have reasonably been exclusively transmitted resulting in infection through fomites (103). In comparison, in 2366/4309 (54.9%) cases investigators identified transmission resulting in infection occurring through direct physical sexual contact (Table 4). Study investigators identified infectious mpox virus in saliva [129] and oropharyngeal swabs [72] and identified competent virus in 1/28 (3.6%) air samples [128,129]. Viral isolation was successful in 101/209 (48.3%) of lesion samples from 8 studies [24,61,62,72,78,127,130,131]; surface sampling in domestic and healthcare environments in 5 studies detected viable mpox virus in 16.2% of samples (range 0–60%) [73,128,132,133,134]. The presence of infectious virus in clinical samples and environmental samples provides only very low certainty evidence regarding risk of transmission that may lead to infection.
There is scarce data concerning transmission of mpox to health care workers. Mpox infection in healthcare workers was identified through percutaneous injury in three cases [28,30,70] and through possible fomite or inhalation in one case [116].
Strengths and limitations
This review is strengthened by a comprehensive search strategy across multiple databases 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 in the two review stages.
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. Inclusion of studies in English only may have influenced the completeness of findings. We expect publication bias to be sensitive to transmission routes resulting in infection; that is, if a route of transmission had been identified by investigators, this is likely to be published and captured for inclusion in the review and conversely, if a route of transmission had been not found, it is unlikely to be published. Another limitation of the review is the time elapsed since the literature search date (September 2022) and the call to topic experts in December 2022 to identify any further evidence. We are not aware of any systematic reviews addressing the same review questions covering the same scope or with as comprehensive inclusion criteria since the date of our literature search. To our knowledge there is also no known prior systematic review investigating airborne or droplet precautions or case home isolation IPC measures for mpox or mpox-like viruses. This review is an example of evidence synthesis methods in an area of scarce literature to answer key public health questions.
Implications for practice and research
The findings of this review provide compelling evidence that transmission of mpox resulting in infection occurs primarily through direct physical contact. This finding agrees with a recent analysis of global surveillance data reporting the most common route of transmission in the 2022 mpox outbreak was direct physical sexual contact [1]. Secondary household attack rates are estimated to be 10% overall [136]. Household contact is the most common reported route of acquisition of infection amongst children, but sexual contact is the commonest reported route of transmission amongst adults [137]. Marshall et al [138] investigated exposures amongst 313 healthcare workers in different settings, noting duration and type of contact as well as personal protective equipment used. No cases of mpox resulted from a range of contacts including direct skin-to-skin contact with lesions and exposure to aerosol generating proceedures with or without FFP3/N95 masks. Most of these contacts were brief. It is difficult to distinguish between the transmission risk posed by close physical non-sexual contact and sexual contact. However more skin exposure, contact between mucous membranes or duration of contact may increase risk of transmission. In the 2022 global mpox outbreak, primary lesions commonly occurring at sites of sexual contact e.g. genital/anorectal or oral lesions and clustering of lesions at those sites support the conclusion that direct sexual contact is an important route of transmission [44]. In line with current guidance, avoidance of direct contact with skin lesions would likely reduce risk of transmission [131].
Epidemiological evidence and data from clinical and environmental sampling provides limited support for the hypothesis that inhalation or fomite modes of transmission are significant. Replication competent virus has been identified in saliva; precautions to avoid direct exposure to respiratory droplets may be appropriate pending further data. The impact of airborne and droplet IPC measures in reducing transmission may be small (moderate certainty evidence). 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 (moderate certainty evidence). Suitable cleaning protocols and caution around sharing items such as bedding or towels which may be contaminated is recommended in some settings.
Multiple factors such as route of exposure, infecting dose, susceptibility of the exposed individual would likely affect the relative risk of transmission resulting in infection. Currently, recommendations for airborne and droplet precautions and case home isolation IPC measures in mpox rely on expert opinion and inferences from data concerning transmission frequency by route of transmission [139].
Conclusion
No available evidence from comparative interventional studies addressing airborne and droplet precautions and case home isolation IPC measures to prevent the transmission of mpox exists. Current findings suggest that transmission resulting in infection occurs primarily through direct physical contact. No cases of transmission resulting in infection via inhalation were identified; the impact of airborne and droplet IPC 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 IPC measures to reduce the transmission of mpox, especially in the event of any future outbreak and in endemic settings.
Supporting information
S4 Table. Incident cases of mpox by clade with multiple or unknown routes of transmission resulting in infection.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgph.0002731.s006
(DOCX)
S5 Table. Clinical samples of viral isolation attempts from adults or children with confirmed mpox infection.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgph.0002731.s007
(DOCX)
S6 Table. Air sampling in environments occupied by adults with confirmed mpox infection.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgph.0002731.s008
(DOCX)
S7 Table. Mpox lesion clinical samples in which viral isolation was attempted.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgph.0002731.s009
(DOCX)
S8 Table. Surface sampling in environments occupied by adults with confirmed mpox infection.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgph.0002731.s010
(DOCX)
References
- 1. Laurenson-Schafer H, Sklenovska N, Hoxha A, Kerr SM, Ndumbi P, Fitzner J, et al. Description of the first global outbreak of mpox: an analysis of global surveillance data. Lancet Glob Health. 2023;11(7):e1012–e23. pmid:37349031
- 2. Gessain A, Nakoune E, Yazdanpanah Y. Monkeypox. N Engl J Med. 2022;387(19):1783–93. pmid:36286263
- 3. Rimoin AW, Mulembakani PM, Johnston SC, Lloyd Smith JO, Kisalu NK, Kinkela TL, et al. Major increase in human monkeypox incidence 30 years after smallpox vaccination campaigns cease in the Democratic Republic of Congo. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2010;107(37):16262–7. pmid:20805472
- 4. 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. Clin Infect Dis. 2005;41(12):1742–51. pmid:16288398
- 5. World Health Organization (WHO). Guideline Development Group for Clinical Management and Infection Prevention Control for mpox. 2022.
- 6. Distiller SR. Version 2.35. Evidence Partners; 2021.
- 7. Garritty C, Gartlehner G, Nussbaumer-Streit B, King VJ, Hamel C, Kamel C, et al. Cochrane Rapid Reviews Methods Group offers evidence-informed guidance to conduct rapid reviews. J Clin Epidemiol. 2021;130:13–22. pmid:33068715
- 8. Higgins JP, Savović J, Page MJ, Elbers RG, Sterne JA. Chapter 8: Assessing risk of bias in a randomized trial. In: Higgins JPT, Thomas J, Chandler J, Cumpston M, Li T, Page MJ, et al, editor(s). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 6.3 (updated February 2022). Available from www.training.cochrane.org/handbook.
- 9. Sterne JAC, Savović J, Page MJ, Elbers RG, Blencowe NS, Boutron I, et al. RoB 2: a revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ. 2019;366:l4898. pmid:31462531
- 10. Sterne JAC, Hernán MA, Reeves BC, Savović J, Berkman ND, Viswanathan M, et al. ROBINS-I: a tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions.BMJ. 2016;355:i4919. pmid:27733354
- 11. World Health Organization (WHO). Surveillance, case investigation and contact tracing for monkeypox: interim guidance, 22 December 2022. WHO/MPX/Surveillance/2022.4. Available from: www.who.int/publications/i/item/WHO-MPX-Surveillance-2022.4
- 12. Schünemann H, Brożek J, Guyatt G, Oxman A (editors). Chapter 5: Quality of evidence. In: Handbook for grading the quality of evidence and the strength of recommendations using the GRADE approach. Updated October 2013. Available from guidelinedevelopment.org/handbook
- 13. Antinori A, Mazzotta V, Vita S, Carletti F, Tacconi D, Lapini LE, et al. Epidemiological, clinical and virological characteristics of four cases of monkeypox support transmission through sexual contact, Italy, May 2022. Euro Surveill. 2022;27(22):2200421. pmid:35656836
- 14. Orviz E, Negredo A, Ayerdi O, Vázquez A, Muñoz-Gomez A, Monzón S, et al. Monkeypox outbreak in Madrid (Spain): Clinical and virological aspects. J Infect. 2022. 85(4):412–7 pmid:35830908
- 15.
European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC). Monkeypox cases in the UK imported by travellers returning from Nigeria, 2018. 21 September 2018. ECDC: Stockholm; 2018. Available from www.ecdc.europa.eu/en/publications-data/rapid-risk-assessment-monkeypox-cases-uk-imported-travellers-returning-nigeria#:~:text=Executive%20summary,by%20air%20to%20the%20UK.
- 16. Adler H, Gould S, Hine P, Snell LB, Wong W, Houlihan CF, et al. Clinical features and management of human monkeypox: a retrospective observational study in the UK. Lancet Infect Dis. 2022;22(8):1153–62. pmid:35623380
- 17. Alarcón J, Kim M, Balanji N, Davis A, Mata F, Karan A, et al. Occupational monkeypox virus transmission to healthcare worker, California, USA, 2022. Emerg Infect Dis. 2023;29(2):435–7. pmid:36469326
- 18. Alpalhão M, Frade JV, Sousa D, Patrocínio J, Garrido PM, Correia C, et al. Monkeypox: a new (sexually transmissible) epidemic? J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2022;36(12):e1016–7. pmid:35841292
- 19. Aplogan A, Mangindula V, Muamba PT, Mwema GN, Okito L, Pebody RG, et al. Human monkeypox—Kasai Oriental, Democratic Republic of Congo, February 1996-October 1997. JAMA. 1998;279(3):189–90.
- 20. Benatti SV, Venturelli S, Comi N, Borghi F, Paolucci S, Baldanti F. Ophthalmic manifestation of monkeypox infection. Lancet Infect Dis. 2022;22(9):1397. pmid:35914539
- 21. Besombes C, Gonofio E, Konamna X, Selekon B, Grant R, Gessain A, et al. Intrafamily transmission of monkeypox virus, Central African Republic, 2018. Emerg Infect Dis. 2019;25(8):1602–4. pmid:31216261
- 22. Bížová B, Veselý D, Trojánek M, Rob F. Coinfection of syphilis and monkeypox in HIV positive man in Prague, Czech Republic. Travel Med Infect Dis. 2022;49:102368. pmid:35661824
- 23. Bociąga-Jasik M, Raczyńska A, Lara M, Kalinowska-Nowak A, Garlicki A. Monkeypox present with genital ulcers-challenging clinical problem. Pol Arch Intern Med. 2022;132(10):16304.
- 24. Breman JG, Kalisa R, Steniowski MV, Zanotto E, Gromyko AI, Arita I. Human monkeypox, 1970–79. Bull World Health Organ. 1980;58(2):165–82. pmid:6249508
- 25. Brito Caldeira M, Fernandes C. Cutaneous lesions from monkeypox infection. Sex Trans Dis. 2022;49(9):595. pmid:35819906
- 26. 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? J Dermatol. 2022;50(3):383–6. pmid:35996211
- 27. Bruno G, Fabrizio C, Rodano L, Buccoliero GB. Monkeypox in a 71-year-old woman. J Med Virol. 2022;95(1);e27993. pmid:35831136
- 28. Caldas JP, Valdoleiros SR, Rebelo S, Tavares M. Monkeypox after occupational needlestick injury from pustule. Emerg Infect Dis. 2022;28(12):2516–9. pmid:36252152
- 29. 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. pmid:36014990
- 30. 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. Emerg Infect Dis. 2022;28(11):2334–6. pmid:36121391
- 31. Costello V, Sowash M, Gaur A, Cardis M, Pasieka H, Wortmann G, et al. Imported monkeypox from international traveler, Maryland, USA, 2021. Emerg Infect Dis. 2022;28(5):1002–5. pmid:35263559
- 32. Damon IK, Roth CE, Chowdhary V. Discovery of monkeypox in Sudan. N Engl J Med. 2006;355(9):962–3. pmid:16943415
- 33. 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. J Travel Med. 2022;29(6):taac082. pmid:35876271
- 34. De Baetselier I, Van Dijck C, Kenyon C, Coppens J, Michiels J, de Block T, et al. Retrospective detection of asymptomatic monkeypox virus infections among male sexual health clinic attendees in Belgium. Nat Med. 2022;28(11):2288–92. pmid:35961373
- 35. 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. Emerg Infect Dis. 2019;25(2):281–9. pmid:30666937
- 36. 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. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2022;36(8):e658–60. pmid:35675097
- 37. de Sousa D, Patrocínio J, Frade J, Correia C, Borges-Costa J, Filipe P. Human monkeypox coinfection with acute HIV: an exuberant presentation. Int J STD AIDS. 2022;33(10):936–8 pmid:35822910
- 38. 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 Rep Pediatr. 2020;2020:8572596. pmid:32328334
- 39. Escudero-Tornero R, Sobral-Costas TG, De Moraes-Souza R. Monkeypox lesions affecting the nose: a therapeutical challenge. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2022;37(3):e361–2. pmid:35986709
- 40. Escudero-Tornero R, Sobral-Costas TG, Servera-Negre G. Monkeypox infection. JAMA Dermatol. 2022;158(10):1203. pmid:36006652
- 41. 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 Surveill.2022;27(23):2200456. pmid:35686566
- 42. Ferre 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. Ann Intern Med. 2022; 175(10):1491–2. pmid:35969863
- 43. 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. Emerg Infect Dis. 2010;16(10):1539–45. pmid:20875278
- 44. 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 Infect Dis. 2022;22(9):1321–8. pmid:35785793
- 45. Griffiths-Acha J, Vela-Ganuza M, Sarró-Fuente C, López-Estebaranz JL. Monkeypox: a new differential diagnosis when addressing genital ulcer disease. Br J Dermatol. 2022;187(6):1050–2. pmid:35977429
- 46. 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. Nat Med. 2005;11(9):1005–11. pmid:16086024
- 47. 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 Surveill.2022;27(22):2200411. pmid:35656835
- 48. 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. J Infect. 2022;85(3):334–63. pmid:35659548
- 49. 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 Surveill.2021;26(32): 2100745. pmid:34387184
- 50. 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. Emerg Infect Dis. 2001;7(3):434–8. pmid:11384521
- 51. 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 Surveill. 2022;27(27):2200471. pmid:35801519
- 52. Jang YR, Lee M, Shin H, Kim J-W, Choi M-M, Kim YM, et al. The first case of monkeypox in the Republic of Korea. J Korean Med Sci. 2022;37(27):e224. pmid:35818706
- 53. Jezek Z, Arita I, Mutombo M, Dunn C, Nakano JH, Szczeniowski M. Four generations of probable person-to-person transmission of human monkeypox. Am J Epidemiol. 1986;123(6):1004–12. pmid:3010703
- 54. Jezek Z, Grab B, Szczeniowski M, Paluku KM, Mutombo M. Clinico-epidemiological features of monkeypox patients with an animal or human source of infection. Bull World Health Organ. 1988;66(4):459–64. pmid:2844428
- 55. Jezek Z, Marennikova SS, Mutumbo M, Nakano JH, Paluku KM, Szczeniowski M. Human monkeypox: a study of 2,510 contacts of 214 patients. J Infect Dis. 1986;154(4):551–5. pmid:3018091
- 56. 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. Med Mal Infect. 2018;48(4):263–8. pmid:29573840
- 57. 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. Emerg Infect Dis. 2022;28(10):2121–3. pmid:35971952
- 58. Kawsar A, Hussain K, Roberts N. The return of monkeypox: key pointers for dermatologists. Clin Exp Dermatol. 2022;47(12):2075–350.
- 59. Koh XQ, Chio MTW, Tan M, Leo YS, Chan RKW. Global monkeypox outbreak 2022: first case series in Singapore. Ann Acad Med Singap. 2022;51(8):462–72. pmid:36047521
- 60. Kreuter A, Grossmann M, Müller VL, Michalowitz AL, Oellig F, Silling S, et al. Monkeypox infection with concomitant penile lymphoedema. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2022:37(3):e431–2. pmid:35974448
- 61. Lapa D, Carletti F, Mazzotta V, Matusali G, Pinnetti C, Meschi S, et al. Monkeypox virus isolation from a semen sample collected in the early phase of infection in a patient with prolonged seminal viral shedding. Lancet Infect Dis. 2022;22(9):1267–9. pmid:35931095
- 62. 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. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2005;73(2):428–34. pmid:16103616
- 63. Lewis A, Josiowicz A, Hirmas Riade SM, Tous M, Palacios G, Cisterna DM. Introduction and differential diagnosis of monkeypox in Argentina, 2022. Emerg Infect Dis. 2022;28(10): 2123–5. pmid:35960545
- 64. 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. Ann Intern Med. 2022;175(11):1626–7. pmid:35981225
- 65. Mailhe M, Beaumont AL, Thy M, Le Pluart D, Perrineau S, Houhou-Fidouh N, et al. Clinical characteristics of ambulatory and hospitalised patients with monkeypox virus infection: an observational cohort study. Clin Microbiol Infect. 2022;29(2):233–9.
- 66. 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. Int J Infect Dis.2022;122:647–55.
- 67. 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. Br J Dermatol. 2022;187(5):822–3. pmid:35822390
- 68. Mathieson T, Dulguerov N, Mermod M. Monkeypox mucosal lesions. IDCases. 2022;29:e01600. pmid:36032178
- 69. 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. J Infect Dis. 2017;216(7):824–8. pmid:29029147
- 70. 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 Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2022;71:1348–9. pmid:36264845
- 71. Menezes YR, Miranda AB. Severe disseminated clinical presentation of monkeypox virus infection in an immunosuppressed patient: first death report in Brazil. Rev Soc Bras Med Trop. 2022;55:e0392. pmid:36037315
- 72. 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 Med Infect Dis. 2022;49:102386. pmid:35738529
- 73. 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. Emerg Infect Dis. 2022;28(10):1982–9. pmid:35951009
- 74. 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. pmid:2895299
- 75. Muller MP, Mishra S, McGeer A, Patel S, Gubbay J, Hasso MM, et al. Environmental testing of surfaces in the room of a patient with monkeypox. Clin Infect Dis. 2022;76(1):179–81.
- 76. 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 Infect Dis. 2017;4(4):ofx168. pmid:29732376
- 77. Ng OT, Lee V, Marimuthu K, Vasoo S, Chan G, Lin RTP, et al. A case of imported monkeypox in Singapore. Lancet Infect Dis. 2019;19(11):1166. pmid:31657773
- 78. 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. 2022;51(1):265–70 pmid:35816222
- 79. 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. J Infection. 2022;86(1):e21–3 pmid:35995308
- 80. 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. Emerg Infect Dis. 2016;22(6):1014–21. pmid:27191380
- 81. 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. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2015;93(2):410–5. pmid:26013374
- 82. Ogoina D, Hendricks J, Aworabhi N, Yinka-Ogunleye AF, Etebu EN, Numbere W, et al. The 2017 monkeypox outbreak in Nigeria-report of outbreak experience and response in the Niger Delta University Teaching Hospital, Bayelsa State, Nigeria. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2018;99(4 Supplement):72–3.
- 83. Ogoina D, Yinka-Ogunleye A. Sexual history of human monkeypox patients seen at a tertiary hospital in Bayelsa, Nigeria. Int J STD AIDS. 2022;33(10):928–32
- 84. 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 Med Infect Dis. 2022;49:102395. pmid:35753658
- 85. 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. Ther Adv Infect Dis. 2022;9:20499361221117726. pmid:35910397
- 86. Paparizos V, Nicolaidou E, Tryfinopoulou K, Papa A, Rigopoulos D, Tsiodras S, et al. Monkeypox virus infection: first reported case in Greece in a patient with a genital rash. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2022;37(3):e350–1 pmid:35964288
- 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;378:e072410. pmid:35902115
- 88. Patrocinio-Jesus R, Peruzzu F. Monkeypox genital lesions. N Eng J Med. 2022;387(1):66. pmid:35704421
- 89. Peiró-Mestres A, Fuertes I, Camprubí-Ferrer D, Marcos MÁ, Vilella A, Navarro M, et al. Frequent detection of monkeypox virus DNA in saliva, semen, and other clinical samples from 12 patients, Barcelona, Spain, May to June 2022. Euro Surveill. 2022;27(28):2200503. pmid:35837964
- 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 Afr Med J. 2022;42:38. pmid:35910060
- 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 Surveill. 2022;27(22):2200424. pmid:35656830
- 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;51(2):483–7 pmid:35960457
- 93. Philpott D, Hughes CM, Alroy KA, Kerins JL, Pavlick J, Asbel L, et al. Epidemiologic and clinical characteristics of monkeypox cases—United States, May 17-July 22, 2022. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2022;71(32):1018–22. pmid:35951487
- 94. Pipitò L, Cascio A. Monkeypox virus infection and creatine phosphokinase increase: a case from Italy. Travel Med Infect Dis. 2022;50:102412. pmid:35970435
- 95. 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. medRxiv [Preprint]. 2022; Available from: https://doi.org/10.1101/2022.05.26.22273379
- 96. Portela-Dias J, Sereno S, Falcão-Reis I, Rasteiro C. Female monkeypox infection with localized genital lesions. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2022;227(6):906.
- 97. Quattri E, Avallone G, Maronese CA, Cusini M, Carrera CG, Marzano AV, et al. Unilesional monkeypox: a report of two cases from Italy. Travel Med Infect Dis. 2022;49:102424. pmid:35961491
- 98. 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. J Infect. 2022;85(4):436–80.
- 99. Rao AK, Schulte J, Chen TH, Hughes CM, Davidson W, Neff JM, et al. Monkeypox in a traveler returning from Nigeria—Dallas, Texas, July 2021. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2022;71(14):509–16. pmid:35389974
- 100. 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. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2013;88(5):982–5. pmid:23400570
- 101. 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. Emerg Infect Dis. 2019;25(5):1023–5. pmid:30753125
- 102. Sadeuh-Mba SA, Yonga MG, Els M, Batejat C, Eyangoh S, Caro V, et al. Monkeypox virus phylogenetic similarities between a human case detected in Cameroon in 2018 and the 2017–2018 outbreak in Nigeria. Infect Genet Evol. 2019;69:8–11. pmid:30634001
- 103. Salvato RS, Ikeda MLR, Barcellos RB, Godinho FM, Sesterheim P, Bitencourt LCB, et al. Possible occupational infection of healthcare workers with monkeypox virus, Brazil. Emerg Infect Dis. 2022;28(12):2520–3. pmid:36178142
- 104. 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. pmid:35963267
- 105. 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. Emerg Infect Dis. 2022;28(9):1847–51. pmid:35820165
- 106. Sukhdeo SS, Aldhaheri K, Lam PW, Walmsley S. A case of human monkeypox in Canada. CMAJ. 2022;194(29):E1031–5. pmid:35793837
- 107. Tan DHS, Jaeranny S, Li M, Sukhdeo SS, Monge JC, Callejas MF, et al. Atypical clinical presentation of monkeypox complicated by myopericarditis. Open Forum Infect Dis. 2022;9(8):ofac394. pmid:36043183
- 108. 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 Med Infect Dis. 2022;50:102431. pmid:36031146
- 109. 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. pmid:35952705
- 110. Thornhill JP, Barkati S, Walmsley S, Rockstroh J, Antinori A, Harrison LB, et al. Monkeypox virus infection in humans across 16 countries—April-June 2022. N Engl J Med. 2022;387(8):679–91. pmid:35866746
- 111. Torster L, Tegtmeyer J, Kött J, Christolouka M, Schneider SW. Localized monkeypox infestation in MSM on pre-exposure prophylaxis. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2022;37(3):e366–7. pmid:35993154
- 112. Turco M, Mancuso FR, Pisano L. A monkeypox virus infection mimicking primary syphilis. Br J Dermatol. 2022;187(6);e194–5. pmid:36005947
- 113. 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 Surveill. 2022;27(29):2200552. pmid:35866435
- 114. 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. J Infect. 2022;85(5):573–607. pmid:35987391
- 115. Vallée A, Farfour E, Zucman D. Monkeypox virus: a novel sexually transmitted disease? A case report from France. Travel Med Infect Dis. 2022;49:102394. pmid:35777659
- 116. 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 Surveill. 2018;23(38): 1800509. pmid:30255836
- 117. 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. Emerg Infect Dis. 2020;26(4):782–5. pmid:32023204
- 118. Veintimilla C, Catalán P, Alonso R, García de Viedma D, Pérez-Lago L, Palomo M, et al. The relevance of multiple clinical specimens in the diagnosis of monkeypox virus, Spain, June 2022. Euro Surveill 2022;27(33):2200598. pmid:35983771
- 119. 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. Emerg Infect Dis. 2022;28(10):2082–6. pmid:35960543
- 120. 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. J Infect Dis. 2021;223(11):1870–8. pmid:33728469
- 121. Yadav PD, Reghukumar A, Sahay RR, K S, Shete AM, Raman A, et al. First two cases of monkeypox virus infection in a traveller returned from UAE to India, July 2022. J Infect. 2022;85(5):e145–8.
- 122. 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. Int J Infect Dis. 2022;122:991–5. pmid:35902024
- 123. Yinka-Ogunleye A, Aruna O, Dalhat M, Ogoina D, McCollum A, Disu Y, et al. Outbreak of human monkeypox in Nigeria in 2017–18: a clinical and epidemiological report. Lancet Infect Dis. 2019;19(8):872–9. pmid:31285143
- 124. Yinka-Ogunleye A, Aruna O, Ogoina D, Aworabhi N, Eteng W, Badaru S, et al. Reemergence of human monkeypox in Nigeria, 2017. Emerg Infect Dis. 2018;24(6):1149–51. pmid:29619921
- 125. Yong SEF, Ng OT, Ho ZJM, Mak TM, Marimuthu K, Vasoo S, et al. Imported monkeypox, Singapore. Emerg Infect Dis. 2020;26(8):1826–30. pmid:32338590
- 126. Zlámal M, Bartovská Z, Burantová A, Zákoucká H, Jiřincová H, Chmel M, et al. Monkeypox and Herpes Simplex Virus Type 2 coinfection: case report of perianal lesions in HIV-positive patient. Sex Transm Dis. 2022;49(11):769–70. pmid:35948285
- 127. Erez N, Achdout H, Milrot E, Schwartz Y, Wiener-Well Y, Paran N, et al. Diagnosis of imported monkeypox, Israel, 2018. Emerg Infect Dis. 2019;25(5):980–3. pmid:30848724
- 128. Gould S, Atkinson B, Onianwa O, Spencer A, Furneaux J, Grieves J, et al. Air and surface sampling for monkeypox virus in a UK hospital: an observational study. Lancet Microbe. 2022;3(12):e904–11. pmid:36215984
- 129. 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. 2022;4(1):e21–8. pmid:36436538
- 130. 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. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2020;104(2):604–11. pmid:33289470
- 131. Rimoin AW, Kisalu N, Kebela-Ilunga B, Mukaba T, Wright LL, Formenty P, et al. Endemic human monkeypox, Democratic Republic of Congo, 2001–2004. Emerg Infect Dis. 2007;13(6):934–7. pmid:17553242
- 132. 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. Environ Microbiol. 2022;24(10):4561–9. pmid:35837859
- 133. 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 Surveill. 2022;27(26):2200477. pmid:35775427
- 134. 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 Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2022;71(34):1092–4. pmid:36006842
- 135. Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Sultan S, Glasziou P, Akl EA, Alonso-Coello P, et al. GRADE guidelines: 9. Rating up the quality of evidence. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011;64(12):1311–6. pmid:21802902
- 136. Beer EM, Rao VB. A systematic review of the epidemiology of human monkeypox outbreaks and implications for outbreak strategy. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2019;13(10):e0007791. pmid:31618206
- 137. Centres for Disease Prevention and Control (CDC). Clinical considerations for mpox in children and adolescents.2023 [updated 1 September 2023]. Available from: https://www.cdc.gov/poxvirus/mpox/clinicians/pediatric.html
- 138. Marshall KE, Barton M, Nichols J, de Perio MA, Kuhar DT, Spence-Davizon E, et al. Health care personnel exposures to subsequently laboratory-confirmed monkeypox patients—Colorado, 2022. Am J Transplant. 2022;22(11):2699–703. pmid:36346086
- 139.
World Health Organization (WHO). Clinical management and infection prevention and control for monkeypox: interim rapid response guidance. World Health Organization; 2022. 10 June 2022. Available from https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/WHO-MPX-Clinical-and-IPC-2022.1.