Monkeypox Infection

Escudero-Tornero, Rafael; Sobral-Costas, Tristán-Gabriel; Servera-Negre, Guillermo

doi:10.1001/jamadermatol.2022.3975

Cited by 8 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 3 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The process is outlined in the PRISMA flow diagram labelled figure 1. Among the 33 papers, 14 studies were case studies on either one patient or a group of patients,44–46 48 51–60 3 studies were prospective43 47 61 and 9 studies were retrospective 13 40 41 62–67. Seven studies did not meet the study design for the three categories 42 68–73.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Mpox gastrointestinal manifestations: a systematic review

Ramakrishnan,

Shenoy,

Madhavan

et al. 2024

BMJ Open Gastroenterol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

IntroductionMpox is a viral infection caused by the monkeypox virus, a member of the Poxviridae family and Orthopoxvirus genus. Other well-known viruses of the Orthopoxvirus genus include the variola virus (smallpox), cowpox virus and vaccinia virus. Although there is a plethora of research regarding the dermatological and influenza-like symptoms of mpox, particularly following the 2022 mpox outbreak, more research is needed on the gastrointestinal (GI) effects.ObjectivesThis systematic review is to outline the GI manifestations of the monkeypox virus.MethodsThe authors conducted this systematic review using guidelines outlined in the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses. A search was conducted through the PubMed, EMBASE and MEDLINE databases from January 1958 to June 2023. The authors selected English language papers that discussed the GI symptoms in mpox patients. A manual search was also conducted in the reference sections of these publications for other relevant papers.Results33 papers involving 830 patients were selected for this review. The GI manifestations in mpox patients are proctitis, vomiting, diarrhoea, rectal pain, nausea, tenesmus, rectal bleeding and abdominal pain. Although various papers explored transmission routes, one paper established a direct connection between anal-receptive sex transmission route and the development of a GI complication (proctitis). Another study reported that the mode of transmission could potentially impact the occurrence of GI symptoms and severity of the disease. The reviewed papers did not discover a relation between the severity of dermatological and influenza-like symptoms and the GI manifestations mentioned.ConclusionThis systematic review confirms that GI manifestations are observed in mpox patients. GI symptoms of mpox are crucial for gastroenterologists and other healthcare professionals to recognise in order to address patient discomfort and further understand the pathophysiology of the virus.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Mpox gastrointestinal manifestations: a systematic review

Ramakrishnan,

Shenoy,

Madhavan

et al. 2024

BMJ Open Gastroenterol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The majority of cases of mpox infection reasonably concluded by review authors to have resulted from a single transmission route occurred through direct physical sexual contact (13, 14, 18, 20, 22, 23, 25, 26, 27, 33, 34, 36, 37, 39, 40, 42, 44, 45, 47, 48, 51, 58, 59, 60, 61, 63, 64, 65, 67, 68, 71, 72, 78, 79, 83, 85, 86, 87, 88, 92, 93, 96, 97, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 109, 110, 111, 112, 114, 115, 119, 126) (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).…”

Section: Number Of Incident Cases By Route Of Transmissionmentioning

confidence: 98%

“…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, 54, 55, 56, 62, 66, 69, 73, 74, 76, 77, 80, 81, 82, 83, 95, 99, 100, 101, 102, 116, 117, 120, 123, 124, 125) and 75 studies were published during 2022 (13, 14, 17, 18, 20, 22, 23, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 33, 34, 36, 37, 39, 40, 41, 42, 44, 45, 47, 48, 51, 52, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 63, 64, 65, 67, 68, 70, 71, 72, 75, 78, 79, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, <...…”

Section: Included Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…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, 54, 55, 56, 62, 66, 69, 73, 74, 76, 77, 80, 81, 82, 83, 90, 95, 99, 100, 101, 102, 116, 120, 123, 124, 125), 1 study from the Eastern Mediterranean Region (121), 48 studies from Europe (13, 14, 18, 20, 22, 23, 25, 26, 27, 28, 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, 112, 113, 114, 115, 122, 126), 8 studies from North America (17,46, 64, 70, 85, 93, 106, 107), and 3 ...…”

Section: Included Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

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

Kuehn

Fox

Guyatt

et al. 2023

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

“…1 By contrast, most patients of the new outbreak are men self-identified as men who have sex with men, presenting usually with a mild disease, with predominant genital and perianal involvement, consistent with sexual exposure as has been reported, and raising the possibility of sexual transmission as the main route of spreading. 3,4 The diagnosis of monkeypox is confirmed by the detection of virus DNA by PCR in skin lesions, but it can also be detected in blood, nasopharyngeal, urine, semen, or rectal samples. Skin biopsy is another diagnostic tool.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%