Abstract Background Mpox was declared a Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC) by the World Health Organization (WHO) on 23 July 2022, following the identification of thousands of cases in several non‐endemic countries in previous months. There are currently no licenced therapeutics for treating mpox; however, some medications may be authorized for use in an outbreak. The efficacy and safety of possible therapeutic options has not been studied in humans with mpox. There is a need to investigate the evidence on safety and effectiveness of treatments for mpox in humans; should any therapeutic option be efficacious and safe, it may be approved for use around the world. Objectives There are two parts to this Cochrane Review: a review of evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs), and a narrative review of safety data from non‐randomized studies. Randomized controlled trials review To systematically review the existing evidence on the effectiveness of therapeutics for mpox infection in humans compared to: a) another different therapeutic for mpox, or b) placebo, or c) supportive care, defined as the treatment of physical and psychological symptoms arising from the disease. Non‐randomized studies review To assess the safety of therapeutics for mpox infection from non‐randomized studies (NRS). Search methods Randomized controlled trials review We searched the following databases up to 25 January 2023: MEDLINE (OVID), Embase (OVID), Biosis previews (Web of Science), CAB Abstracts (Web of science), and Cochrane CENTRAL (Issue 1 2023). We conducted a search of trial registries (Clinicaltrials.gov and International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP)) on 25 January 2023. There were no date or language limits placed on the search. We undertook a call to experts in the field for relevant studies or ongoing trials to be considered for inclusion in the review. Non‐randomized studies review We searched the following databases on 22 September 2022: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; Issue 9 of 12, 2022), published in the Cochrane Library; MEDLINE (Ovid); Embase (Ovid); and Scopus (Elsevier). We also searched the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and ClinicalTrials.gov for trials in progress. Selection criteria For the RCT review and the narrative review, any therapeutic for the treatment of mpox in humans was eligible for inclusion, including tecovirimat, brincidofovir, cidofovir, NIOCH‐14, immunomodulators, and vaccine immune globulin. Randomized controlled trials review Studies were eligible for the main review if they were of randomized controlled design and investigated the effectiveness or safety of therapeutics in human mpox infection. Non‐randomized studies review Studies were eligible for inclusion in the review of non‐randomized studies if they were of non‐randomized design and contained data concerning the safety of any therapeutic in human mpox infection. Data collection and analysis Randomized controlled trials review Two review authors independently applied study inclusion criteria to identify eligible studies. If we had identified any eligible studies, we planned to assess the risk of bias, and report results with 95% confidence intervals (CI). The critical outcomes were serious adverse events, development of disease‐related complications, admission to hospital for non‐hospitalized participants, pain as judged by any visual or numerical pain scale, level of virus detected in clinical samples, time to healing of all skin lesions, and mortality. We planned to perform subgroup analysis to explore whether the effect of the therapeutic on the planned outcomes was modified by disease severity and days from symptom onset to therapeutic administration. We also intended to explore the following subgroups of absolute effects: immunosuppression, age, and pre‐existing skin disease. Non‐randomized studies review One review author applied study inclusion criteria to identify eligible studies and extracted data. Studies of a non‐randomized design containing data on the safety of therapeutics could not be meta‐analyzed due to the absence of a comparator; we summarized these data narratively in an appendix. Main results Randomized controlled trials review We did not identify any completed RCTs investigating the effectiveness of therapeutics for treating mpox for the main review. We identified five ongoing trials that plan to assess the effectiveness of one therapeutic option, tecovirimat, for treating mpox in adults and children. One of these ongoing trials intends to include populations with, or at greater risk of, severe disease, which will allow an assessment of safety in more vulnerable populations. Non‐randomized studies review Three non‐randomized studies met the inclusion criteria for the narrative review, concerning data on the safety of therapeutics in mpox. Very low‐certainty evidence from non‐randomized studies of small numbers of people indicates no serious safety signals emerging for the use of tecovirimat in people with mpox infection, but a possible safety signal for brincidofovir. All three participants who received brincidofovir had raised alanine aminotransferase (ALT), but not bilirubin, suggesting mild liver injury. No study reported severe drug‐induced liver injury with brincidofovir. Authors' conclusions Randomized controlled trials review This review found no evidence from randomized controlled trials concerning the efficacy and safety of therapeutics in humans with mpox. Non‐randomized studies review Very low‐certainty evidence from non‐randomized studies indicates no serious safety signals emerging for the use of tecovirimat in people with mpox infection. In contrast, very low‐certainty evidence raises a safety signal that brincidofovir may cause liver injury. This is also suggested by indirect evidence from brincidofovir use in smallpox. This warrants further investigation and monitoring. This Cochrane Review will be updated as new evidence becomes available to assist policymakers, health professionals, and consumers in making appropriate decisions for the treatment of mpox.
[1]
P. Earl,et al.
Virulence Differences of Monkeypox Virus Clades 1, 2a and 2b.1 in a Small Animal Model
,
2022,
bioRxiv.
[2]
Yuki Kataoka,et al.
Lack of clinical evidence of antiviral therapy for human monkeypox: A scoping review
,
2022,
Journal of infection and chemotherapy : official journal of the Japan Society of Chemotherapy.
[3]
K. O'Laughlin,et al.
Clinical Use of Tecovirimat (Tpoxx) for Treatment of Monkeypox Under an Investigational New Drug Protocol — United States, May–August 2022
,
2022,
MMWR. Morbidity and mortality weekly report.
[4]
J. Lorenzo,et al.
The impact of monkeypox outbreak on mental health and counteracting strategies: A call to action
,
2022,
International Journal of Surgery.
[5]
P. Horby,et al.
Monkeypox treatment with tecovirimat in the Central African Republic under an Expanded Access Programme
,
2022,
medRxiv.
[6]
Joseph Sassine,et al.
Antivirals With Activity Against Mpox: A Clinically Oriented Review
,
2022,
Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America.
[7]
D. Chilton,et al.
Clinical features and novel presentations of human monkeypox in a central London centre during the 2022 outbreak: descriptive case series
,
2022,
BMJ.
[8]
F. Nolent,et al.
Tecovirimat is highly efficient on the Monkeypox virus lineage responsible for the international 2022 outbreak
,
2022,
bioRxiv.
[9]
R. Byrne,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
,
2022,
The Lancet. Infectious diseases.
[10]
Jennifer L. Small,et al.
Clinical features and management of human monkeypox: a retrospective observational study in the UK
,
2022,
The Lancet. Infectious diseases.
[11]
C. Ihekweazu,et al.
A case of suicide during the 2017 monkeypox outbreak in Nigeria
,
2022,
IJID Regions.
[12]
Charles D. Waters,et al.
Broad spectrum antiviral nucleosides—Our best hope for the future
,
2021,
Annual Reports in Medicinal Chemistry.
[13]
Y. Nakazawa,et al.
Pharmacokinetics and Efficacy of a Potential Smallpox Therapeutic, Brincidofovir, in a Lethal Monkeypox Virus Animal Model
,
2021,
mSphere.
[14]
V. B. Rao,et al.
A systematic review of the epidemiology of human monkeypox outbreaks and implications for outbreak strategy
,
2019,
PLoS neglected tropical diseases.
[15]
Natalie S Blencowe,et al.
RoB 2: a revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials
,
2019,
BMJ.
[16]
T. Karlsen,et al.
EASL Clinical Practice Guidelines: Drug-induced liver injury.
,
2019,
Journal of hepatology.
[17]
Joyce Yu,et al.
Efficacy of three key antiviral drugs used to treat orthopoxvirus infections: a systematic review
,
2019,
Global Biosecurity.
[18]
Sheridan M. Hoy.
Tecovirimat: First Global Approval
,
2018,
Drugs.
[19]
D. Hruby,et al.
Oral Tecovirimat for the Treatment of Smallpox
,
2018,
The New England journal of medicine.
[20]
R. Lanier,et al.
The Role of Brincidofovir in Preparation for a Potential Smallpox Outbreak
,
2017,
Viruses.
[21]
Y. Nakazawa,et al.
Characterization of Monkeypox virus infection in African rope squirrels (Funisciurus sp.)
,
2017,
PLoS neglected tropical diseases.
[22]
Robert T. Krile,et al.
Efficacy of delayed brincidofovir treatment against a lethal rabbitpox virus challenge in New Zealand White rabbits
,
2017,
Antiviral research.
[23]
G. Guyatt,et al.
When and how to update systematic reviews: consensus and checklist
,
2016,
British Medical Journal.
[24]
A. A. Sergeev,et al.
New effective chemically synthesized anti-smallpox compound NIOCH-14.
,
2016,
The Journal of general virology.
[25]
L. Trost,et al.
The efficacy and pharmacokinetics of brincidofovir for the treatment of lethal rabbitpox virus infection: a model of smallpox disease.
,
2015,
Antiviral research.
[26]
R. Jordan,et al.
Effective Antiviral Treatment of Systemic Orthopoxvirus Disease: ST-246 Treatment of Prairie Dogs Infected with Monkeypox Virus
,
2011,
Journal of Virology.
[27]
M. Molokhia,et al.
Case Definition and Phenotype Standardization in Drug‐Induced Liver Injury
,
2011,
Clinical pharmacology and therapeutics.
[28]
G. Andrei,et al.
Cidofovir Activity against Poxvirus Infections
,
2010,
Viruses.
[29]
Barney S. Graham,et al.
Major increase in human monkeypox incidence 30 years after smallpox vaccination campaigns cease in the Democratic Republic of Congo
,
2010,
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
[30]
Chelsea M. Byrd,et al.
ST-246 Antiviral Efficacy in a Nonhuman Primate Monkeypox Model: Determination of the Minimal Effective Dose and Human Dose Justification
,
2009,
Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy.
[31]
M. Siirin,et al.
Efficacy of the antipoxvirus compound ST-246 for treatment of severe orthopoxvirus infection.
,
2007,
The American journal of tropical medicine and hygiene.
[32]
R. Wittek.
Vaccinia immune globulin: current policies, preparedness, and product safety and efficacy.
,
2006,
International journal of infectious diseases : IJID : official publication of the International Society for Infectious Diseases.
[33]
M. Gerkovich,et al.
Biological Activity of an Intravenous Preparation of Human Vaccinia Immune Globulin in Mouse Models of Vaccinia Virus Infection
,
2005,
Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy.
[34]
E. Kern,et al.
In vitro activity of potential anti-poxvirus agents
,
2003,
Antiviral research.
[35]
E. De Clercq.
Cidofovir in the treatment of poxvirus infections
,
2002,
Antiviral research.