Search

Introduction The recent apparent increase in human monkeypox cases across a wide geographical area, the potential for further spread and the lack of reliable surveillance, have raised the level of [...]

The unprecedented epidemic of Ebola virus disease (Ebola) in West Africa highlights the need for stronger systems for disease surveillance, response, and prevention worldwide. After a preventable and costly local [...]

Chinese writings from 1122 boe contain references to smallpox-like disease, and it has been hypothesized that smallpox caused the death of Ramses V in Egypt in ≅ 1157 boe because [...]

Currently, no Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved treatments for human monkeypox are available. Tecovirimat (Tpoxx), however, is an antiviral drug that has demonstrated efficacy in animal studies and is FDA-approved for treating smallpox. Use of tecovirimat for treatment of monkeypox in the United States is permitted only through an FDA-regulated Expanded Access Investigational New Drug (EA-IND) mechanism. CDC holds a nonresearch EA-IND protocol that facilitates access to and use of tecovirimat for treatment of monkeypox.§ The protocol includes patient treatment and adverse event reporting forms to monitor safety and ensure intended clinical use in accordance with FDA EA-IND requirements. The current multinational monkeypox outbreak, first detected in a country where Monkeypox virus infection is not endemic in May 2022, has predominantly affected gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men (MSM) (1,2). To describe characteristics of persons treated with tecovirimat for Monkeypox virus infection, demographic and clinical data abstracted from available tecovirimat EA-IND treatment forms were analyzed. As of August 20, 2022, intake and outcome forms were available for 549 and 369 patients, respectively; 97.7% of patients were men, with a median age of 36.5 years. Among patients with available data, 38.8% were reported to be non-Hispanic White (White) persons, 99.8% were prescribed oral tecovirimat, and 93.1% were not hospitalized. Approximately one half of patients with Monkeypox virus infection who received tecovirimat were living with HIV infection. The median interval from initiation of tecovirimat to subjective improvement was 3 days and did not differ by HIV infection status. Adverse events were reported in 3.5% of patients; all but one adverse event were nonserious. These data support the continued access to and treatment with tecovirimat for patients with or at risk for severe disease in the ongoing monkeypox outbreak. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Monkeypox is caused by a member of the genus Orthopoxvirus, first identified as the cause of disease in captive cynomolgus monkeys in 1959 (1). Twelve years later, the virus was [...]

Sealpox is a zoonotic disease of seals and sea lions (pinnipeds) and can be a complication of animals undergoing rehabilitation (1-4). The virus has been confirmed in free-ranging pinnipeds in [...]

Vaccinia virus (VACV) is the virus used in the live vaccine against smallpox. Smallpox was declared eradicated by the World Health Organization in 1980 (1), and routine childhood smallpox vaccination [...]

For the 2003 monkeypox virus (MPXV) outbreak in the United States, interhuman transmission was not documented and all case-patients were near or handled MPXV-infected prairie dogs. We initiated a case--control [...]

We determined factors associated with occupational transmission in Wisconsin during the 2003 outbreak of prairie dog--associated monkeypox virus infections. Our investigation included active contact surveillance, exposure-related interviews, and a veterinary [...]

Although the World Health Organization (WHO) declared global smallpox eradicated in 1980, concerns over emergent poxvirus infections have increased. Most poxvirus infections are zoonotic; exploring their genetic diversity will illuminate [...]

We report a case of ocular vaccinia infection in an unvaccinated laboratory worker. The patient was infected by a unique strain used in an experiment performed partly outside a biosafety [...]

During May and June 2003, the first cluster of human monkeypox cases in the United States was reported. Most patients with this febrile vesicular rash illness presumably acquired the infection [...]

Bat species worldwide have been implicated as reservoirs for several emerging viruses, such as lyssaviruses, henipahviruses, severe acute respiratory syndrome-associated coronaviruses, and filoviruses. Bats have several physiologic, cellular, and natural [...]

Abstract Background Maps of disease occurrences and GIS-based models of disease transmission risk are increasingly common, and both rely on georeferenced diseases data. Automated methods for georeferencing disease data have been widely studied for developed countries with rich sources of geographic referenced data. However, the transferability of these methods to countries without comparable geographic reference data, particularly when working with historical disease data, has not been as widely studied. Historically, precise geographic information about where individual cases occur has been collected and stored verbally, identifying specific locations using place names. Georeferencing historic data is challenging however, because it is difficult to find appropriate geographic reference data to match the place names to. Here, we assess the degree of care and research invested in converting textual descriptions of disease occurrence locations to numerical grid coordinates (latitude and longitude). Specifically, we develop three datasets from the same, original monkeypox disease occurrence data, with varying levels of care and effort: the first based on an automated web-service, the second improving on the first by reference to additional maps and digital gazetteers, and the third improving still more based on extensive consultation of legacy surveillance records that provided considerable additional information about each case. To illustrate the implications of these seemingly subtle improvements in data quality, we develop ecological niche models and predictive maps of monkeypox transmission risk based on each of the three occurrence data sets. Results We found macrogeographic variations in ecological niche models depending on the type of georeferencing method used. Less-careful georeferencing identified much smaller areas as having potential for monkeypox transmission in the Sahel region, as well as around the rim of the Congo Basin. These results have implications for mapping efforts, as each higher level of georeferencing precision required considerably greater time investment. Conclusions The importance of careful georeferencing cannot be overlooked, despite it being a time- and labor-intensive process. Investment in archival storage of primary disease-occurrence data is merited, and improved digital gazetteers are needed to support public health mapping activities, particularly in developing countries, where maps and geographic information may be sparse.

Abstract Background Orthopoxviruses, including variola virus, vaccinia virus, and monkeypox virus, have previously been documented in humans in West Africa, however, no cases of human orthopoxvirus infection have been reported in the region since 1986. We conducted a serosurvey to determine whether human exposure to orthopoxviruses continues to occur in eastern Sierra Leone. Findings To examine evidence of exposure to orthopoxviruses in the Kenema District of Sierra Leone, we collected and tested sera from 1596 persons by IgG ELISA and a subset of 313 by IgM capture ELISA. Eleven persons born after the cessation of smallpox vaccination had high orthopoxvirus-specific IgG values, and an additional 6 persons had positive IgM responses. No geographic clustering was noted. Conclusions These data suggest that orthopoxviruses continue to circulate in Sierra Leone. Studies aimed at obtaining orthopoxvirus isolates and/or genetic sequences from rodents and symptomatic humans in the area are indicated.

Abstract The prevalence of North American orthopoxviruses in nature is unknown and may be more difficult to ascertain due to wide spread use of vaccinia virus recombinant vaccines in the wild. A real time PCR assay was developed to allow for highly sensitive and specific detection of North American orthopoxvirus DNA in animal tissues and bodily fluids. This method is based on the amplification of a 156 bp sequence within a myristylated protein, highly conserved within the North American orthopoxviruses but distinct from orthologous genes present in other orthopoxviruses. The analytical sensitivity was 1.1 fg for Volepox virus DNA, 1.99 fg for Skunkpox virus DNA, and 6.4 fg for Raccoonpox virus DNA with a 95% confidence interval. Our assay did not cross-react with other orthopoxviruses or ten diverse representatives of the Chordopoxvirinae subfamily. This new assay showed more sensitivity than tissue culture tests, and was capable of differentiating North American orthopoxviruses from other members of Orthopoxvirus. Thus, our assay is a promising tool for highly sensitive and specific detection of North American orthopoxviruses in the United States and abroad.

On 17 August 2004, 5 Gambian rats (Cricetomys gambianus; 2 males and 3 females) were collected on Grassy Key, Florida. Evidence obtained from this collection confirms the existence of the 1st North American established and reproducing Cricetomys population. This invasive rodent population could represent a new series of ecological threats to the native and endemic flora and fauna of southern Florida. Key words: Cricetomys, Florida Keys, Gambian rat, invasive species, zoonoses

Abstract Background In order to determine how best to tailor outreach messages about poxvirus diagnosis and infection control for health practitioners, we surveyed infectious disease physicians in the Infectious Diseases Society of America's Emerging Infections Network. Findings Surveys consisting of two unknown case scenarios designed to raise suspicion for monkeypox and orf were distributed to the 1,080 members of the EIN. The surveys contained questions pertaining to which diagnostic tests, points of contact, and transmission precautions they would likely utilize during patient evaluation. Basic response rates and frequencies of responses were calculated. Comparisons of the survey responses were made using the chi-square test. Of the 212 members who responded (20% response rate), significantly more respondents indicated that they would request diagnostic testing in the context of the monkeypox case scenario as compared to the orf case scenario. A significantly higher number of respondents indicated they would institute droplet or airborne precautions for the monkeypox case as opposed to the orf case scenario. Conclusions This survey provided an opportunity for public health practitioners to gain insight into physician approaches to evaluation, diagnosis and reporting of suspected poxvirus-associated infections. This survey identified key areas in which public health practitioners can better serve physicians by focusing on education. As a result we were able to identify potential knowledge gaps and deficits in the availability of useful resources to facilitate accurate case identification and management.