Search

Monkeypox is a zoonosis that is spread mainly through direct contact with fluids and skin lesions of infected people with vesicles still active. Although the virus was isolated for the first time in 1958 and the first human case was identified in a child in 1970, in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, the disease has progressively increased its incidence in Africa reaching in May 2022 sustained transmission outside this continent. As it is a newly introduced virus in our health system, it is necessary to learn the epidemiological pattern in a different environment from that of traditionally endemic areas and to know the available antiviral treatments, as well as the prophylactic measures that could be considered, knowing that as a virus emerging in our regions, scientific evidence is still limited. There are antivirals that have been shown, in animal models, to effectively combat the disease with very good clinical tolerance. This disease has also forced us to review the characteristics of smallpox vaccines, because they have shown a protective effect against monkeypox. For this reason, it is important to have a document that compiles all the scientific information published in this regard.

BACKGROUND In April 2020, two independent clinical trials to assess SARS-CoV-2 prophylaxis strategies among health care workers were initiated at our hospital: MeCOVID (melatonin vs placebo) and EPICOS (tenofovir disoproxil/emtricitabine vs hydroxychloroquine vs combination therapy vs placebo). OBJECTIVE This study aimed to evaluate the reasons why health care workers chose to participate in the MeCOVID and EPICOS trials, as well as why they chose one over the other. METHODS Both trials were offered to health care workers through an internal news bulletin. After an initial screening visit, all subjects were asked to respond to a web-based survey. RESULTS In the first month, 206 health care workers were screened and 160 were randomized. The survey participation was high at 73.3%. Health care workers cited “to contribute to scientific knowledge” (n=80, 53.0%), followed by “to avoid SARS-CoV-2 infection” (n=33, 21.9%) and “the interest to be tested for SARS-CoV-2” (n=28, 18.5%), as their primary reasons to participate in the trials. We observed significant differences in the expected personal benefits across physicians and nurses (P=.01). The vast majority of volunteers (n=202, 98.0%) selected the MeCOVID trial, their primary reason being their concern regarding adverse reactions to treatments in the EPICOS trial (n=102, 69.4%). CONCLUSIONS Health care workers’ reasons to participate in prophylaxis trials in an acute pandemic context appear to be driven largely by their desire to contribute to science and to gain health benefits. Safety outweighed efficacy when choosing between the two clinical trials.

Truvada is the coformulation of tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF; 300 mg) and emtricitabine (FTC; 200 mg) in a single tablet, providing the nucleotide backbone for once-daily dosing, as a component of highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART). TDF (the bioavailable prodrug of tenofovir) is hydrolyzed to tenofovir intracellularly and phosphorylated to the active metabolite, tenofovir diphosphate. Tenofovir is a nucleotide analog of deoxyadenosine monophosphate, with activity against HIV-1, -2 and hepatitis B virus. FTC, the fluorinated derivative of lamivudine, is an analog of deoxycitidine, active against HIV-1, -2 and hepatitis B virus. Their long half-lives in plasma and in peripheral blood mononuclear cells allow once-daily dosing. Both are eliminated renally. Resistance mutation K65R is selected for by tenofovir and confers a two- to fourfold reduced susceptibility to this drug. The incidence of K65R is low (3%) and has not been observed in clinical trials with the concomitant use of tenofovir and FTC. FTC selects for M184V mutation less frequently than lamivudine. Tenofovir drug interactions include increased exposure to didanosine and inferior immune recovery that preclude their concomitant use. Boosted protease inhibitors increase exposure to tenofovir without dose adjustment required. FTC has no significant drug interactions. They are not metabolized by cytochrome P450, which confers little potential for interactions with drugs metabolized by these enzymes. As tenofovir and FTC are renally eliminated, drugs eliminated by tubular secretion must be avoided. Both antiretrovirals, as individual agents and in coadministration have evidenced antiviral potency in clinical trials. Pivotal study 934 evidenced superior efficacy of the combination TDF/FTC/efavirenz (EFV) versus zidovudine/FTC/EFV. The toxicity profile of tenofovir and FTC has been extensively studied. Lipid profile is more favorable with tenofovir than thymidine analog. Tenofovir requires surveillance of glomerular filtration rate and dosing interval adjustment when creatinine clearance is less than 50 ml/min and avoidance less than 30 ml/min. Fat loss is less likely with tenofovir than with thymidine analog. Clinical trials have assessed the performance of the coformulation of TDF and FTC.