Availability, scope and quality of monkeypox clinical management guidelines globally : a systematic review

This work was supported by the UK Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office and Wellcome (215091/Z/18/Z) and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (OPP1209135). The GloPID-R Secretariat is a project that receives funding from the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement No 874667. SL is an MRC Clinical Research Training fellow (MR/T001151/1).Background Monkeypox (MPX) is an important human Orthopoxvirus infection. There has been an increase in MPX cases and outbreaks in endemic and non-endemic regions in recent decades. We appraised the availability, scope, quality and inclusivity of clinical management guidelines for MPX globally. Methods For this systematic review, we searched six databases from inception until 14 October 2021, augmented by a grey literature search until 17 May 2022. MPX guidelines providing treatment and supportive care recommendations were included, with no exclusions for language. Two reviewers assessed the guidelines. Quality was assessed using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II tool. Results Of 2026 records screened, 14 guidelines were included. Overall, most guidelines were of low-quality with a median score of 2 out of 7 (range: 1–7), lacked detail and covered a narrow range of topics. Most guidelines focused on adults, five (36%) provided some advice for children, three (21%) for pregnant women and three (21%) for people living with HIV. Treatment guidance was mostly limited to advice on antivirals; seven guidelines advised cidofovir (four specified for severe MPX only); 29% (4/14) tecovirimat, and 7% (1/14) brincidofovir. Only one guideline provided recommendations on supportive care and treatment of complications. All guidelines recommended vaccination as post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP). Three guidelines advised on vaccinia immune globulin as PEP for severe cases in people with immunosuppression. Conclusion Our results highlight a lack of evidence-based clinical management guidelines for MPX globally. There is a clear and urgent need for research into treatment and prophylaxis including for different risk populations. The current outbreak provides an opportunity to accelerate this research through coordinated high-quality studies. New evidence should be incorporated into globally accessible guidelines, to benefit patient and epidemic outcomes. A ‘living guideline’ framework is recommended. PROSPERO registration number CRD42020167361.Publisher PDFPeer reviewe

An evaluation of global Chikungunya clinical management guidelines: A systematic review.

Background Chikungunya virus (CHIKV) has expanded its geographical reach in recent decades and is an emerging global health threat. CHIKV can cause significant morbidity and lead to chronic, debilitating arthritis/arthralgia in up to 40% of infected individuals. Prevention, early identification, and clinical management are key for improving outcomes. The aim of this review is to evaluate the quality, availability, inclusivity, and scope of evidence-based clinical management guidelines (CMG) for CHIKV globally. Methods We conducted a systematic review. Six databases were searched from Jan 1, 1989, to 14 Oct 2021 and grey literature until Sept 16, 2021, for CHIKV guidelines providing supportive care and treatment recommendations. Quality was assessed using the appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation tool. Findings are presented in a narrative synthesis. PROSPERO registration: CRD42020167361. Findings 28 CMGs were included; 54% (15/28) were produced more than 5 years ago, and most were of low-quality (median score 2 out of 7 (range 1–7)). There were variations in the CMGs’ guidance on the management of different at-risk populations, long-term sequelae, and the prevention of disease transmission. While 54% (15/28) of CMGs recommended hospitalisation for severe cases, only 39% (11/28) provided guidance for severe disease management. Further, 46% (13/28) advocated for steroids in the chronic phase, but 18% (5/28) advised against its use. Interpretation There was a lack of high-quality CMGs that provided supportive care and treatment guidance, which may impact patient care and outcomes. It is essential that existing guidelines are updated and adapted to provide detailed evidence-based treatment guidelines for different at-risk populations. This study also highlights a need for more research into the management of the acute and chronic phases of CHIKV infection to inform evidence-based care

Prevalence of vitamin D deficiency in HIV-positive, antiretroviral treatment-naïve patients in a single centre study.

The objective of this study was to describe the prevalence of vitamin D deficiency among antiretroviral treatment-naïve, HIV-positive individuals. We reviewed records of consecutive antiretroviral treatment-naïve patients, registering for care for the first time at a London clinic from 01 January 2008 to 31 December 2009. During this period, serum 25-hydroxycholecalciferol was measured routinely for all new patients. 25-hydroxycholecalciferol deficiency and severe deficiency were defined as ≤50 and ≤25 nmol/L, respectively. Among 253 patients (82% men, median age 36 years, 64% white ethnicity), 148 (58.5%) were 25-hydroxycholecalciferol-deficient, including 32 (12.6%) who were severely deficient. In all, 73.5% (61/83) patients of non-white ethnicity were 25-hydroxycholecalciferol-deficient compared with 50.7% (76/150) of those reporting white ethnicity (p < 0.001). Seven of eight (87.5%) patients with hypocalcaemia (<2.12 nmol/L) were 25-hydroxycholecalciferol-deficient. The prevalence of 25-hydroxycholecalciferol-deficiency was higher in winter and spring vs. summer and autumn (89/129 [69.0%] vs. 59/124 [47.6%],p < 0.001). Serum 25-hydroxycholecalciferol deficiency was not associated with gender, CD4 count, HIV viral load or clinical stage. Serum 25-hydroxycholecalciferol deficiency was common among antiretroviral treatment-naïve patients, with those of non-white ethnicity at highest risk. CD4 count, HIV viral load and HIV clinical staging do not help to identify those at risk, but low serum calcium should prompt investigation of 25-hydroxycholecalciferol levels