Clinical characteristics and comparison of longitudinal qPCR results from different specimen types in a cohort of ambulatory and hospitalized patients infected with monkeypox virus.
Clinical cohort
Clinical specimens
Monkeypox virus
Viral load kinetics
qPCR
Journal
Journal of clinical virology : the official publication of the Pan American Society for Clinical Virology
ISSN: 1873-5967
Titre abrégé: J Clin Virol
Pays: Netherlands
ID NLM: 9815671
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
10 2022
10 2022
Historique:
received:
09
07
2022
revised:
03
08
2022
accepted:
06
08
2022
pubmed:
4
9
2022
medline:
9
9
2022
entrez:
3
9
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
The ongoing monkeypox virus outbreak includes at least 7553 confirmed cases in previously non-endemic countries worldwide as of July 2022. Clinical presentation has been reported as highly variable, sometimes lacking classically described systemic symptoms, and only small numbers of cutaneous lesions in most patients. The aim of this study was to compare clinical data with longitudinal qPCR results from lesion swabs, oropharyngeal swabs and blood in a well characterized patient cohort. 16 male patients (5 hospitalized, 11 outpatients) were included in the study cohort and serial testing for monkeypox virus-DNA carried out in various materials throughout the course of disease. Laboratory analysis included quantitative PCR, next-generation sequencing, immunofluorescence tests and virus isolation in cell culture. All patients were male, between age 20 and 60, and self-identified as men having sex with men. Two had a known HIV infection, coinciding with an increased number of lesions and viral DNA detectable in blood. In initial- and serial testing, lesion swabs yielded viral DNA-loads at, or above 10 The data presented underscore the reliability of lesion swabs for monkeypox virus-detection, even in later stages of the disease. Oropharyngeal swabs and blood samples alone carry the risk of false negative results, but may hold value in pre-/asymptomatic cases or viral load monitoring, respectively.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
The ongoing monkeypox virus outbreak includes at least 7553 confirmed cases in previously non-endemic countries worldwide as of July 2022. Clinical presentation has been reported as highly variable, sometimes lacking classically described systemic symptoms, and only small numbers of cutaneous lesions in most patients. The aim of this study was to compare clinical data with longitudinal qPCR results from lesion swabs, oropharyngeal swabs and blood in a well characterized patient cohort.
METHODS
16 male patients (5 hospitalized, 11 outpatients) were included in the study cohort and serial testing for monkeypox virus-DNA carried out in various materials throughout the course of disease. Laboratory analysis included quantitative PCR, next-generation sequencing, immunofluorescence tests and virus isolation in cell culture.
RESULTS
All patients were male, between age 20 and 60, and self-identified as men having sex with men. Two had a known HIV infection, coinciding with an increased number of lesions and viral DNA detectable in blood. In initial- and serial testing, lesion swabs yielded viral DNA-loads at, or above 10
DISCUSSION
The data presented underscore the reliability of lesion swabs for monkeypox virus-detection, even in later stages of the disease. Oropharyngeal swabs and blood samples alone carry the risk of false negative results, but may hold value in pre-/asymptomatic cases or viral load monitoring, respectively.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36057206
pii: S1386-6532(22)00186-X
doi: 10.1016/j.jcv.2022.105254
pmc: PMC9528238
pii:
doi:
Substances chimiques
DNA, Viral
0
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
105254Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2022. Published by Elsevier B.V.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Declaration of Competing Interest ML and DN received speaker honoraria and related travel expenses from Roche Diagnostics.All other authors declare no conflict of interest.
Références
Emerg Infect Dis. 2022 Sep;28(9):1765-1769
pubmed: 35905463
Sci Rep. 2017 Jun 16;7(1):3734
pubmed: 28623312
MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2022 Jun 10;71(23):764-769
pubmed: 35679181
Ann Intern Med. 2022 Aug;175(8):1175-1176
pubmed: 35605243
Nature. 2022 Jun;606(7912):15-16
pubmed: 35595996
Nat Med. 2022 Nov;28(11):2288-2292
pubmed: 35961373
Nat Med. 2022 Aug;28(8):1569-1572
pubmed: 35750157
Lancet Infect Dis. 2022 Aug;22(8):1153-1162
pubmed: 35623380
Euro Surveill. 2022 Jun;27(22):
pubmed: 35656836
Euro Surveill. 2022 Jun;27(22):
pubmed: 35656830
J Clin Virol. 2006 Jul;36(3):194-203
pubmed: 16731033
Lancet Infect Dis. 2021 Sep;21(9):1233-1245
pubmed: 33857405
Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2017 Feb 8;96(2):405-410
pubmed: 27994107
N Engl J Med. 2004 Jan 22;350(4):342-50
pubmed: 14736926
Euro Surveill. 2022 Jun;27(26):
pubmed: 35775427
J Virol Methods. 2011 Aug;175(2):163-9
pubmed: 21635922
Euro Surveill. 2022 Jun;27(22):
pubmed: 35656834