Therapeutics for treating mpox in humans.


Journal

The Cochrane database of systematic reviews
ISSN: 1469-493X
Titre abrégé: Cochrane Database Syst Rev
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100909747

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
14 03 2023
Historique:
entrez: 14 3 2023
pubmed: 15 3 2023
medline: 16 3 2023
Statut: epublish

Résumé

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. 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). 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. 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. 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. 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. 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.

Sections du résumé

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.

Identifiants

pubmed: 36916727
doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD015769
pmc: PMC10012405
doi:

Substances chimiques

brincidofovir 6794O900AX
Organophosphonates 0
Immunoglobulins 0

Types de publication

Systematic Review Journal Article Review Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

CD015769

Informations de copyright

Copyright © 2023 The Authors. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. on behalf of The Cochrane Collaboration.

Références

BMJ. 2016 Jul 20;354:i3507
pubmed: 27443385
Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2009 May;53(5):1817-22
pubmed: 19223621
MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2022 Sep 16;71(37):1190-1195
pubmed: 36107794
mSphere. 2021 Feb 3;6(1):
pubmed: 33536322
Antiviral Res. 2015 May;117:115-21
pubmed: 25746331
J Virol. 2011 Sep;85(17):9176-87
pubmed: 21697474
Int J Surg. 2022 Oct;106:106943
pubmed: 36155257
Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2007 Apr;76(4):768-73
pubmed: 17426185
Viruses. 2010 Dec;2(12):2803-30
pubmed: 21994641
Antiviral Res. 2003 Jan;57(1-2):35-40
pubmed: 12615301
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2010 Sep 14;107(37):16262-7
pubmed: 20805472
N Engl J Med. 2018 Jul 5;379(1):44-53
pubmed: 29972742
IJID Reg. 2022 Apr 25;3:226-227
pubmed: 35755463
Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2005 Jul;49(7):2634-41
pubmed: 15980330
N Engl J Med. 2022 Dec 15;387(24):2294-2295
pubmed: 36449745
Annu Rep Med Chem. 2021;57:109-132
pubmed: 34728865
Viruses. 2017 Oct 30;9(11):
pubmed: 29773767
Drugs. 2018 Sep;78(13):1377-1382
pubmed: 30120738
Clin Infect Dis. 2023 Jan 6;76(1):155-164
pubmed: 35904001
BMJ. 2022 Jul 28;378:e072410
pubmed: 35902115
J Hepatol. 2019 Jun;70(6):1222-1261
pubmed: 30926241
Antiviral Res. 2017 Jul;143:278-286
pubmed: 28392420
J Infect Chemother. 2023 Feb;29(2):228-231
pubmed: 36283609
Antiviral Res. 2002 Jul;55(1):1-13
pubmed: 12076747
PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2019 Oct 16;13(10):e0007791
pubmed: 31618206
PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2017 Aug 21;11(8):e0005809
pubmed: 28827792
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2023 Feb 21;120(8):e2220415120
pubmed: 36787354
BMJ. 2019 Aug 28;366:l4898
pubmed: 31462531
Lancet Infect Dis. 2022 Sep;22(9):1321-1328
pubmed: 35785793
Int J Infect Dis. 2006 May;10(3):193-201
pubmed: 16564720
Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2011 Jun;89(6):806-15
pubmed: 21544079
J Gen Virol. 2016 May;97(5):1229-1239
pubmed: 26861777
Lancet Infect Dis. 2022 Aug;22(8):1153-1162
pubmed: 35623380

Auteurs

Tilly Fox (T)

Department of Clinical Sciences, Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine, Liverpool, UK.

Susan Gould (S)

Royal Liverpool University Hospital, Liverpool, UK.

Naveena Princy (N)

Department of Infectious Diseases, Christian Medical College Vellore, Vellore, India.

Tim Rowland (T)

Department of Clinical Sciences, Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine, Liverpool, UK.

Vittoria Lutje (V)

Department of Clinical Sciences, Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine, Liverpool, UK.

Rebecca Kuehn (R)

Department of Clinical Sciences, Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine, Liverpool, UK.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH