Clinical presentation and virological assessment of confirmed human monkeypox virus cases in Spain: a prospective observational cohort study.

BACKGROUND: In May, 2022, several European countries reported autochthonous cases of monkeypox, which rapidly spread globally. Early reports suggest atypical presentations. We aimed to investigate clinical and virological characteristics of cases of human monkeypox in Spain. METHODS: This multicentre, prospective, observational cohort study was done in three sexual health clinics in Madrid and Barcelona, Spain. We enrolled all consecutive patients with laboratory-confirmed monkeypox from May 11 to June 29, 2022. Participants were offered lesion, anal, and oropharynx swabs for PCR testing. Participant data were collected by means of interviews conducted by dermatologists or specialists in sexually transmitted infections and were recorded using a standard case report form. Outcomes assessed in all participants with a confirmed diagnosis were demographics, smallpox vaccination, HIV status, exposure to someone with monkeypox, travel, mass gathering attendance, risk factors for sexually transmitted infections, sexual behaviour, signs and symptoms on first presentation, virological results at multiple body sites, co-infection with other sexually transmitted pathogens, and clinical outcomes 14 days after the initial presentation. Clinical outcomes were followed up until July 13, 2022. FINDINGS: 181 patients had a confirmed monkeypox diagnosis and were enrolled in the study. 166 (92%) identified as gay men, bisexual men, or other men who have sex with men (MSM) and 15 (8%) identified as heterosexual men or heterosexual women. Median age was 37·0 years (IQR 31·0-42·0). 32 (18%) patients reported previous smallpox vaccination, 72 (40%) were HIV-positive, eight (11%) had a CD4 cell count less than 500 cells per µL, and 31 (17%) were diagnosed with a concurrent sexually transmitted infection. Median incubation was 7·0 days (IQR 5·0-10·0). All participants presented with skin lesions; 141 (78%) participants had lesions in the anogenital region, and 78 (43%) in the oral and perioral region. 70 (39%) participants had complications requiring treatment: 45 (25%) had a proctitis, 19 (10%) had tonsillitis, 15 (8%) had penile oedema, six (3%) an abscess, and eight (4%) had an exanthem. Three (2%) patients required hospital admission. 178 (99%) of 180 swabs from skin lesions collected tested positive, as did 82 (70%) of 117 throat swabs. Viral load was higher in lesion swabs than in pharyngeal specimens (mean cycle threshold value 23 [SD 4] vs 32 [6], absolute difference 9 [95% CI 8-10]; p<0·0001). 108 (65%) of 166 MSM reported anal-receptive sex. MSM who engaged in anal-receptive sex presented with proctitis (41 [38%] of 108 vs four [7%] of 58, absolute difference 31% [95% CI 19-44]; p<0·0001) and systemic symptoms before the rash (67 [62%] vs 16 [28%], absolute difference 34% [28-62]; p<0·0001) more frequently than MSM who did not engage in anal-receptive sex. 18 (95%) of 19 participants with tonsillitis reported practising oral-receptive sex. The median time from onset of lesions to formation of a dry crust was 10 days (IQR 7-13). INTERPRETATION: In our cohort, monkeypox caused genital, perianal, and oral lesions and complications including proctitis and tonsillitis. Because of the variability of presentations, clinicians should have a low threshold for suspicion of monkeypox. Lesion swabs showed the highest viral loads, which, combined with the history of sexual exposure and the distribution of lesions, suggests close contact is probably the dominant transmission route in the current outbreak. FUNDING: None.

The Impact of Different Lung Ultrasound Protocols in the Assessment of Lung Lesions in COVID-19 Patients: Is There an Ideal Lung Ultrasound Protocol?

BACKGROUND: In the past months, several lung ultrasonography (LUS) protocols have been proposed, mainly on previously validated schemes independent of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). OBJECTIVES: The main purpose of this study was to determine the impact and accuracy of different LUS protocols proposed in COVID-19. METHODS: Patients were evaluated with a standard sequence of LUS scans in 72 intercostal spaces along 14 anatomic lines in the chest. A scoring system of LUS findings was reported and then analyzed separately according to each proposed LUS protocol zones. This score was then correlated to a validated Pulmonary Inflammation Index (PII) on chest Computed Tomography (CT). RESULTS: Thirty-two patients were enrolled. The most frequent pattern was ground-glass opacities in the chest X-ray (53.1%), chest CT (59.1%) and subpleural or lobar consolidations (40.8%) in the posteroinferior areas (p < 0.001) on LUS. The Interclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC) was significantly correlated with almost every protocol analyzed except the 8-zone (p = 0.119) and the 10-zone protocol that only included one posterior point (p = 0.052). The highest ICC was obtained with a 12-zone protocol (ICC 0.500; p = 0.027) and decreased as more points were included. CONCLUSIONS: In conclusion, our study results suggest that performing an ultrasound protocol with 12-zone scanning, including the superior and inferior areas of the anterior, lateral and posterior regions of the chest was consistent with higher ICC and higher degree of concordance with CT. We emphasize the need of a more standardization technique to further implement and develop this imaging modality in COVID-19.