The use of antivirals in the treatment of human monkeypox outbreaks: a systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Human monkeypox virus (MPXV) infection is a recently declared public health emergency of international concern by the World Health Organization. Besides, there is scant literature available on the use of antivirals in MPXV infection. This systematic review compiles all evidence of various antivirals used on their efficacy and safety and summarizes their mechanisms of action. METHODS: A review was done of all original studies mentioning individual patient data on the use of antivirals in patients with MPXV infection. RESULTS: Of the total 487 non-duplicate studies, 18 studies with 71 individuals were included. Tecovirimat was used in 61 individuals, followed by cidofovir in seven and brincidofovir (BCV) in three individuals. Topical trifluridine was used in four ophthalmic cases in addition to tecovirimat. Of the total, 59 (83.1%) were reported to have complete resolution of symptoms; one was experiencing waxing and waning of symptoms, only one (1.8%) had died, and the others were having a resolution of symptoms. The death was thought unrelated to tecovirimat. Elevated hepatic panels were reported among all individuals treated with BCV (leading to treatment discontinuation) and five treated with tecovirimat. CONCLUSION: Tecovirimat is the most used and has proven beneficial in several aggravating cases. No major safety concerns were detected upon its use. Topical trifluridine was used as an adjuvant treatment option along with tecovirimat. BCV and cidofovir were seldom used, with the latter often being used due to the unavailability of tecovirimat. BCV was associated with treatment discontinuation due to adverse events.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".