Dengue fever is a zoonotic viral infection that raises a global alarm in the tropics and subtropics, with the potentially escalating into newer geographical regions. Severe dengue may be associated with fatal complications such as myocarditis. There is a paucity of available data on the prevalence of dengue-associated myocarditis. The objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to estimate the global prevalence of dengue-associated myocarditis. A systematic search was conducted utilizing the Cochrane library, PubMed, Scopus, ProQuest, Web of Science, and Preprint servers such as arXiv, medRxiv, bioRxiv, BioRN, ChiRN, ChiRxiv, and SSRN as of November 25, 2022. All primary studies (case series, cross-sectional, retrospective, and prospective) that reported confirmed cases of dengue myocarditis were included. The I² statistic test assessed the heterogenic characteristics and publication bias was evaluated using Doi plot and Egger regression tests. A total of 12 studies conducted between 2007 and 2022 with 2795 laboratory-confirmed dengue patients were included. Of the included cases, 502 were positive for myocarditis, with a prevalence of 2.4-78%. The pooled prevalence of dengue-induced myocarditis in the studied population was 21.0% (95% CI, 9 - 38%). The prediction interval was estimated to be 0.00 - 0.81. Myocarditis in dengue patients is a significant and understudied complication in many aspects. To prevent dengue-associated myocarditis, appropriate measures such as early detection of cases and signs, symptoms-based diagnosis via electrocardiography and echocardiography, as well as relevant vector control policies must be implemented.

Mpox (formerly known as monkeypox) is a global public health concern, given the recent outbreaks in non-endemic countries where little scientific evidence exists on the disease epidemiology. Oral lesions among mpox cases have been poorly reported. Our aim was to estimate the overall prevalence of oral manifestations among patients with mpox globally. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, an extensive literature search in PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Embase, Cochrane, and preprint servers (medRxiv, arXiv, bioRxiv, BioRN, ChiRxiv, ChiRN, and SSRN) and assessment of all published articles, conducted across the world, until Nov 15 2022 as per the PROSPERO registration protocol (CRD42022371249), was undertaken. Primary studies (case series, cross-sectional, retrospective, prospective designs) that reported the oral/oropharyngeal symptoms among laboratory-confirmed mpox cases were included. The characteristics of the study, information on the number of cases, and symptomatic status were extracted from the included studies. The quality of the included studies was assessed for bias. Random-effects meta-regression with DerSimonian & Laird estimator, and subgroup analyses were conducted using STATA (v17.0). The degree of funnel plot asymmetry was assessed using Egger's test when at least 10 estimates were available. The heterogeneity between studies was assessed using the I² statistic. The primary outcome was the pooled prevalence of oral manifestations in the examined population. 19 studies were included with 4042 laboratory-confirmed patients with mpox for qualitative and quantitative synthesis. The pooled prevalence of oral manifestations in the investigated population was 36.75% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 23.77-50.65). Heterogeneity was found to be high in the current meta-analysis (I² = 98.24%; p < 0.001). Subgroup analysis revealed a pooled prevalence of 39.96% (95% CI: 21.42-59.91) of sore throat, 24.80% (95% CI: 8.14-46.32) of mouth sore, 18.24% (95% CI: 0.34-52.54) of tonsillitis and 17.99% (95% CI: 15.66-20.43) of mouth rash from the included studies. Oral manifestations are common in patients with mpox, with variations in prevalence across the sites within the oral cavity, and geography of the studies. Healthcare workers should be wary of the oral signs and symptoms of mpox in endemic and high-risk areas. None.

Background: The accurate estimation of the prevalence of mpox-induced ophthalmic lesions will enable health departments to allocate resources more effectively during the ongoing mpox pandemic. The aim of this meta-analysis was to estimate the global prevalence of ophthalmic manifestations in mpox patients. Methods: A systematic search was carried out in seven databases—Pub Med, Scopus, Web of Science, EMBASE, ProQuest, EBSCOHost, and Cochrane—for studies published on or before 12 December 2022. The pooled prevalence of ophthalmic manifestations was estimated by the random effects model. Risk of bias assessment of the studies and sub-group analysis to explain heterogeneity were undertaken. Results: Overall, 12 studies were included, with 3239 confirmed mpox cases, among which 755 patients reported ophthalmic manifestations. The pooled prevalence of ophthalmic manifestations was 9% (95% confidence interval (CI), 3–24). Studies from Europe reported a very low prevalence of ocular manifestations of 0.98% (95% CI 0.14–2.31), compared to studies from Africa with a substantially higher prevalence of 27.22% (95% CI 13.69–43.26). Conclusions: A wide variation in the prevalence of ocular manifestations among mpox patients was observed globally. Healthcare workers involved in mpox-endemic African countries should be aware of ocular manifestations for early detection and management.

This index meta-analysis estimated the pooled prevalence of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) among individuals with monkeypox (mpox) globally. We searched seven databases: PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, EMBASE, ProQuest, EBSCOHost, and Cochrane, for human studies published in English till 4 January 2023, as per International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) registration protocol (CRD42022383275). A random effects regression model was used to estimate the pooled prevalence owing to high heterogeneity. The risk of bias in the included studies was assessed using the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI) quality assessment tool. The systematic search yielded 677 articles; finally, 32 studies were found eligible for systematic review and 29 studies for meta-analysis. The pooled prevalence of HIV infection was 41% (95% confidence interval [CI], 35–48). All studies were rated as fair or good quality. Studies from Europe and North America reported a high prevalence of HIV infection among individuals with mpox- 41% (95% CI 33–49) and 52% (95% CI 28–76), respectively, while studies from Nigeria, Africa reported a relatively low prevalence of HIV infection of 21% (95% CI 15–26). A history of sexual orientation and sexual partners in the last 21 days must be taken from individuals with mpox to identify the potential source and contacts for quarantining and testing them.

Initial randomised controlled trials (RCTs) showed that prophylactic azithromycin in pregnant women improved maternal and neonatal outcomes; however, the recent evidence did not show any benefit to neonatal survival. There is conflicting evidence over the role of azithromycin prophylaxis in antenatal and intrapartum periods. We explored whether azithromycin prophylaxis in pregnant women improves maternal and neonatal outcomes. For this systematic review and meta-analysis registered on PROSPERO [CRD42023411093], we searched seven databases (PubMed, Scopus, Embase, Cochrane Library, EBSCOHost, ProQuest, and Web of Science) and clinical trial registries until 04/23/2024, for RCTs evaluating antenatal/intrapartum azithromycin prophylaxis against placebo/routine care in pregnant women. The primary outcome was neonatal mortality. Intrapartum and antenatal administration were assessed separately. We used random-effects meta-analysis. The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane RoB 2 tool. The GRADE approach was used to evaluate the certainty of the evidence. Screening 2161 records retrieved 20 RCTs (56,381 participants). Intrapartum azithromycin may make little or no difference to neonatal mortality [5 RCTs, 44,436 participants; Risk Ratio (RR): 1.02, 95% CI 0.86-1.20, I ² = 0%, very low certainty], and maternal mortality [3 RCTs, 44,131 participants, RR: 1.26, 0.65-2.42, I ² = 0%, low certainty]. Similarly, antenatal azithromycin may have little or no effect on neonatal mortality [3 RCTs; 5304 participants; RR: 0.74, 0.35-1.56, I ² = 43%, very-low certainty] and maternal mortality [3 RCTs; 8167 participants RR: 1.62, 0.67-3.91, I ² = 0%, low certainty]. There is no data on long-term adverse outcomes and antimicrobial resistance. Low to very low certainty evidence suggests that intrapartum or antenatal azithromycin prophylaxis in pregnant women might not reduce maternal or neonatal mortality. None.