Background Monkeypox is transmitted by close contact with symptomatic cases, and those infected are assumed to be uniformly symptomatic. Evidence of subclinical monkeypox infection is limited to a few immunological studies which found evidence of immunity against orthopoxviruses in asymptomatic individuals who were exposed to monkeypox cases. We aimed to assess whether asymptomatic infections occurred among individuals who underwent sexually transmitted infection (STI) screening in a large Belgian STI clinic around the start of the 2022 monkeypox epidemic in Belgium. Methods Anorectal and oropharyngeal swabs collected for gonorrhoea/chlamydia screening from May 1 until May 31, 2022 were retrospectively tested by a monkeypox-specific PCR. Cases with a positive PCR result were recalled to the clinic for case investigation, repeat testing and contact tracing. Findings In stored samples from 224 men, we identified three cases with a positive anorectal monkeypox PCR. All three men denied having had any symptoms in the weeks before and after the sample was taken. None of them reported exposure to a diagnosed monkeypox case, nor did any of their contacts develop clinical monkeypox. Follow-up samples were taken 21 to 37 days after the initial sample, by which time the monkeypox-specific PCR was negative, likely as a consequence of spontaneous clearance of the infection. Interpretation The existence of asymptomatic monkeypox infection indicates that the virus might be transmitted to close contacts in the absence of symptoms. Our findings suggest that identification and isolation of symptomatic individuals may not suffice to contain the outbreak. Funding Institutional funding Evidence before this study Similar to smallpox, monkeypox is transmitted through close contact with symptomatic cases, and 100% of those infected are assumed to develop symptoms. These features imply that an outbreak in the general population tends towards extinction with relatively minor hygienic measures, as observed in several outbreaks in endemic regions. If, however, asymptomatic transmission occurs, the outbreak becomes much more difficult to contain. We searched PubMed and Google Scholar for evidence of asymptomatic human monkeypox, using the search terms “monkeypox” AND (“asymptomatic” OR “subclinical”), and included peer-reviewed reports published until June 17, 2022. We identified seven original reports in three different epidemiological settings which reported indirect, immunological evidence of asymptomatic monkeypox infection in a small number of people who were exposed to the virus. We did not find any study that provided direct evidence of the virus in asymptomatic individuals. Added value of this study By retrospectively screening clinical samples collected for sexually transmitted infection screening in our centre throughout May 2022 with a monkeypox-specific PCR, we found evidence of asymptomatic monkeypox virus infection in three individuals. Implications of all the available evidence The existence of asymptomatic monkeypox infection indicates that the virus may be transmitted in the absence of symptoms. This risk can be further quantified by studying viral dynamics in contacts of symptomatic and asymptomatic monkeypox cases. Our findings suggest that identification and isolation of symptomatic individuals may not suffice to contain the outbreak.

Light microscopy and antigen-based rapid diagnostic tests are the primary diagnostic tools for detecting malaria, although being labour-intensive and frequently challenged by lack of personnel’s experience and low levels of parasite density. The latter being especially important in non-endemic settings. Novel molecular techniques aim to overcome this drawback. The objective of this study was to assess the diagnostic performance of the illumigene malaria assay® (Meridian Bioscience) compared to microscopy, RDT and real-time PCR. This loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP) assay is a qualitative in vitro diagnostic test for the direct detection of Plasmodium spp. DNA in human venous whole blood samples. The illumigene assay was assessed on a retrospective panel of stored blood samples (n = 103) from returned travellers and external quality control samples (n = 12). Additionally the assay was prospectively assessed on 30 fresh routine samples with a request for malaria diagnosis. The illumigene assay was compared to microscopy, RDT and Plasmodium species specific real-time PCR. In the retrospective evaluation, the illumigene assay showed 100% agreement with the real-time PCR, RDT and microscopy yielding a sensitivity and specificity of 100% (95% CI 95.1–100% and 89.7–100%, respectively). Seven samples from patients recently treated for Plasmodium falciparum infection that were RDT positive and microscopy negative yielded positive test results. The performance of the illumigene assay equals that of microscopy combined with RDT in the prospective panel with three false negative RDT results and one false negative microscopy result. Excellent concordance with PCR was observed. The limit of detection of the assay approached 0.5 parasites/µL for both P. falciparum and Plasmodium vivax. In non-endemic regions where the diagnostic process for malaria infections is questioned by lack of experience and low levels of parasite densities, the illumigene assay can be of value. Due to its high sensitivity, the LAMP assay may be considered as primary diagnostic test. The results of this study indicate that negative screen results do not need further confirmation. However, before implementation, this approach needs to be confirmed in larger, prospective studies. A shortcoming of this assay is that no species identification nor determination of parasite density are possible.

COVID-19 Antibody Detecting Rapid Diagnostic Tests (COVID-19 Ab RDTs) are the preferred tool for SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence studies, particularly in low- and middle-income countries. The present study challenged COVID-19 Ab RDTs with pre-pandemic samples of patients exposed to tropical pathogens. A retrospective study was performed on archived serum (n = 94) and EDTA whole blood (n = 126) samples obtained during 2010–2018 from 196 travelers with malaria (n = 170), schistosomiasis (n = 25) and dengue (n = 25). COVID-19 Ab RDTs were selected based on regulatory approval status, independent evaluation results and detecting antigens. Among 13 COVID-19 Ab RDT products, overall cross-reactivity was 18.5%; cross-reactivity for malaria, schistosomiasis and dengue was 20.3%, 18.1% and 7.5%, respectively. Cross-reactivity for current and recent malaria, malaria antibodies, Plasmodium species and parasite densities was similar. Cross-reactivity among the different RDT products ranged from 2.7% to 48.9% (median value 14.5%). IgM represented 67.9% of cross-reactive test lines. Cross-reactivity was not associated with detecting antigens, patient categories or disease (sub)groups, except for schistosomiasis (two products with ≥60% cross-reactivity). The high cross-reactivity for malaria, schistosomiasis and—to a lesser extent—dengue calls for risk mitigation when using COVID-19 Ab RDTs in co-endemic regions.

In this study, we characterized all oropharyngeal and anorectal isolates of Neisseria spp. in a cohort of men who have sex with men. This resulted in a panel of pathogenic Neisseria (N. gonorrhoeae [n = 5] and N. meningitidis [n = 5]) and nonpathogenic Neisseria (N. subflava [n = 11], N. mucosa [n = 3] and N. oralis [n = 2]). A high proportion of strains in this panel were resistant to azithromycin (18/26) and ceftriaxone (3/26). Whole genome sequencing (WGS) of these strains identified numerous mutations that are known to confer reduced susceptibility to azithromycin and ceftriaxone in N. gonorrhoeae. The presence or absence of these known mutations did not explain the high level resistance to azithromycin (>256 mg/L) in the nonpathogenic isolates (8/16). After screening for antimicrobial resistance (AMR) genes, we found a ribosomal protection protein, Msr(D), in these highly azithromycin resistant nonpathogenic strains. The complete integration site originated from Streptococcus pneumoniae and is associated with high level resistance to azithromycin in many other bacterial species. This novel AMR resistance mechanism to azithromycin in nonpathogenic Neisseria could be a public health concern if it were to be transmitted to pathogenic Neisseria. This study demonstrates the utility of WGS-based surveillance of nonpathogenic Neisseria.

Diagnosis of a first-time visceral leishmaniasis (VL) infection in Ethiopia is established by use of a rapid diagnostic test (RDT) detecting antibodies against rK39, direct agglutination test (DAT) and microscopy according to the national algorithm. The performance of individual tests and algorithm is variable and depends on several factors, one being HIV status. Limited data are available on the performance of tests in VL-HIV coinfected patients. Assessment of the performance of DAT (ITM-A), rK39 ELISA (Serion) and six RDT (Onsite Leishmania Ab CTK, Antigen ICT Xinjier, IT Leish Biorad, Kalazar Detect Inbios, rK39 IgG1 Coris, rk28 IgG1 Coris) for the diagnosis of VL was done on a panel of 91 stored serum and plasma samples of ‘first-episode’ suspected VL patients, with HIV coinfection (n = 51) and without (n = 40). A combined reference standard was used: either positive microscopy on tissue aspirates, or in case of negative microscopy, positive PCR results on the aspirate slide. Additionally, endemic healthy controls (n = 20), non-endemic controls (n = 10) and patients with confirmed malaria infection (n = 10) were tested for specificity evaluation. Sensitivities ranged from 69.2% for DAT (applied cut-off ≥ 1/3200) to 92.2% for the Onsite RDT, whereas specificities ranged from 20.0% for Kalazar Antigen ICT to 100% for IT Leish and rK39 IgG1. Sensitivities from all assays decreased upon stratification according to HIV status but was only significantly different for rK39 Serion ELISA (p-value 0.0084) and the Onsite RDT (p-value 0.0159). In conclusion, performance of commercially available assays for VL on samples from Northern-Ethiopian patients varied widely with a substantial decrease in sensitivity in the VL-HIV coinfected group. Clear guidelines on minimal performance criteria of individual tests and algorithms are needed, as well as which reference standard should be used to determine the performance.

No randomized controlled trial (RCT) has compared the impact on the resistome of ceftriaxone (CRO) plus azithromycin (AZM) vs CRO for the treatment of Neisseria gonorrhoea (NG). This was an open-label, single-center, RCT comparing the effect on the resistome of CRO plus AZM vs CRO for the treatment of NG. Men who have sex with men (MSM) with genital, anorectal, or pharyngeal NG infection were randomized into the CRO/AZM and CRO arms. Oral rinse and anorectal samples were taken for culture and resistome profiling at 2 visits (baseline and day 14). The primary outcome was the ratio of mean macrolide resistance determinants in anorectal samples from day 14 between arms. Twenty individuals were randomized into the CRO/AZM arm and 22 into the CRO arm. We found no significant difference in the mean macrolide resistance determinants in the day 14 anorectal samples between arms (ratio, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.55–1.83; P = .102). The prevalence of baseline macrolide resistance was high (CRO/AZM arm = 95.00%; CRO arm = 90.91%). We could not demonstrate a significant effect of dual CRO/AZM therapy on the resistome compared with CRO alone, likely due to a high baseline resistance to AZM. Interventions to prevent the emergence of antimicrobial resistance in MSM are needed.