Protocol implementation during the COVID-19 pandemic: experiences from a randomized trial of stress ulcer prophylaxis.

BACKGROUND: During the COVID-19 pandemic, many intensive care units (ICUs) halted research to focus on COVID-19-specific studies. OBJECTIVE: To describe the conduct of an international randomized trial of stress ulcer prophylaxis (Re-Evaluating the Inhibition of Stress Erosions in the ICU [REVISE]) during the pandemic, addressing enrolment patterns, center engagement, informed consent processes, data collection, a COVID-specific substudy, patient transfers, and data monitoring. METHODS: REVISE is a randomized trial among mechanically ventilated patients, comparing pantoprazole 40 mg IV to placebo on the primary efficacy outcome of clinically important upper gastrointestinal bleeding and the primary safety outcome of 90-day mortality. We documented protocol implementation status from March 11th 2020-August 30th 2022. RESULTS: The Steering Committee did not change the scientific protocol. From the first enrolment on July 9th 2019 to March 10th 2020 (8 months preceding the pandemic), 267 patients were enrolled in 18 centers. From March 11th 2020-August 30th 2022 (30 months thereafter), 41 new centers joined; 59 were participating by August 30th 2022 which enrolled 2961 patients. During a total of 1235 enrolment-months in the pandemic phase, enrolment paused for 106 (8.6%) months in aggregate (median 3 months, interquartile range 2;6). Protocol implementation involved a shift from the a priori consent model pre-pandemic (188, 58.8%) to the consent to continue model (1615, 54.1%, p < 0.01). In one new center, an opt-out model was approved. The informed consent rate increased slightly (80.7% to 85.0%, p = 0.05). Telephone consent encounters increased (16.6% to 68.2%, p < 0.001). Surge capacity necessitated intra-institutional transfers; receiving centers continued protocol implementation whenever possible. We developed a nested COVID-19 substudy. The Methods Centers continued central statistical monitoring of trial metrics. Site monitoring was initially remote, then in-person when restrictions lifted. CONCLUSION: Protocol implementation adaptations during the pandemic included a shift in the consent model, a sustained high consent rate, and launch of a COVID-19 substudy. Recruitment increased as new centers joined, patient transfers were optimized, and monitoring methods were adapted.

Reporting Conflicts of Interest and Funding in Health Care Guidelines: The RIGHT-COI&F Checklist.

BACKGROUND: Conflicts of interest (COIs) of contributors to a guideline project and the funding of that project can influence the development of the guideline. Comprehensive reporting of information on COIs and funding is essential for the transparency and credibility of guidelines. OBJECTIVE: To develop an extension of the Reporting Items for practice Guidelines in HealThcare (RIGHT) statement for the reporting of COIs and funding in policy documents of guideline organizations and in guidelines: the RIGHT-COI&F checklist. DESIGN: The recommendations of the Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research (EQUATOR) network were followed. The process consisted of registration of the project and setting up working groups, generation of the initial list of items, achieving consensus on the items, and formulating and testing the final checklist. SETTING: International collaboration. PARTICIPANTS: 44 experts. MEASUREMENTS: Consensus on checklist items. RESULTS: The checklist contains 27 items: 18 about the COIs of contributors and 9 about the funding of the guideline project. Of the 27 items, 16 are labeled as policy related because they address the reporting of COI and funding policies that apply across an organization's guideline projects. These items should be described ideally in the organization's policy documents, otherwise in the specific guideline. The remaining 11 items are labeled as implementation related and they address the reporting of COIs and funding of the specific guideline. LIMITATION: The RIGHT-COI&F checklist requires testing in real-life use. CONCLUSION: The RIGHT-COI&F checklist can be used to guide the reporting of COIs and funding in guideline development and to assess the completeness of reporting in published guidelines and policy documents. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: The Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities of China.

Induction therapy in heart transplantation: A systematic review and network meta-analysis for developing evidence-based recommendations.

INTRODUCTION: Induction therapy (IT) utility in heart transplantation (HT) remains contested. Commissioned by a clinical-practice guidelines panel to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of IT in adult HT patients, we conducted this systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA). METHODS: We searched for studies from January 2000 to October 2022, reporting on the use of any IT agent in adult HT patients. Based on patient-important outcomes, we performed frequentist NMAs separately for RCTs and observational studies with adjusted analyses, and assessed the certainty of evidence using the GRADE framework. RESULTS: From 5156 publications identified, we included 7 RCTs and 12 observational studies, and report on two contemporarily-used IT agents-basiliximab and rATG. The RCTs provide only very low certainty evidence and was uninformative of the effect of the two agents versus no IT or one another. With low certainty in the evidence from observational studies, basiliximab may increase 30-day (OR 1.13; 95% CI 1.06-1.20) and 1-year (OR 1.11; 95% CI 1.02-1.22) mortality compared to no IT. With low certainty from observational studies, rATG may decrease 5-year cardiac allograft vasculopathy (OR .82; 95% CI .74-.90) compared to no IT, as well as 30-day (OR .85; 95% CI .80-.92), 1-year (OR .87; 95% CI .79-.96), and overall (HR .84; 95% CI .76-.93) mortality compared to basiliximab. CONCLUSION: With low and very low certainty in the synthetized evidence, these NMAs suggest possible superiority of rATG compared to basiliximab, but do not provide compelling evidence for the routine use of these agents in HT recipients.

GRADE concept paper 8: judging the certainty of discrimination performance estimates of prognostic models in a body of validation studies.

BACKGROUND: Prognostic models incorporate multiple prognostic factors to estimate the likelihood of future events for individual patients based on their prognostic factor values. Evaluating these models crucially involves conducting studies to assess their predictive performance, like discrimination. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses of these validation studies play an essential role in selecting models for clinical practice. METHODS: In this paper, we outline 3 thresholds to determine the target for certainty rating in the discrimination of prognostic models, as observed across a body of validation studies. RESULTS AND CONCLUSION: We propose 3 thresholds when rating the certainty of evidence about a prognostic model's discrimination. The first threshold amounts to rating certainty in the model's ability to classify better than random chance. The other 2 approaches involve setting thresholds informed by other mechanisms for classification: clinician intuition or an alternative prognostic model developed for the same disease area and outcome. The choice of threshold will vary based on the context. Instead of relying on arbitrary discrimination cut-offs, our approach positions the observed discrimination within an informed spectrum, potentially aiding decisions about a prognostic model's practical utility.

Efficacy and Safety of Systemic Corticosteroids for Urticaria: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials.

BACKGROUND: Short courses of adjunctive systemic corticosteroids are commonly used to treat acute urticaria and chronic urticaria flares (both with and without mast cell-mediated angioedema), but their benefits and harms are unclear. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of treating acute urticaria or chronic urticaria flares with versus without systemic corticosteroids. METHODS: We searched the MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, CNKI, VIP, Wanfang, and CBM databases from inception to July 8, 2023, for randomized controlled trials of treating urticaria with versus without systemic corticosteroids. Paired reviewers independently screened records, extracted data, and appraised risk of bias with the Cochrane 2.0 tool. We performed random-effects meta-analyses of urticaria activity, itch severity, and adverse events. We assessed certainty of the evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) approach. RESULTS: We identified 12 randomized trials enrolling 944 patients. For patients with low or moderate probability (17.5%-64%) to improve with antihistamines alone, add-on systemic corticosteroids likely improve urticaria activity by a 14% to 15% absolute difference (odds ratio [OR], 2.17, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.43-3.31; number needed to treat [NNT], 7; moderate certainty). Among patients with a high chance (95.8%) for urticaria to improve with antihistamines alone, add-on systemic corticosteroids likely improved urticaria activity by a 2.2% absolute difference (NNT, 45; moderate certainty). Corticosteroids may improve itch severity (OR, 2.44; 95% CI: 0.87-6.83; risk difference, 9%; NNT, 11; low certainty). Systemic corticosteroids also likely increase adverse events (OR, 2.76; 95% CI: 1.00-7.62; risk difference, 15%; number needed to harm, 9; moderate certainty). CONCLUSIONS: Systemic corticosteroids for acute urticaria or chronic urticaria exacerbations likely improve urticaria, depending on antihistamine responsiveness, but also likely increase adverse effects in approximately 15% more.

Proton pump inhibitors for gastrointestinal bleeding prophylaxis in critically ill patients: A systematic review protocol.

BACKGROUND: Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) are the most commonly prescribed drugs for preventing upper gastrointestinal bleeding in critically ill patients. However, concerns have arisen about the possible harms of using PPIs, including potentially increased risk of pneumonia, Clostridioides difficile infection, and more seriously, an increased risk of death in the most severely ill patients. Triggered by the REVISE trial, which is a forthcoming large randomized trial comparing pantoprazole to placebo in invasively mechanically ventilated patients, we will conduct this systematic review to evaluate the efficacy and safety of PPIs versus no prophylaxis for critically ill patients. METHODS: We will systematically search randomized trials that compared gastrointestinal bleeding prophylaxis with PPIs versus placebo or no prophylaxis in adults in the intensive care unit (ICU). Pairs of reviewers will independently screen the literature, and for those eligible trials, extract data and assess risk of bias. We will perform meta-analyses using a random-effects model, and calculate relative risks for dichotomous outcomes and mean differences for continuous outcomes, and the associated 95% confidence intervals. We will conduct subgroup analysis to explore whether the impact of PPIs on mortality differs in more and less severely ill patients. We will assess certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach. DISCUSSION: This systematic review will provide the most up-to-date evidence regarding the merits and limitations of stress ulcer prophylaxis with PPIs in critically ill patients in contemporary practice.

Pharmacotherapy for adults with overweight and obesity: a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: Pharmacotherapy provides an option for adults with overweight and obesity to reduce their bodyweight if lifestyle modifications fail. We summarised the latest evidence for the benefits and harms of weight-lowering drugs. METHODS: This systematic review and network meta-analysis included searches of PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library (CENTRAL) from inception to March 23, 2021, for randomised controlled trials of weight-lowering drugs in adults with overweight and obesity. We performed frequentist random-effect network meta-analyses to summarise the evidence and applied the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation frameworks to rate the certainty of evidence, calculate the absolute effects, categorise interventions, and present the findings. The study was registered with PROSPERO, CRD 42021245678. FINDINGS: 14 605 citations were identified by our search, of which 132 eligible trials enrolled 48 209 participants. All drugs lowered bodyweight compared with lifestyle modification alone; all subsequent numbers refer to comparisons with lifestyle modification. High to moderate certainty evidence established phentermine-topiramate as the most effective in lowering weight (odds ratio [OR] of ≥5% weight reduction 8·02, 95% CI 5·24 to 12·27; mean difference [MD] of percentage bodyweight change -7·98, 95% CI -9·27 to -6·69) followed by GLP-1 receptor agonists (OR 6·33, 95% CI 5·00 to 8·00; MD -5·79, 95% CI -6·34 to -5·25). Naltrexone-bupropion (OR 2·69, 95% CI 2·10 to 3·44), phentermine-topiramate (2·40, 1·68 to 3·44), GLP-1 receptor agonists (2·22, 1·74 to 2·84), and orlistat (1·71, 1·42 to 2·05) were associated with increased adverse events leading to drug discontinuation. In a post-hoc analysis, semaglutide, a GLP-1 receptor agonist, showed substantially larger benefits than other drugs with a similar risk of adverse events as other drugs for both likelihood of weight loss of 5% or more (OR 9·82, 95% CI 7·09 to 13·61) and percentage bodyweight change (MD -11·40, 95% CI -12·51 to -10·29). INTERPRETATION: In adults with overweight and obesity, phentermine-topiramate and GLP-1 receptor agonists proved the best drugs in reducing weight; of the GLP-1 agonists, semaglutide might be the most effective. FUNDING: 1.3.5 Project for Disciplines of Excellence, West China Hospital, Sichuan University.

Decision theoretical foundation of clinical practice guidelines: an extension of the ASH thrombophilia guidelines.

Decision analysis can play an essential role in informing practice guidelines. The American Society of Hematology (ASH) thrombophilia guidelines have made a significant step forward in demonstrating how decision modeling integrated within GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Developing, and Evaluation) methodology can advance the field of guideline development. Although the ASH model was transparent and understandable, it does, however, suffer from the certain limitations that may have generated potentially wrong recommendations. That is, the panel considered two models separately- after 3-6 months of index venous thromboembolism (VTE), the panel compared Thrombophilia Testing (A) vs. discontinuing anticoagulants (B) and Test (A) vs C (recommending indefinite anticoagulation to all patients) instead of considering all relevant options simultaneously (A vs. B vs. C). Our study aimed to avoid what we refer to as the omitted choice bias by integrating two ASH models into a single unifying threshold decision model. We analyzed 6 ASH panel's recommendations related to testing for thrombophilia in settings of "provoked" vs. "unprovoked" venous thromboembolism (VTE) and low vs. high-bleeding risk (total 12 recommendations). Our model disagreed with the ASH guidelines panels' recommendations in 4 of the 12 recommendations we considered. Considering all three options simultaneously, our model provided results that would have produced sounder recommendations for patient care. By revisiting the ASH guidelines methodology, we have not only improved recommendations for thrombophilia but also provided a method that can be easily applied to other clinical problems and promises to improve the current guidelines' methodology.

Assessment of confidence in medical writing: Development and validation of the first trustworthy measurement tool.

BACKGROUND: The popularity of medical writing workshops highlights the need for a standard measurement tool to assess the impact of such workshops on participants' confidence in: 1- writing a standard article and 2- using optimal English language. Because such an instrument is not yet available, we undertook this study to devise and evaluate the first measurement tool to assess such confidence. METHOD: We created an item pool of 50 items by searching Medline, Embase, and Clarivate Analytics to find related articles, using our prior experience, and approaching the key informants. We revised and edited the item pool, and redundant ones were excluded. Finally, the 36-item tool comprised two domains. We tested it in a group of workshop applicants for internal consistency and temporal reliability using Cronbach's α and Pearson correlations and for content and convergent validity using the content validity index and Pearson correlations. RESULTS: The participants had a mean age of 40.3 years, a female predominance (74.3%), and a majority of faculty members (51.4%). The internal consistency showed high reliability (> 0.95). Test-retest reliability showed very high correlations (r = 0.93). The CVI for domain 1 was 0.78, for domain 2 was 0.73, and for the entire instrument was 0.75. CONCLUSION: This unique, reliable, and valid measurement tool could accurately measure the level of confidence in writing a standard medical article and in using the appropriate English language for this purpose.

Progestogens in women with threatened miscarriage or recurrent miscarriage: A meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Clinical practice guidelines provide inconsistent recommendations regarding progestogen supplementation for threatened and recurrent miscarriage. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the effectiveness and safety of progestogens for these patients. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We searched Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Central Registry of Controlled Trials up to October 6, 2023 for randomized control trials (RCTs) comparing progestogen supplementation to placebo or no treatment for pregnant women with threatened or recurrent miscarriage. We assessed the risk of bias using a modified version of the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool and the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach. RESULTS: Of 15 RCTs (6616 pregnancies) reporting on threatened or recurrent miscarriage, 12 (5610 pregnancies) reported on threatened miscarriage with or without a prior history of miscarriage. Results indicated that progesterone probably increases live births (relative risk (RR) 1.04, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.99-1.10, absolute increase 3.1%, moderate certainty). Of these RCTs, three (1973 pregnancies) reporting on threatened miscarriage with a prior history of miscarriage indicated that progesterone possibly increases live births (RR 1.06, 95% CI: 0.97-1.16, absolute increase 4.4%; low certainty), while four (2540 pregnancies) reporting on threatened miscarriage and no prior miscarriage left the effect very uncertain (RR 1.02, 95% CI: 0.96-1.10, absolute increase 1.7%; very low certainty). Three trials reporting on 1006 patients with a history of two or more prior miscarriages indicated progesterone probably increases live births (RR 1.08, 95% CI: 0.98-1.19, absolute increase 5.7%, moderate certainty). Six RCTs that reported on 2979 patients with at least one prior miscarriage indicated that progesterone probably increases live births (RR 1.07, 95% CI: 1.01-1.13, absolute increase 5.0%; moderate certainty). Progesterone probably has little or no effect on congenital anomalies (RR 1.06, 95% CI: 0.76-1.48, absolute increase 0.1%; moderate certainty), and other serious adverse pregnancy events (RR 1.07, 95% CI: 0.83-1.40, absolute increase 0.2%, moderate certainty). CONCLUSIONS: In women at increased risk of pregnancy loss, progestogens probably increase live births without increasing adverse maternal and neonatal events. It remains possible that the benefit is restricted to those with prior miscarriages.

Factors Impacting Physician Prognostic Accuracy in Heart Failure Patients With Reduced Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction.

BACKGROUND: A recent study showed that the accuracy of heart failure (HF) cardiologists and family doctors to predict mortality in outpatients with HF proved suboptimal, performing less well than models. OBJECTIVES: The authors sought to evaluate patient and physician factors associated with physician accuracy. METHODS: The authors included outpatients with HF from 11 HF clinics. Family doctors and HF cardiologists estimated patient 1-year mortality. They calculated predicted mortality using the Seattle HF Model and followed patients for 1 year to record mortality (or urgent heart transplant or ventricular assist device implant as mortality-equivalent events). Using multivariable logistic regression, the authors evaluated associations among physician experience and confidence in estimates, duration of patient-physician relationship, patient-physician sex concordance, patient race, and predicted risk, with concordant results between physician and model predictions. RESULTS: Among 1,643 patients, 1-year event rate was 10% (95% CI: 8%-12%). One-half of the estimates showed discrepant results between model and physician predictions, mainly owing to physician risk overestimation. Discrepancies were more frequent with increasing patient risk from 38% in low-risk to ∼75% in high-risk patients. When making predictions on male patients, female HF cardiologists were 26% more likely to have discrepant predictions (OR: 0.74; 95% CI: 0.58-0.94). HF cardiologist estimates in Black patients were 33% more likely to be discrepant (OR: 0.67; 95% CI: 0.45-0.99). Low confidence in predictions was associated with discrepancy. Analyses restricted to high-confidence estimates showed inferior calibration to the model, with risk overestimation across risk groups. CONCLUSIONS: Discrepant physician and model predictions were more frequent in cases with perceived increased risk. Model predictions outperform physicians even when they are confident in their predictions. (Predicted Prognosis in Heart Failure [INTUITION]; NCT04009798).

Use of induction therapy post-heart transplantation: Clinical practice recommendations based on systematic review and network meta-analysis of evidence.

BACKGROUND: The use of induction therapy (IT) agents in the early post-heart transplant period remains controversial. The following recommendations aim to provide guidance on the use of IT agents, including Basiliximab and Thymoglobulin, as part of routine care in heart transplantation (HTx). METHODS: We recruited an international, multidisciplinary panel of 15 stakeholders, including patient partners, transplant cardiologists and surgeons, nurse practitioners, pharmacists, and methodologists. We commissioned a systematic review on benefits and harms of IT on patient-important outcomes, and another on patients' values and preferences to inform our recommendations. We used the GRADE framework to summarize our findings, rate certainty in the evidence, and develop recommendations. The panel considered the balance between benefits and harms, certainty in the evidence, and patient's values and preferences, to make recommendations for or against the routine post-operative use of Thymoglobulin or Basiliximab. RESULTS: The panel made recommendations on three major clinical problems in HTx: (1) We suggest against the routine post-operative use of Basiliximab compared to no IT, (2) we suggest against the routine use of Thymoglobulin compared to no IT, and (3) for those patients for whom IT is deemed desirable, we suggest for the use of Thymoglobulin as compared to Basiliximab. CONCLUSION: This report highlights gaps in current knowledge and provides directions for clinical research in the future to better understand the clinical utility of IT agents in the early post heart transplant period, leading to improved management and care.

Patient-important upper gastrointestinal bleeding in the ICU: A mixed-methods study of patient and family perspectives.

INTRODUCTION: The objective of this study was to create a definition of patient-important upper gastrointestinal bleeding during critical illness as an outcome for a randomized trial. DESIGN: This was a sequential mixed-methods qualitative-dominant multi-center study with an instrument-building aim. In semi-structured individual interviews or focus groups we elicited views from survivors of critical illness and family members of patients in the intensive care unit (ICU) regarding which features indicate important gastrointestinal bleeding. Quantitative demographic characteristics were collected. We analyzed qualitative data using inductive content analysis to develop a definition for patient-important upper gastrointestinal bleeding. SETTING: Canada and the United States. PARTICIPANTS: 51 ICU survivors and family members of ICU patients. RESULTS: Participants considered gastrointestinal bleeding to be important if it resulted in death, disability, or prolonged hospitalization. The following also signaled patient-important upper gastrointestinal bleeding: blood transfusion, vasopressors, endoscopy, CT-angiography, or surgery. Whether an intervention evinced concern depended on its effectiveness, side-effects, invasiveness and accessibility; contextual influences included participant familiarity and knowledge of interventions and trust in the clinical team. CONCLUSIONS: Survivors of critical illness and family members described patient-important upper gastrointestinal bleeding differently than current definitions of clinically-important upper gastrointestinal bleeding.

Matching the right study design to decision-maker questions: Results from a Delphi study.

Research evidence can play an important role in each stage of decision-making, evidence-support systems play a key role in aligning the demand for and supply of evidence. This paper provides guidance on what type of study designs most suitably address questions asked by decision-makers. This study used a two-round online Delphi approach, including methodological experts in different areas, disciplines, and geographic locations. Participants prioritized study designs for each of 40 different types of question, with a Kendall's W greater than 0.6 and reaching statistical significance (p<0.05) considered as a consensus. For each type of question, we sorted the final rankings based on their median ranks and interquartile ranges, and listed the four study designs with the highest median ranks. Participants provided 29 answers in the two rounds of the Delphi, and reached a consensus for 28 (out of the 40) questions (eight in the first round and 20 in the second). Participants achieved a consensus for 8 of 15 questions in stage I (clarifying a societal problem, its causes, and potential impacts), 12 of 13 in stage II (finding options to address a problem) and four of six in each of stages III (implementing or scaling-up an option) and IV (monitoring implementation and evaluating impact). This paper provides guidance on what study designs are more suitable to give insights on 28 different types of questions. Decision-makers, evidence intermediaries (, researchers and funders can use this guidance to make better decisions on what type of study design to commission, use or fund when answering specific needs.

The GRADE Working Group and CINeMA approaches provided inconsistent certainty of evidence ratings for a network meta-analysis of opioids for chronic noncancer pain.

OBJECTIVES: Assessment of the certainty of evidence (CoE) from network meta-analysis is critical to convey the strength of inferences for clinical decision-making. Both the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) Working Group (GWG) and the Confidence in Network Meta-Analysis (CINeMA) framework have been designed to assess the CoE of treatment effects informed by network meta-analysis; however, the concordance of results is uncertain. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We assessed the CoE for treatment effects of individual opioids on pain relief and physical functioning from a network meta-analysis for chronic noncancer pain using the GWG approach and the CINeMA framework. Both approaches evaluate the CoE as high, moderate, low or very low. We quantified the number of discrepant CoE ratings between approaches and the magnitude of the difference (ie, one level, two levels, or three levels). RESULTS: Across 105 comparisons among individual opioids for pain relief, the GWG and CINeMA approaches provided different CoE ratings in 34% of cases (36 of 105). Across 66 comparisons for physical functioning, there was discordance in 17% of cases (11 of 66). All discrepancies were separated by one level. The CINeMA framework typically provided lower CoE ratings compared to the GWG approach, predominantly because of differences in the assessment of transitivity and heterogeneity. CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest there are differences between the CoE ratings provided by the GWG and CINeMA approaches when applied to network meta-analyses. Further research is needed to replicate or refute our findings in other network meta-analyses and assess the implications for clinical decision-making.

Infection prevention and control measures to reduce the transmission of mpox: A systematic review.

OBJECTIVES: To make inferences regarding the effectiveness of respiratory interventions and case isolation measures in reducing or preventing the transmission of mpox based on synthesis of available literature. METHODS: The WHO Clinical Management and Infection Prevention and Control 2022 guideline and droplet precautions in healthcare facilities and home isolation infection prevention control measures for patients with mpox. We conducted a systematic review that included a broad search of five electronic databases. In a two-stage process, we initially sought only randomized controlled trials and observational comparative studies; when the search failed to yield eligible studies, the subsequent search included all study designs including clinical and environmental sampling studies. RESULTS: No studies were identified that directly addressed airborne and droplet precautions and home isolation infection prevention control measures. To inform the review questions the review team synthesized route of transmission data in mpox. There were 2366/4309 (54.9%) cases in which investigators identified mpox infection occurring following transmission through direct physical sexual contact. There were no reported mpox cases in which investigators identified inhalation as a single route of transmission. There were 2/4309 cases in which investigators identified fomite as a single route of transmission. Clinical and environmental sampling studies isolated mpox virus in a minority of saliva, oropharangeal swabs, mpox skin lesions, and hospital room air. CONCLUSIONS: Current findings provide compelling evidence that transmission of mpox occurs through direct physical contact. Because investigators have not reported any cases of transmission via inhalation alone, the impact of airborne and droplet infection prevention control measures in reducing transmission will be minimal. Avoiding physical contact with others, covering mpox lesions and wearing a medical mask is likely to reduce onward mpox transmission; there may be minimal reduction in transmission from additionally physically isolating patients with mild disease at home.