Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dlnhk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T18:25:39.142Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Viable mpox in the inanimate environmental and risk of transmission

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 September 2023

Leonard A. Mermel*
Affiliation:
1Department of Medicine, Warren Alpert Medical School of Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island 2Department of Epidemiology & Infection Prevention, Lifespan Hospital System, Providence, Rhode Island
*
Corresponding author: Leonard A. Mermel; E-mail: [email protected]
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Type
Letter to the Editor
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of The Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America

As of August 23, 2023, 30,767 mpox cases have been reported in the United States (https://www.cdc.gov/poxvirus/mpox/response/2022/index.html). Although mpox is primarily transmitted through contact with an infected individual, recent investigations have demonstrated potential mpox transmission from patients to healthcare workers after contact with contaminated bedding Reference Vaughan, Aarons and Astbury1 or other fomites. Reference Salvato and Rodrigues Ikeda2 In support of such findings, viable mpox virus has been detected on various surfaces in home and hospital settings of infected individuals (Table 1). Reference Morgan, Whitehill and Doty3Reference Marimuthu, Wong and Lim8 One quantitative study of viable mpox virus in a residential setting found the highest level on underwear. Reference Morgan, Whitehill and Doty3 Viable mpox has been detected on household surfaces for up to 15 days, but at low titers suggesting a lesser potential for transmission. Reference Morgan, Whitehill and Doty3 Mpox survival in the environment is highly dependent on surrounding temperature and humidity, Reference Meister, Brüggemann and Todt9 as well as the porosity of a contaminated object. Reference Morgan, Whitehill and Doty3 When mpox mixed with blood or albumin was inoculated on stainless steel at 37°C, no viable mpox could be recovered after 6 and 7 days, respectively, 10 and 11 days, respectively at 22°C, but up to 30 days at 4°C for mpox mixed with either blood or albumin. Reference Meister, Brüggemann and Todt9

Table 1. Detection of Mpox on Surfaces in Home and Hospital Settings

Based on the data reviewed above, healthcare workers should follow guidance regarding personal protective equipment upon entering the immediate environment of a patient with known or suspected mpox, regardless of whether or not the healthcare worker intends to have direct contact with the patient. 10 In addition, emphasis should also be placed on careful removal of personal protective equipment to prevent self-contamination while doffing and practicing hand hygiene thereafter. Lastly, cleaning environmental surfaces in the rooms of such patients should be done using products with mpox cidal activity. Reference Meister, Brüggemann and Todt9,10

Acknowledgments

Financial support

No financial support was provided relevant to this article.

Conflicts of interest

The author reports no conflicts of interest relevant to this article.

References

Vaughan, A, Aarons, E, Astbury, J, et al. Human-to-human transmission of monkeypox virus, United Kingdom, October 2018. Emerg Infect Dis 2020;26:782785.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Salvato, RS, Rodrigues Ikeda, ML, et al. Possible occupational infection of healthcare workers with monkeypox virus, Brazil. Emerg Infect Dis 2022; 12:25202523.Google Scholar
Morgan, CN, Whitehill, F, Doty, JB, et al. Environmental persistence of monkeypox virus on surfaces in household of person with travel-associated infection, Dallas, Texas, USA, 2021. Emerg Infect Dis 2022;28:19821989.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Atkinson, B, Burton, C, Pottage, T, et al. Infection-competent monkeypox virus contamination identified in domestic settings following an imported case of monkeypox into the UK. Environ Microbiol 2022;24:45614569.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pfeiffer, JA, Collingwood, A, Rider, LE, et al. High-contact object and surface contamination in a household of persons with monkeypox virus infection—Utah, June 2022. Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2022;71:10921094.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nörz, D, Pfefferle, S, Brehm, TT, et al. Evidence of surface contamination in hospital rooms occupied by patients infected with monkeypox, Germany, June 2022. Euro Surveill 2022;27:2200477.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gould, S, Atkinson, B, Onianwa, O, et al. Air and surface sampling for monkeypox virus in a UK hospital: an observational study. Lancet Microbe 2022;3:e904e911.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marimuthu, K, Wong, JCC, Lim, PL, et al. Viable mpox virus in the environment of a patient room. Int J Infect Dis 2023;131:4045.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Meister, TL, Brüggemann, Y, Todt, D, et al. Stability and inactivation of monkeypox virus on inanimate surfaces. J Infect Dis 2023 May 2:jiad127.Google Scholar
Figure 0

Table 1. Detection of Mpox on Surfaces in Home and Hospital Settings