An assessment of rates and covariates of mpox diagnosis and vaccination provides evidence to refine eligibility criteria for mpox vaccination among gay, bisexual and other men who have sex with men in the Netherlands ======================================================================================================================================================================================================================== * Philippe C.G. Adam * Eline L.M. Op de Coul * Paul Zantkuijl * Hanna Bos * Maria Xiridou * Cor Blom * Itsada Ketsuwan * Margreet J.M. te Wierik * Silke David * John B.F. de Wit ## Abstract **Background** The 2022 multicountry mpox outbreaks predominantly affected gay, bisexual and other men who have sex with men (GBMSM) in non-endemic countries. Mpox vaccination is most effective if targeting GBMSM most at risk. It is unknown to what extent eligibility criteria for vaccination align with evidence on risk factors for mpox in GBMSM. **Methods** We conducted an online self-report survey among GBMSM in the Netherlands between 29 July and 30 August 30, 2022, corresponding to the first month of the Dutch mpox vaccination campaign. GBMSM were recruited via advertisements on social media and gay dating apps. Participants reported on their sexual behaviour, mpox diagnosis, and/or vaccination since the start of the outbreak. **Results** Of the 2,460 participants, 73 (3.0%) were diagnosed with mpox and 485 (19.7%) had been vaccinated. Using population sample weights, we estimated that, of the sexually active GBMSM population aged 18-80 years in the Netherlands, 1.1% had been diagnosed with mpox and 7.8% had been vaccinated. In multivariable logistic regression analyses, we found that current HIV-PrEP use, having ≥20 sex partners in the past 12 months and having sex in sex venues or at parties in the past two months were independent risk factors for mpox diagnosis. **Conclusion** This study provides novel evidence on risk factors for mpox amongst GBMSM in the Netherlands that has guided a refinement of eligibility criteria for mpox vaccination. The dynamics of any future mpox outbreaks are unknown and continued adjustment of vaccination eligibility may be required to achieve sustained elimination. Keywords * mpox (monkeypox) * MPXV infection * mpox vaccination * risk factors * gay * bisexual and other men who have sex with men (GBMSM) * the Netherlands ## Introduction Mpox (formerly named monkeypox [1]), is a zoonotic infection caused by an orthopoxvirus (MPXV, formerly named monkeypox virus) [2], that is endemic in parts of West and Central Africa [3]. With an estimated global total of about 30,000 cases in humans until 2019, its occurrence was considered rare until early 2022 [4]. Following initial reports of unusual cases in the United Kingdom in early May 2022 [5], multicountry outbreaks of human-to-human transmission of mpox have been identified in other non-endemic regions, including in Europe [6,7]. Between 1 January 2022 and 18 February 2023, 86,019 laboratory confirmed cases of mpox from 110 countries were reported to the World Health Organization (WHO) [8]. The 2022 mpox outbreaks predominantly occurred in gay, bisexual and other men who have sex with men (GBMSM) and likely resulted from transmission during sexual contact in local GBMSM networks [9,10]. Observational studies suggest that smallpox vaccination attenuates mpox disease severity and acquisition risk [2,3,11], and WHO recommends primary prevention vaccination of individuals at high risk, notably GBMSM with multiple sexual partners [12]. However, as in other countries [13], the vaccine for mpox prevention is part of the strategic stockpile and was previously not available to the public in the Netherlands. This limited supply of vaccine necessitates the prioritization of vaccination to population groups at highest risk [14]. The optimal allocation of vaccine requires an alignment of eligibility criteria for vaccination with risk factors for mpox, knowledge of which was limited when mpox vaccination programs were initiated. Based on data from the Netherlands until the end of August 2022, this study provides new evidence on risk factors related to mpox diagnosis among GBMSM and assesses to what extent eligibility criteria for mpox vaccination are aligned with risk factors for mpox diagnosis. The Netherlands is one of the European countries most affected by the mpox outbreak [7]. As of 16 February 2023, there were 1,261 confirmed cases of mpox in the Netherlands [15], a country with nearly 18 million inhabitants [16]. The first mpox case in the Netherlands was reported on 20 May 2022, and the number of new diagnoses peaked at the beginning of July 2022. After that time, the number of new diagnoses decreased and became sporadic as of mid-September 2022 [15]. In the second half of 2022, mpox cases have declined globally [8], including in Europe [17]. Nevertheless, as of February 2023 mpox remains a public health emergency of international concern, and, in Europe, achieving and sustaining elimination are priorities [18]. The early mpox response in the Netherlands aimed at halting transmission and consisted of identifying infected people and implementing public health protection measures, including isolation, contact tracing and post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP) vaccination [19]. Awareness campaigns were also conducted among GBMSM. The stepwise roll-out of a centralised pre-exposure prophylaxis mpox vaccination program, using the Imvanex® third generation smallpox vaccine, was initiated on 25 July 2022 [20]. The vaccination program made use of initial information on the characteristics of individuals diagnosed with mpox [19] to prioritise which GBMSM would (first) receive vaccination. General eligibility criteria for mpox vaccination were defined during meetings of the mpox expert council [21] and further specified for practical program implementation from available data on risk indicators routinely recorded in PrEP, HIV and STI programs [20]. This resulted in practical eligibility criteria for mpox vaccination for GBMSM encompassing: 1) prescribed HIV-PrEP at a sexual health centre (SHC) or general practitioner (GP) clinic, or registered on a waiting list for HIV-PrEP at a SHC; 2) living with HIV and receiving regular HCV screening as a proxy for high risk behaviour; or 3) having attended a SHC in the past six months because of 3a) partner notification related to HIV or STI, 3b) prior diagnosis of syphilis, gonorrhoea or chlamydia, or 3c) having had more than three partners in the past six months [20]. Eligible individuals were invited for mpox vaccination by their health care provider or the public health service charged with the implementation of vaccination. To obtain information on the extent and factors associated with mpox vaccination in the GBMSM community in the Netherlands, and similarities and differences with risk of mpox diagnosis, we initiated an online survey among adult GBMSM in the Netherlands. Drawing on this survey, the focus of the present study is to provide insight into the factors related to mpox diagnosis, and the extent to which these are aligned with eligibility criteria for mpox vaccination among GBMSM in the Netherlands. More specifically, we assess rates of reported mpox diagnoses and vaccination and to what extent these are related to various risk factors, including using HIV-PrEP, living with HIV, prior STI diagnosis, annual number of sex partners, and engagement in group sex, chemsex, and sex in gay saunas, sex clubs or at sex parties. We also estimate the proportion of the GBMSM population potentially at risk of mpox and the extent of mpox diagnosis and vaccination in this subpopulation. Our study provides novel evidence regarding the targeting of the mpox vaccination program in the Netherlands, based on the similarities and differences between mpox vaccination eligibility criteria and factors related to mpox diagnosis and vaccination. ## Methods ### Design and procedures A new, purposive cross-sectional self-report survey entitled *Monkeypox: a new challenge for your sex life* was conducted online among GBMSM in the Netherlands between 29 July and 30 August 2022. Participants were recruited via ads appropriate for the GBMSM population of interest on social media (i.e., Facebook and Instagram), gay dating sites and apps (i.e., Grindr and Recon), and *Man tot Man* the principal sexual health promotion platform for GBMSM in the Netherlands ([https://www.mantotman.nl/en](https://www.mantotman.nl/en)). The ads provided a link to a web page with information about the study. People were eligible to participate if they: lived in the Netherlands, were 18 years or older, identified as male (or non-binary or transgender) and ever had sex with a man. All participants provided informed consent and received no compensation. Only eligible respondents who fully completed the questionnaire were retained in the analyses presented in this paper. ### Measures #### Participant characteristics age (continuous in years), education (tertiary education or currently studying at that level, no/yes), province of residence (also recoded as Noord-Holland, no/yes), sexual orientation (gay, bisexual, heterosexual, still figuring this out). *Sexual behaviours:* number of male sex partners in the past 12 months (0, 1-9, 10-19, 20-49, 50-99, 100 or more; recoded as ≥20 sex partners, yes/no), group sex (sex with two or more partners at the same time) in the past two months (no/yes), chemsex (the intentional use of drugs to enhance sex) in the past two months (no/yes), sex in a gay sauna, sex club or at a sex party (for brevity referred to as sex venues or parties) in the past two months (no/yes). #### HIV/STI-related indicators current HIV-PrEP use (no/yes), living with HIV (no/yes), STI diagnosis in the past 12 months (no/yes). #### Mpox-related indicators mpox diagnosis (no/yes), invitation letter received to vaccinate against mpox (no/yes), and mpox vaccination since the start of the 2022 outbreak (referred to as recent vaccination, no/yes). ### Data analysis All analyses were conducted using SPSS (version 28). Descriptive statistics were calculated to depict sample characteristics and guide data weighting to correct potential recruitment bias. The survey participants included large numbers of GBMSM using HIV-PrEP or living with HIV, and a proportional weighting procedure was applied to the data to balance the representation of GBMSM using HIV-PrEP or living with HIV and other GBMSM. The proportional weighting procedure maintained the sample size constant compared to the unweighted sample. Per convention, numbers are only reported for the unweighted data and not reported for weighted data. To assess the impact of the weighting procedure on the sample characteristics, we calculated differences in percentages between unweighted and weighted estimates and computed the ratio of the two estimates. Sample weights were calculated based on data from national records that show that a total of 11,576 GBMSM nationally use HIV-PrEP, and 13,289 GBMSM were in HIV care in 2022 [22]. The size of the sexually active GBMSM population aged 18-80 years living in the Netherlands was estimated at 310,000, based on an update of a previous estimate [23]. Our update was guided by social science research data regarding same-sex attraction and behaviour as well as gay and bisexual identity in the Netherlands [24]. We also accounted for the growth of the general population of the Netherlands [25]. Details of the study population size estimation are described in the Supplement. Descriptive statistics were also calculated to estimate the rates of mpox diagnoses and recent mpox vaccination from unweighted and weighted data. Univariable and multivariable logistic regression analyses were used to identify covariables of mpox diagnosis or vaccination. Analyses of covariables were conducted on unweighted data, as the variables used for the data weighting were included as potential covariates in the regression models. Odds ratios and p-values are reported for univariable and multivariable analyses, as well as Nagelkerke R-squared for multivariable models. The set of covariables assessed reflects the general and specific eligibility criteria for vaccination. Additional sexual behaviours were also included that may be related to the transmission of MPXV but were not listed as eligibility criteria for mpox vaccination in 2022 in the Netherlands (see Table 1). The following factors were assessed as potential covariables: current use of HIV-PrEP, living with HIV, STI diagnosis in the past 12 months, a high number of sex partners (≥20) in the past 12 months, group sex in the past two months, chemsex in the past two months, and sex in sex venues or parties in the past two months. Except for living with HIV, all these potential covariables were suggested as possible risk factors by ECDC [26]. View this table: [Table 1:](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/03/02/2023.02.28.23286578/T1) Table 1: Eligibility criteria for mpox (monkeypox) vaccination and related covariables included in the analyses. ## Results ### Sample characteristics Overall, 2,899 individuals accessed the survey, of whom 2,744 were adult GBMSM 18 years or over living in the Netherlands who provided informed consent to participate in the survey. Of these eligible respondents, 2,460 (89.7%) completed all questions and were included in the analyses. A comparison of sample characteristics before and after weighting is presented in Table 2. Sample age was slightly higher in the unweighted sample (Mean = 42.7 years, SD = 13.36) than in the weighted sample (Mean = 41.47, SD = 14.10). The weighting reduced the proportional representation of respondents living in Noord-Holland (unweighted sample: 34.1%, weighted sample: 29.8%), and of the proportion of respondents who self-identified as gay (unweighted sample: 91.5%, weighted sample: 88.9%). Reductions were also observed in the proportions of respondents currently using HIV-PrEP (unweighted sample: 32.5%, weighted sample: 3.8%), living with HIV (unweighted sample: 11.0%, weighted sample: 4.3%), and diagnosed with an STI in the past 12 months (unweighted sample: 23.1%, weighted sample: 12.5%). The proportion of respondents with ≥20 sex partners in the past 12 months was also reduced (unweighted sample: 23.9%, weighted sample: 14.3%), as were the proportions of respondents who, in the past two months, engaged in group sex (unweighted sample: 22.3%, weighted sample: 14.6%), chemsex (unweighted sample: 15.3%, weighted sample: 8.5%), or sex in sex venues or at parties (unweighted sample: 21.5%, weighted sample: 14.5%). View this table: [Table 2:](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/03/02/2023.02.28.23286578/T2) Table 2: Respondent characteristics – unweighted and weighted sample ### Rates and covariables of mpox diagnosis Of the 2,460 respondents in the unweighted sample, 73 (3.0%) reported that they had been diagnosed with mpox (see Table 3). In the weighted sample, the estimated rate of mpox diagnoses was 1.1%. View this table: [Table 3:](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/03/02/2023.02.28.23286578/T3) Table 3: Rates of mpox diagnosis, invitation to vaccinate against mpox, and mpox vaccination (unweighted and weighted sample) In univariable analyses, mpox diagnosis was significantly associated with all potential covariables, except living with HIV (see Table 4). In multivariable analysis, mpox diagnosis was significantly associated with current use of HIV-PrEP (aOR=3.49, p=.000), having had ≥20 sex partners in the past 12 months (aOR=3.16, p=.000), and having had sex in sex venues or at parties in the past two months (aOR=2.05, p=.014); a marginal association was found with living with HIV (aOR=2.35, p=.054). No independent association was found between mpox diagnosis and STI diagnosis in the past 12 months, or group sex or chemsex in the past two months. The multivariate model explained nearly a fifth of the variance in the risk of mpox diagnoses (Nagelkerke R-squared=0.18). View this table: [Table 4:](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/03/02/2023.02.28.23286578/T4) Table 4: Covariates of mpox diagnosis and mpox vaccination (N=2,460; non-weighted sample only). ### Rates and covariables of mpox vaccination Of the 2,460 respondents in the unweighted sample, 708 (28.8%) had received an invitation to vaccinate against mpox, and 485 (19.7%) had received recent mpox vaccination (see Table 3). In the weighted sample, 13.1% had received an invitation for mpox vaccination, and 7.8% had recently obtained mpox vaccination. In univariable analyses, recent mpox vaccination was significantly associated with all potential covariables (see Table 4). In multivariable analyses, mpox vaccination was significantly associated with current HIV-PrEP use (aOR=9.81, p=.000), an STI diagnosis in the past 12 months (aOR=2.81, p=.000), living with HIV (aOR=1.92, p=.000), and having had ≥20 sex partners in the past 12 months (aOR=1.35, p=.028). No independent association was found between mpox vaccination and having engaged, in the past two months, in group sex, chemsex, or sex in sex venues or at parties. The multivariable model explained nearly a third of the variance in uptake of mpox vaccination (Nagekerke R-squared=0.30). ### Proportion of the GBMSM subpopulation most at risk of mpox The proportion of respondents reporting one, two or three independent risk factors for mpox diagnosis (i.e., current HIV-PrEP use, ≥20 sex partners in the past 12 months, or sex in sex venues or at parties in the past two months) is shown in Table 5. View this table: [Table 5:](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/03/02/2023.02.28.23286578/T5) Table 5: Size of GBMSM subpopulations most at risk of mpox diagnosis and extent of mpox vaccination and previous mpox diagnosis in these subpopulations (weighted sample). Half of the respondents (48.9%) in the non-weighted sample and 24.8% in the weighted sample reported at least one of the three independent covariables of risk of mpox diagnosis. Of these GBMSM in the weighted sample, 3.3% had received a mpox diagnosis, and 16.1% vaccination. The proportion of respondents with only one independent risk factors for mpox diagnosis was 26.4% in the non-weighted sample and 17.8% in the weighted sample. Of these GBMSM in the weighted sample, 2.5% had received a mpox diagnosis and 11.9% vaccination. The proportion of respondents with two independent risk factors for mpox diagnosis was 15.8% in the non-weighted sample and 6.2% in the weighted sample. Of these GBMSM in the weighted sample, 3.9% had received a mpox diagnosis and 24.2% vaccination. The proportion of respondents who reported all three independent risk factors for mpox diagnosis was 6.7% in the non-weighted sample and 0.8% in the weighted sample. Of these GBMSM in the weighted sample, 15.8% had received a mpox diagnosis and 47.4% vaccination. ## Discussion Our findings provide novel insights into the extent and covariables of the risk of mpox diagnosis and the uptake and need of mpox vaccination among GBMSM in the Netherlands. Of the participants in this study, 3.0% had been diagnosed with mpox and 19.7% had received vaccination since the start of the mpox outbreak. Using data weighting to attenuate participation bias, we found that an estimated 1.1% of the sexually active GBMSM population 18-80 years in the Netherlands had been diagnosed with mpox and 7.8% had been vaccinated. Our multivariable assessment of covariables found commonalities and differences in the independent covariables of mpox diagnosis and vaccination. Mpox diagnosis and vaccination were each independently associated with HIV-PrEP use and reporting ≥20 sex partners in the past 12 months. In contrast, living with HIV and an STI diagnosis in the past 12 months were independently associated with mpox vaccination but not with mpox diagnosis. Conversely, sex in sex venues or at parties in the past two months was independently associated with mpox diagnosis but not with mpox vaccination. Neither group sex nor chemsex in the past two months were independently associated with mpox diagnosis or vaccination. Mpox vaccination is best targeted at GBMSM most at risk for mpox, as also recommended by ECDC [26], and our findings provide novel guidance to ensure that eligibility criteria for mpox vaccination are aligned with evidence-based risk factors for mpox diagnosis. Our findings underscore the importance of three independent risk factors for mpox diagnosis identified in this study: current use of HIV-PrEP, ≥20 sex partners in the past 12 months, or having sex in sex venues or at parties in the past two months. These findings confirm the importance of HIV-PrEP use as an eligibility criterion for mpox vaccination among GBMSM in the Netherlands [20], and more broadly in Europe [26]. A higher number of sex partners was noted as a potential risk factor for mpox in ECDC guidance [26]. It was, however, not previously specified as a general eligibility criterion for mpox vaccination of GBMSM in the Netherlands, but only as a specific eligibility criterion for GBMSM who had been in contact with a SHC [20]. Our findings suggest including having had 20 or more sex partners in the past 12 months as an eligibility criterion for all GBMSM in the Netherlands. Our findings also confirm ECDC guidance that attending sex venues is a risk factor for mpox and this might be added as an eligibility criterion for mpox vaccination among GBMSM in the Netherlands. However, unlike suggested by ECDC [26], we did not find that engaging in group sex or chemsex, or having a recent history of STI were independent risk factors for mpox. We also did not find an independent association between mpox diagnosis and a positive HIV status, which is an eligibility criterion for mpox vaccination amongst GBMSM in the Netherlands [20], but not according to ECDC [26]. Our findings suggest that the disproportionate number of mpox diagnoses amongst HIV-positive GBMSM noted in outbreak reports and monitoring [6-8], is likely related to higher risk sexual practices, not to HIV-status per se. Our assessment enabled the estimation of the proportions of the subpopulations of GBMSM at risk of mpox who would potentially benefit from vaccination. Of the less than 1% of GBMSM in the weighted sample who reported all three independent risk factors for mpox diagnosis, almost two-thirds (63.2%) were protected because of recent infection or vaccination, while just over one third (36.8%) was not. The level of protection was lower among the just over one in twenty (6.2%) GBMSM who reported two independent risk factors for mpox diagnosis. Of these, just over a quarter (28.1%) was protected because of recent infection or vaccination, while less than three quarters (71.9%) were not. The level of protection was lowest amongst the less than one in five (17.8%) of GBMSM reporting only one risk factor for mpox diagnosis, of whom s minority (14.4%) had been infected or vaccinated, while most (85.6%) were not. These findings show that the level of protection achieved is highest amongst the group of GBMSM most at risk. As modelling has shown [14], a vaccination strategy targeting those most at risk may contribute to effectively curbing mpox outbreaks. It is, however, possible that mpox could be reintroduced among lower risk and less protected GBMSM who reporting one or two independent risk factors for mpox diagnosis. Vaccination of broader subpopulations of GBMSM at risk may hence be needed to achieve sustained elimination [18]. This study has unique strengths. To the best of our knowledge, it is the first study to assess the extent of mpox diagnoses and vaccination in a community sample of GBMSM, and to assess and compare commonalities and disparities in covariables for mpox diagnosis and vaccination. Also, we recruited a large sample of GBMSM and achieved a high completion rate. Furthermore, we provided an updated estimate of the size of the sexually active adult GBMSM population in the Netherlands and made use of weighting procedures to strengthen the generalizability of findings. Our study has limitations that are common to survey research, including convenience sample and the use of self-report. Also, some information regarding specific eligibility criteria for mpox vaccination was not assessed in the survey, notably being on a waiting list for PrEP and regular HCV screening among participants living with HIV. Also, the survey did not allow for differentiating between pre-exposure and post-exposure vaccination, albeit that the uptake of post-exposure vaccinations remains very limited in the Netherlands. Furthermore, the survey assessed mpox diagnoses and vaccination uptake and covariables only until the end of August 2022, one month into the vaccination program. However, while the reach of the vaccination program has increased thereafter, vaccinations mostly occurred at the start of the program, and GBMSM at highest risk were invited first. While it cannot be excluded that the nature of covariates of mpox diagnosis and vaccination differ over time, it seems more likely that the strength of their contribution may have changed. This study underscores the importance of an evidence-based approach to identifying risk factors for mpox diagnosis to guide the selection of eligibility criteria for mpox vaccination. We found that risk factors for mpox diagnosis overall align with ECDC guidance. However, our findings partially overlapped and partially differed with the eligibility criteria for mpox vaccination of GBMSM used in 2022 in the Netherlands. The difference between our findings on risk factors for mpox diagnosis and eligibility criteria for mpox vaccination in the Netherlands contributed to a refining of eligibility criteria and providing access to vaccination to broader segments of the GBMSM population [27]. In addition to individuals known by healthcare providers providing HIV-PrEP, STI or HIV services, other GBMSM at risk of mpox, including those who attend sex venues and parties, may need to be targeted for mpox vaccination. Extension of the vaccination program would provide health benefits to individual GBMSM most at risk and would contribute to achieving the sustained elimination of mpox [18]. ## Ethical statement Ethics approval for this study was granted on 25 July 2022 by the Faculty Research Ethics Board of the Faculty of Social and Behavioural Sciences, Utrecht University, the Netherlands (reference number: 22-0358). ## Supporting information Supplement [[supplements/286578_file02.pdf]](pending:yes) ## Data Availability All data produced in the present study are available upon reasonable request to the authors ## Funding statement The National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM) and Soa Aids Nederland provided financial support for this research study. ## Data availability Data are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request. ## Conflict of interest None. ## Authors’ contributions PA developed the idea for this study, conducted the statistical analyses, and wrote the first draft of the manuscript. EOdC provided important information and insights on the mpox outbreak and vaccination program in the Netherlands, and JdW reviewed and revised the manuscript. PZ, HB, CB, IK, MX, SD, and MtW reviewed the manuscript and contributed further revisions. All authors have read the final manuscript and accepted authorship. ## Acknowledgements The authors thank Lisette Kuyper, Hanneke de Graaf and Manon Haverkate for sharing information and data, Arjan van Bijnen and Laurian Kuipers for their contribution to the recruitment, and all participants to the survey. ## Footnotes * An additional column reporting the proportion of participants indicating at least one independent risk factor for mpox diagnosis was added to table 5. The text describing the results was amended to reflect the data added to table 5. Minor related editorial changes were made to the discussion of these findings. * Received February 28, 2023. * Revision received March 2, 2023. * Accepted March 2, 2023. * © 2023, Posted by Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory The copyright holder for this pre-print is the author. All rights reserved. The material may not be redistributed, re-used or adapted without the author's permission. ## References 1. 1.World Health Organization [Internet]. Geneva: World Health Organization; c2023. WHO recommends new name for monkeypox disease; 2022 Nov 28 [cited 2023 Feb 23]; about 4 screens. Available from: [https://www.who.int/news/item/28-11-2022-who-recommends-new-name-for-monkeypox-disease](https://www.who.int/news/item/28-11-2022-who-recommends-new-name-for-monkeypox-disease) 2. 2.Marennikova SS, Šeluhina, EM, Mal’ceva NN, Čimiškjan KL, Macevič Gr. Isolation and properties of the causal agent of a new variola-like disease (monkeypox) in man. Bull. World Health Organ. 1972;46(5):599–611. [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=4340219&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F03%2F02%2F2023.02.28.23286578.atom) [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=A1972N332500005&link_type=ISI) 3. 3.Sukhdeo S, Mishra S, Walmsley S. Human monkeypox: a comparison of the characteristics of the new epidemic to the endemic disease. BMC Infect Dis. 2022;22(1):928. [https://doi.org/10.1186/s12879-022-07900-7](https://doi.org/10.1186/s12879-022-07900-7) 4. 4.Bunge EM, Hoet B, Chen L, Lienert F, Weidenthaler H, Baer LR, Steffen R. The changing epidemiology of human monkeypox-A potential threat? A systematic review. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2022;16(2):e0010141. [https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pntd.0010141](https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pntd.0010141) [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1371/journal.pntd.0010141&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=35148313&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F03%2F02%2F2023.02.28.23286578.atom) 5. 5.Vivancos R, Anderson C, Blomquist P, Balasegaram S, Bell A, Bishop L, et al. Community transmission of monkeypox in the United Kingdom, April to May 2022. Euro Surveill. 2022;27(22):2200422. [https://doi.org/10.2807/1560-7917.ES.2022.27.22.2200422](https://doi.org/10.2807/1560-7917.ES.2022.27.22.2200422) [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.2807/1560-7917.ES.2022.27.22.2200422&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=http://www.n&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F03%2F02%2F2023.02.28.23286578.atom) 6. 6.Thornhill JP, Barkati S, Walmsley S, Rockstroh J, Antinori A, Harrison LB, et al. Monkeypox virus infection in humans across 16 countries - April-June 2022. N Engl J Med. 2022;387(8):679–691. [https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa2207323](https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa2207323) [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1056/NEJMoa2207323&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=http://www.n&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F03%2F02%2F2023.02.28.23286578.atom) 7. 7.Vaughan AM, Cenciarelli O, Colombe S, Alves de Sousa L, Fischer N, Gossner CM, et al. A large multi-country outbreak of monkeypox across 41 countries in the WHO European Region, 7 March to 23 August 2022. Euro Surveill. 2022;27(36):2200620. [https://doi.org/0.2807/1560-7917.ES.2022.27.36.2200620](https://doi.org/0.2807/1560-7917.ES.2022.27.36.2200620) 8. 8.World Health Organization [Internet]. Geneva: World Health Organization; c2023. 2022-23 Mpox (Monkeypox) outbreak: Global trends; 2023 Feb 21 [cited 2023 Feb 23]; [about 25 screens]. Available from: [https://worldhealthorg.shinyapps.io/mpx_global/#section-fns](https://worldhealthorg.shinyapps.io/mpx_global/#section-fns) 9. 9.Selb R, Werber D, Falkenhorst G, Steffen G, Lachmann R, Ruscher C, et al. A shift from travel-associated cases to autochthonous transmission with Berlin as epicentre of the monkeypox outbreak in Germany, May to June 2022. Euro Surveill. 2022;27(27):2200499. [https://doi.org/10.2807/1560-7917.ES.2022.27.27.2200499](https://doi.org/10.2807/1560-7917.ES.2022.27.27.2200499) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=http://www.n&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F03%2F02%2F2023.02.28.23286578.atom) 10. 10.Vusirikala A, Charles H, Balasegaram S, Macdonald N, Kumar D, Barker-Burnside C, et al. Epidemiology of early monkeypox virus transmission in sexual networks of gay and bisexual men, England, 2022. Emerg Infect Dis. 2022;28(10):2082–2086. [https://doi.org/10.3201/eid2810.220960](https://doi.org/10.3201/eid2810.220960) [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.3201/eid2810.220960&link_type=DOI) 11. 11.Payne AB, Ray LC, Kugeler KJ, Fothergill A, White EB, Canning M, et al. Incidence of monkeypox among unvaccinated persons compared with persons receiving ≥1 JYNNEOS vaccine dose — 32 U.S. jurisdictions, July 31–September 3, 2022. Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2022;71:1278–1282. [http://dx.doi.org/10.15585/mmwr.mm7140e3](http://dx.doi.org/10.15585/mmwr.mm7140e3). [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.15585/mmwr.mm7140e3&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=http://www.n&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F03%2F02%2F2023.02.28.23286578.atom) 12. 12.World Health Organization. Vaccines and immunization for monkeypox. Interim guidance 16 November 2022. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2022 Nov 20p. 13. 13.Martín-Delgado MC, Martín Sánchez FJ, Martínez-Sellés M, Molero García JM, Moreno Guillén S, Rodríguez-Artalejo FJ, et al. Monkeypox in humans: a new outbreak. Rev Esp Quimioter. 2022;35(6):509–518. [https://doi.org/10.37201/req/059.2022](https://doi.org/10.37201/req/059.2022) 14. 14.Knight J, Tan DHS, Mishra S. Maximizing the impact of limited vaccine supply under different early epidemic conditions: a 2-city modelling analysis of monkeypox virus transmission among men who have sex with men. CMAJ. 2022;194(46):E1560–E1567. [https://doi.org/10.1503/cmaj.221232](https://doi.org/10.1503/cmaj.221232) [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6NDoiY21haiI7czo1OiJyZXNpZCI7czoxMjoiMTk0LzQ2L0UxNTYwIjtzOjQ6ImF0b20iO3M6NTA6Ii9tZWRyeGl2L2Vhcmx5LzIwMjMvMDMvMDIvMjAyMy4wMi4yOC4yMzI4NjU3OC5hdG9tIjt9czo4OiJmcmFnbWVudCI7czowOiIiO30=) 15. 15.National Institute for Public Health and the Environment [Internet]. Bilthoven, the Netherlands: National Institute for Public Health and the Environment. Mpox; 2023 Feb 16 [cited 2023 Feb 24]; [about 8 screens]. Available from: [https://www.rivm.nl/en/monkeypox](https://www.rivm.nl/en/monkeypox) 16. 16.Statistics Netherlands [Internet]. Den Haag, the Netherlands: Statistics Netherlands c2023. Population dashboard. Up to date figures on the Dutch population; 2023 Feb 24 [cited 2023 Feb 24]; [about 3 screens]. Available from: [https://www.cbs.nl/en-gb/visualisations/dashboard-population](https://www.cbs.nl/en-gb/visualisations/dashboard-population) 17. 17.European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control [Internet]. Stockholm, Sweden: European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control c2023. Mpox (formerly named monkeypox) situation update, as of 14 February 2023; 2023 Feb 15 {cited 2023 Feb 24]. Available from: [https://www.ecdc.europa.eu/en/news-events/monkeypox-situation-update](https://www.ecdc.europa.eu/en/news-events/monkeypox-situation-update) 18. 18.World Health Organization [Internet]. Geneva: World Health Organization; c2023. Mpox – It hasn’t gone away; 2023 Feb 15 [cited 2023 Feb 24]; [about 6 screens]. Available from: [https://www.who.int/europe/news/item/15-02-2023-as-the-mpox--emergency--continues--the-united-kingdom-shows-how-achieving-and-sustaining-disease-elimination-has-to-be-the-next-priority](https://www.who.int/europe/news/item/15-02-2023-as-the-mpox--emergency--continues--the-united-kingdom-shows-how-achieving-and-sustaining-disease-elimination-has-to-be-the-next-priority) 19. 19.Van Ewijk C, Miura F, van Rijckevorsel G, de Vries H, Welkers M, van den Berg O, et al. Monkeypox outbreak in the Netherlands in 2022: Public health response, epidemiological and clinical characteristics of the first 1000 cases and protection of the first-generation smallpox vaccine. medRxiv. 2022. [https://doi.org/10.1101/2022.10.20.22281284](https://doi.org/10.1101/2022.10.20.22281284) 20. 20.Rijksinstituut voor Volksgezondheid en Milieu [National Institute for Public Health and the Environment] [Internet]. Bilthoven, the Netherlands: Rijksinstituut voor Volksgezondheid en Milieu. Mpoxvaccinatie Uitvoeringsrichtlijn [mpox vaccination guidelines] [about 29 screens]. Dutch. Available from: [https://lci.rivm.nl/richtlijnen/monkeypoxvaccinatie#1-over-deze-richtlijn](https://lci.rivm.nl/richtlijnen/monkeypoxvaccinatie#1-over-deze-richtlijn) 21. 21.Leenstra T. (Landelijke Coördinatie Infectieziektebestrijding, Rijksinstituut voor Volksgezondheid en Mileau [National Coordination Centre for Communicable Disease Control, National Institute for Public Health and the Environment]). Letter to: Marjolein Sonnema (Ministerie van Volksgezondheid, Welzijn en Sport [Ministry of Health, Wellfare and Sport]). 2022 Jul 6. 5p. Dutch. Available from: [https://open.overheid.nl/repository/ronl-614a46ff6591d770978a2bae54768ae183cd7468/1/pdf/adviesbrief-mpx-prep-vaccinatie-6-juli-2022.pdf](https://open.overheid.nl/repository/ronl-614a46ff6591d770978a2bae54768ae183cd7468/1/pdf/adviesbrief-mpx-prep-vaccinatie-6-juli-2022.pdf) 22. 22.1. van Sighem A, 2. Wit F, 3. Boyd A, 4. Smit C, 5. Matser A, 6. van de Valk M. Van Sighem A., Rokx C, Op de Coul E. HIV in the Netherlands. In: van Sighem A, Wit F, Boyd A, Smit C, Matser A, van de Valk M. Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) Infection in the Netherlands. Monitoring Report 2022. Amsterdam, the Netherlands: Stichting hiv monitoring; 2023. p. 11–92. Available from: [https://www.hiv-monitoring.nl/en/resources/monitoring-report-2022](https://www.hiv-monitoring.nl/en/resources/monitoring-report-2022) 23. 23.Op de Coul EL, Schreuder I, Conti S, van Sighem A, Xiridou M, Van Veen MG, et al. Changing patterns of undiagnosed HIV infection in the Netherlands: Who benefits most from intensified HIV test and treat policies? PLoS One. 2015;10(7): e0133232. [https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0133232](https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0133232) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=26185998&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F03%2F02%2F2023.02.28.23286578.atom) 24. 24.1. Bakker F, & 2. Vanwesenbeeck I, editors Kuyper L. Seksualiteit en seksuele gezondheid bij homoen biseksuelen. [Sexuality and sexual health of gay and bisexual persons.] In: Bakker F, & Vanwesenbeeck I, editors. Seksuele gezondheid in Nederland 2006. Delft, the Netherlands: Eburon; 2006. pp. 167–188. Dutch. Available from: [https://shop.rutgers.nl/651860.pdf](https://shop.rutgers.nl/651860.pdf) 25. 25.Statistics Netherlands [Internet]. Den Haag, the Netherlands: Statistics Netherlands 2023. Population growth. How fast is the population of the Netherlands growing?; not dated [cited 2023 Feb 24]; [about 2 screens]. Available from: [https://www.cbs.nl/en-gb/visualisations/dashboard-population/population-dynamics/population-growth](https://www.cbs.nl/en-gb/visualisations/dashboard-population/population-dynamics/population-growth) 26. 26.European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control. Monkeypox multi-country outbreak – second update, 18 October 2022. ECDC: Stockholm; 2022. [https://www.ecdc.europa.eu/en/publications-data/monkeypox-multi-country-outbreak-second-update](https://www.ecdc.europa.eu/en/publications-data/monkeypox-multi-country-outbreak-second-update) 27. 27.Van Dissel JT. (Centrum Infectieziektebestrijding, Rijksinstituut voor Volksgezondheid en Mileu [Centre for Infectious Disease Contro, National Institute for Public Health and the Environment]). Letter to: Marjolein Sonnema (Ministerie van Volksgezondheid, Welzijn en Sport [Ministry of Health, Wellfare and Sport]). 2022 Nov 29. 11p. Dutch. Available from: [https://open.overheid.nl/Details/ronl-b7a448c0a585892110380aa55cb35a558e75b34f/1](https://open.overheid.nl/Details/ronl-b7a448c0a585892110380aa55cb35a558e75b34f/1)