Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2025 Jan 8;20(1):e0313691. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0313691

Risk factors for human infection with mpox among the Mexican population with social security

Alfonso Vallejos Parás 1,#, Lumumba Arriaga Nieto 1,*,#, David Alejandro Cabrera Gaytán 2,#, Bernardo Cacho Díaz 3,#, Leticia Jaimes Betancourt 4,#, Porfirio Felipe Hernández Bautista 2,#, Oscar Cruz Orozco 1,, Gabriel Valle Alvarado 1,, Alejandro Moctezuma Paz 5,, Mónica Grisel Rivera Mahey 1,
Editor: Moises Leon Juarez6
PMCID: PMC11709237  PMID: 39774420

Abstract

Background

The 2022 mpox outbreak marked a significant shift in the epidemiology of this zoonotic disease, traditionally confined to Central and West Africa. With over 80 countries reporting cases, this outbreak was characterized by a rapid spread in non-endemic regions, leading to more than 70,000 confirmed cases globally.

Objective

To quantify the cumulative incidence of mpox and identify associated factors of mpox among the Mexican population affiliated by the Mexican Social Security Institute during the 2022–2023 outbreak.

Material and methods

A retrospective observational study using a cross-sectional survey to assess the cumulative incidence and factors associated with mpox. The cumulative incidence of laboratory confirmed mpox cases was calculated by dividing the number of confirmed cases by the insured population in the Mexican Social Security Institute as of mid-2022, per 100,000 individuals, this was analyzed by sex, age group, sexual orientation and people living with HIV. Logistic regression analyses were conducted to identify sociodemographic and clinical factors associated with mpox infection.

Results

A total of 2,956 probable cases were reported, with 1,744 (59%) laboratory-confirmed mpox cases. Most confirmed cases were male, with a median age of 32 years. The overall cumulative incidence was 4.05 per 100,000 persons, significantly higher in men and men who have sex with men. Logistic regression revealed that male sex was significantly associated with higher odds of laboratory-confirmed mpox. Age groups 30–34, 35–39, and 40–44 had an elevated risk of infection. Men who have sex with men showed a substantially increased likelihood of mpox, while individuals living with HIV were at higher risk compared to those without HIV. Key clinical predictors included fever, arm rash, and inguinal lymphadenopathy.

Conclusion

The 2022 mpox outbreak revealed significant disparities in infection risk, particularly among men, men who have sex with men, and individuals living with HIV.

Introduction

Mpox is an emerging zoonotic infectious disease caused by the mpox virus, a human pathogen belonging to the Orthopoxvirus genus, which also includes the vaccinia and variola viruses, the latter being the causative agent of smallpox [1, 2]. Phylogenetic analyses of the mpox virus reveal two main clades: Clade I, found in the Congo Basin, which has a higher mortality rate of up to 10% and is primarily transmitted by rodents with limited human-to-human spread, and Clade II, which is further subdivided into Clade IIa, occurring in West Africa with low mortality and zoonotic transmission, and Clade IIb, currently spreading globally through human transmission [3, 4]. Recently, a highly divergent Clade I virus, designated Clade Ib, was identified in South Kivu province, further highlighting the ongoing evolution of the virus [5].

The mpox virus was first identified in 1958 in Denmark during investigations of two outbreaks of a smallpox-like disease in cynomolgus monkeys [6]. The first human case of mpox was reported in 1970 in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) [7]. For decades, mpox cases remained largely confined to forested areas of Central and West Africa, with sporadic outbreaks primarily occurring in the DRC [8, 9]. In countries across Central and West Africa, outbreaks of monkeypox have consistently occurred in populations living in rural areas, in small villages (less than 1000 people) adjacent to or within humid evergreen tropical forests–at the so-called human-animal interface [8].

In 2003, the first cases of mpox outside Africa were reported during an outbreak in Wisconsin, USA, involving 11 individuals who developed febrile illnesses with skin eruptions after direct contact with infected prairie dogs. Epidemiological investigations suggested that the prairie dogs had been exposed to rodents recently imported from West Africa [10]. Subsequent travel-associated cases were reported in Israel in 2018, the UK in 2018 and 2019, and Singapore in 2019, all linked to exposures in Nigeria [11].

A significant shift occurred in May 2022, when mpox cases were reported in countries where the disease was not previously endemic, primarily affecting men who have sex with men (MSM) and detected through sexual health services. On July 23, 2022, the World Health Organization (WHO) declared the mpox outbreak a Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC) due to its rapid spread, with over 16,000 cases reported across 75 countries and territories at that time in the 2022 multinational mpox outbreak [12, 13], the disease was described clinically with fever, lethargy, myalgia, headache, lymphadenopathy, and skin rash. The skin lesions, often located in the anogenital area, trunk, arms, legs, face, palms, and soles, can be macular, pustular, vesicular, or crusted, appearing in multiple phases simultaneously. The number of lesions varies widely, typically with ten or fewer per individual [14, 15]. The mean incubation period ranges from 5.6 days for symptom onset to 7.5 days for rash onset [16]. Hospitalization rates are around 14.1%, with significant variability across countries and time, and the estimated case fatality rate is 0.03% [17].

In Mexico, the first mpox case was registered in May 2022, and according to the 2023 last official report of the Ministry of Health, up to May 31, 2023, there had been 6,864 persons identified as probable mpox cases. Of these, 4,021 were confirmed by laboratory testing, 238 were under investigation, and 2,605 had been excluded by laboratory testing [18].

This global health emergency was declared over in May 2023 after a sustained decline in global cases [19].

On 14 August 2024, the WHO Director-General, based on the recommendation of the International Health Regulations Emergency Committee, determined that the increase in mpox cases in the Democratic Republic of the Congo and a growing number of countries in Africa constitutes a new PHEIC, with the potential to spread further across African countries and possibly beyond the continent [20].

This study aimed to quantify the cumulative incidence of mpox and identify associated factors of mpox among the Mexican population affiliated by the Mexican Social Security Institute during the 2022–2023 outbreak.

Materials and methods

We conducted a retrospective observational study using a cross-sectional survey to assess mpox cumulative incidence and associated factors in a population with health coverage from the Mexican Social Security Institute (IMSS).

The Mexican health system consists of three main components operating in parallel: 1)‎ employment based social insurance schemes, 2)‎ public assistance services for the uninsured, and 3)‎ a private sector [21]. The IMSS is the largest social security institution in Latin America [22], providing social insurance to private sector employees [21]. The institution provides full healthcare coverage to its affiliates: there are no restrictions on service utilization, requirements for copayment or predefined limits on coverage [23]. Recent. In 2022, the IMSS registered more than 60 million beneficiaries [24], which corresponds to 46.3% of the Mexican population [25].

The data were obtained from the Mpox Epidemiological Surveillance System, which operates nationwide across all medical units in the country. Consequently, medical units within the IMSS are mandated to report all cases that meet the criteria for probable mpox cases to the National Epidemiological Surveillance System for Mpox [26]. Through laboratory surveillance, each case is investigated and classified according to the operational definitions outlined below. All cases reported to the mpox epidemiological surveillance system and studied in this research are new cases of the disease.

Variable definitions and data collection

The operational definition of a probable case of mpox to be reported in the epidemiological surveillance system was any person of any age and sex who has one or more lesions in the skin (macule, papule, vesicle, pustule, and/or scab) or mucosal surface without other clinical diagnosis explaining the clinical presentation, and who has one or more of the following signs or symptoms: fever, myalgias, headache, lymphadenopathy, asthenia, arthralgia, low back pain. In immunocompromised individuals, a probable case was defined as having one or more skin or mucosal surface lesions, even if no other signs or symptoms were present.

Also, patients without identifiable skin or mucosal lesions but who presented one or more of the following signs or symptoms: headache, acute onset fever (> 38.5°C), lymphadenopathy, myalgia, low back pain or asthenia, and were in contact with a case confirmed during the 21 days before the onset of symptoms, were considered as a probable case of mpox.

Laboratory-Confirmed Case of Mpox: A probable case with a positive sample result for the mpox virus processed by approved laboratories for diagnosis.

Laboratory Discarded Case of Mpox: A probable case with a negative result for the mpox virus processed by approved laboratories for diagnosis, without evidence of clinical or epidemiological association.

All probable cases identified in IMSS medical units were notified and sociodemographic, epidemiological, and clinical variables were collected using a case report form (CRF) standardized by the mpox National Epidemiological Surveillance System [26]. The CRF was collected through the physician’s interview with the patient so the responses to the questionnaire are collected directly from the patient and medical evaluation.

The variables analyzed in the CRF included sex assigned at birth (male or female) and sexual orientation, which was self-reported. The categories of sexual orientation considered were heterosexual, MSM, bisexual, and lesbian. Gender was also self-reported, with the following categories: cisgender women, cisgender men, transgender women, and non-binary individuals. Health conditions such as HIV, syphilis, hepatitis C, and other sexually transmitted infections (STIs) were recorded through self-reporting.

Additionally, data were collected on the patient’s clinical status, including whether they were hospitalized or deceased, based on medical reports. Sociodemographic and clinical variables were also recorded, such as the presence of fever, exanthema, conjunctivitis, odynophagia, ulcers, and lymphadenopathy.

All patients classified as probable cases were sampled for PCR confirmation. Samples were processed for molecular detection of the mpox DNA by polymerase chain reaction (PCR) tests performed by laboratories authorized by the Institute of Epidemiological Diagnosis and Reference (InDRE), the national reference laboratory in the country. The laboratory specimens included exudate smears from skin lesions (vesicles or pustules) or mucosal surface exudates (oropharyngeal or pharyngeal).

Study population

All probable mpox cases reported by IMSS medical units from May 2022 to May 2023 involving individuals aged 15 years and older were included in the study. Cases were excluded if laboratory results were unavailable during the study period, including those rejected due to specimen quality, indeterminate results, or samples that had not yet been processed (Fig 1). Database was accessed on June 26, 2023.

Fig 1. Flow chart of sample composition of the study.

Fig 1

Statistical analysis

A descriptive analysis of the sociodemographic and clinical variables of patients confirmed with mpox by laboratory testing was conducted. The variables included age, sex at birth, gender, sexual orientation, pre-existing health conditions, comorbidities, hospitalization, and mortality.

A comparative analysis was performed to evaluate the clinical symptoms and signs between patients with laboratory-confirmed mpox and those with laboratory-discarded mpox. The analysis included a wide range of symptoms, such as fever, rash, lymphadenopathy, and pain at various anatomical sites. For each variable, the presence or absence of symptoms was recorded, and the percentage of patients in each group was calculated. The chi-squared test was used to assess the statistical significance of differences between the two groups, with a significance level of p < 0.05.

An epidemic curve of mpox cases by month was constructed using the number of laboratory-confirmed cases and discarded cases from May 2022 to May 2023. The monthly positivity rate was calculated by dividing the number of confirmed mpox cases by the total number of cases tested (confirmed and discarded) and expressing the result as a percentage.

The cumulative incidence was calculated by dividing the number of laboratory-confirmed cases of mpox among the population insured in the IMSS at mid-2022 per 100,000 individuals [27]. The cumulative incidence was obtained by sex and age group.

The cumulative incidence of laboratory-confirmed cases of mpox was also obtained in population subgroups, by sexual orientation, MSM and people living with HIV per 100,000 individuals.

Based on data from the 2021 National Survey on Sexual and Gender Diversity conducted by the National Institute of Statistics and Geography (INEGI) [28], the incidence of population subgroups by sexual orientation was calculated. The proportions of individuals aged 15 and older identifying as LGB+ in Mexico were used, with 4.2% for males and 5.3% for females. Additionally, 26.5% of MSM were considered within the total population of men identifying as LGB+. These estimates were applied to the population affiliated with the IMSS and used as the denominator to calculate the cumulative incidence of mpox in these population subgroups.

For the calculation of the cumulative incidence of mpox in the population subgroup of people living with HIV, official IMSS reports were used as the denominator, with a total of 82,716 people living with HIV receiving medical care [29].

A bivariate analysis was conducted to assess the association between each variable and Mpox infection. The analysis generated odds ratios (OR) along with 95% confidence intervals (CI), and statistical significance was determined using p-values. The Chi-square test was employed as the hypothesis testing method, with a significance level set at p < 0.05. S1 Table.

A multivariate analysis was conducted using binary regression to evaluate the association between sociodemographic and clinical variables and the diagnosis of a laboratory-confirmed case of mpox. The binary regression model incorporated independent variables that exhibited statistical significance in the preceding univariate analysis.

The Wald statistic was used to assess the statistical significance of individual predictors within the model. The odds ratio (OR) was utilized as a measure of association, along with 95% confidence intervals. The model’s explanatory power was measured using Nagelkerke R-squared. To evaluate the model’s goodness-of-fit, the Hosmer and Lemeshow test was performed. A significance level of p < 0.05 was established.

Statistical analyses were performed using SPSS software and Excel. The data are open and can be accessed at the following URL: https://figshare.com/articles/dataset/Database_mpox_xls/25481266

Ethical considerations

The Institute’s Research and Ethics Committee approved the study with the registration number R-2023-3605-016. Informed consent was not needed because all data were fully anonymized before access. All authors did not have access to information that could identify individual participants during or after data collection. The recommendations for ethical surveillance of mpox issued by the Health Organization were considered [30].

Results

A total of 2,956 probable cases ≥15 years old were reported in the surveillance system, and 59% (n = 1,744/2,956) were laboratory-confirmed cases of mpox.

Characteristics of the laboratory-confirmed mpox cases (Table 1)

Table 1. Demographic and clinical characteristics of laboratory-confirmed mpox cases.

Variable Categories Laboratory-confirmed mpox case
n = 1,744
Count %
Age median: (IQR), full range 32 (22–42)
15–84
100%
Age group 15–19 24 1.4%
20–24 177 10.1%
25–29 407 23.3%
30–34 456 26.1%
35–39 300 17.2%
40–44 182 10.4%
45–49 110 6.3%
50–54 48 2.8%
55–59 28 1.6%
60–64 6 0.3%
≥65 6 0.3%
Sex assigned at birth Female 69 4.0%
Male 1,675 96.0%
Gender Cisgender women 73 4.2%
Cisgender men 1,546 88.6%
Non-binary 14 0.8%
Transgender women 0 0.0%
Unknown/ Not registered 111 6.4%
Sexual orientation Heterosexual 313 17.9%
MSM 1,220 70.0%
Bisexual 125 7.2%
Lesbian 2 0.1%
Other 5 0.3%
Unknown/ Not registered 79 4.5%
People living with HIV No 768 44.0%
Yes 976 56.0%
Syphilis No 1,687 96.7%
Yes 57 3.3%
Hepatitis C No 1,718 98.5%
Yes 26 1.5%
Hospitalized No 1,643 94.2%
Yes 101 5.8%
Died No 1,732 99.3%
Yes 12 0.7%

IQR = interquartile range

Among 1,744 laboratory-confirmed Mpox cases, the median age was 32 years (IQR: 22–42), with individuals ranging from 15 to 84 years. The most common age groups were 30–34 years (26.1%) and 25–29 years (23.3%). Regarding sex assigned at birth, the majority were male (96.0%), with 4.0% being female. In terms of gender identity, 88.6% were cisgender men and 4.2% were cisgender women, while 0.8% identified as non-binary, and 6.4% were unknown or unregistered. Concerning sexual orientation, 70.0% identified as MSM, while 17.9% were heterosexual and 7.2% bisexual. 56.0% of individuals were living with HIV, while 44.0% were not. Additionally, 3.3% had syphilis, and 1.5% had hepatitis C. Most patients, 94.2%, were not hospitalized, though 5.8% required hospitalization. Finally, the mortality rate was 0.7%, with 99.3% of cases surviving.

The clinical findings are presented in Table 2. The most frequent symptoms were fever (80.6%), rash (99.7%), and lymphadenopathies (59.9%). Rashes were present in nearly all cases, both confirmed and discarded. Lesions were most observed on the arms (74.7%), trunk (69.4%), and anogenital region (58.1%) among confirmed cases. Inguinal lymphadenopathies were also notably more common in confirmed cases (32.3%) compared to discarded ones (9.4%).

Table 2. Comparison of clinical symptoms between laboratory-confirmed and laboratory-discarded mpox cases.

Variable Categories Laboratory confirmed case of mpox Laboratory discarded case of mpox p value
n = 1,744 n = 1,086
Count % of column Count % of column
Fever Yes 1406 80.6% 753 69.3% 0.000
No 338 19.4% 333 30.7%
Rash (skin/mucosal lesions) Yes 1739 99.7% 1082 99.6% 0.708
No 5 0.3% 4 0.4%
    • Head Yes 671 38.5% 424 39.0% 0.763
No 1073 61.5% 662 61.0%
    • Face Yes 1050 60.2% 602 55.4% 0.012
No 694 39.8% 484 44.6%
    • Neck Yes 562 32.2% 419 38.6% 0.001
No 1182 67.8% 667 61.4%
    • Oral cavity Yes 290 16.6% 181 16.7% 0.979
No 1454 83.4% 905 83.3%
    • Arms Yes 1302 74.7% 719 66.2% 0.000
No 442 25.3% 367 33.8%
    • Legs Yes 979 56.3% 612 56.6% 0.909
No 765 43.7% 474 43.4%
    • Trunk Yes 1210 69.4% 731 67.3% 0.249
No 534 30.6% 355 32.7%
    • Palms/soles Yes 643 36.9% 402 37.0% 0.937
No 1101 63.1% 684 63.0%
    • Anogenital region Yes 1013 58.1% 279 25.7% 0.000
No 731 41.9% 807 74.3%
Lymphadenopathies Yes 1044 59.9% 417 38.4% 0.000
No 700 40.1% 669 61.6%
    • L. Cervical Yes 592 33.9% 328 30.2% 0.039
No 1152 66.1% 758 69.8%
    • L. Axillary Yes 122 7.0% 86 7.9% 0.360
No 1622 93.0% 1000 92.1%
    • L. Inguinal Yes 563 32.3% 102 9.4% 0.000
No 1181 67.7% 984 90.6%
Headache Yes 1222 70.1% 729 67.1% 0.100
No 522 29.9% 357 32.9%
Articular pain Yes 940 53.9% 587 54.1% 0.937
No 804 46.1% 499 46.0%
Myalgias Yes 1157 66.3% 699 64.4% 0.282
No 587 33.7% 387 35.6%
Cough Yes 290 16.6% 181 16.7% 0.979
No 1454 83.4% 905 83.3%
Nausea Yes 208 11.9% 147 13.5% 0.209
No 1536 88.1% 939 86.5%
Vomit Yes 72 4.1% 48 4.4% 0.708
No 1672 95.9% 1038 95.6%
Odynophagia Yes 800 45.9% 445 41.0% 0.011
No 944 54.1% 641 59.0%
Conjunctivitis Yes 109 6.3% 70 6.5% 0.835
No 1635 93.7% 1016 93.5%
Lower back pain Yes 526 30.2% 294 27.1% 0.078
No 1218 69.8% 792 72.9%
Bleeding ulcers Yes 79 4.5% 37 3.4% 0.143
No 1665 95.5% 1049 96.6%
Painful ulcers Yes 293 16.8% 140 12.9% 0.005
No 1451 83.2% 946 87.1%

*All variables were tested with Pearson’s Chi-square Test

Several symptoms displayed statistically significant differences between confirmed and discarded cases: fever was more prevalent in confirmed cases (80.6% vs. 69.3%), anogenital lesions were more frequent in confirmed cases (58.1% vs. 25.7%), and lymphadenopathies were observed more often in confirmed cases (59.9% vs. 38.4%). Painful ulcers were also more common in confirmed cases (16.8%) compared to discarded cases (12.9%).

Symptoms like myalgias, headaches, and articular pain appeared at similar rates across both confirmed and discarded cases.

Fig 2 shows epidemiological curve of laboratory-confirmed Mpox cases with positivity rates according to the month of symptom onset. The first mpox case occurred in May 2022, and the number of cases continued to increase until a peak in September 2022, with n = 488 laboratory-confirmed Mpox cases; since then, a sustained decrease in the number of cases has been observed. The highest positivity rate was in September 2022 at 73.6%. The positivity rate showed a general decline from April 2023 onwards, with the lowest in April (9.8%) and a slight increase in May (13.3%).

Fig 2. Epidemiological curve of laboratory-confirmed mpox cases and positivity rates (may 2022—may 2023) among IMSS beneficiaries.

Fig 2

Cumulative incidence

Table 3 shows that the incidence rates of laboratory-confirmed Mpox cases vary significantly across age groups, with higher rates observed in younger cohorts. Notably, the 30 to 34 age group exhibits the highest incidence rate, reaching 21.98 per 100,000 IMSS beneficiaries among males and 0.64 among females. In contrast, the 60 to 64 age group exhibits a much lower incidence rate, with 0.49 per 100,000 for males and 0 for females.

Table 3. Cumulative incidence of laboratory-confirmed mpox cases by sex assigned at birth and age group (2022–2023) per 100,000 IMSS beneficiaries.

Age group Population (Male) Population (Female) Laboratory-Confirmed Mpox Cases (Male) Laboratory-Confirmed Mpox Cases (Female) Cumulative Incidence (Male) per 100,000 population Cumulative Incidence (Female) per 100,000 population
15 to 19 1,153,925 1,222,650 20 4 1.73 0.33
20 to 24 1,994,684 2,005,068 166 11 8.32 0.55
25 to 29 2,204,177 2,251,938 394 13 17.88 0.58
30 to 34 2,011,117 2,188,668 442 14 21.98 0.64
35 to 39 1,813,102 2,104,708 295 5 16.27 0.24
40 to 44 1,687,138 2,019,692 177 5 10.49 0.25
45 to 49 1,639,375 2,027,962 103 7 6.28 0.35
50 to 54 1,463,244 1,871,547 41 7 2.8 0.37
55 to 59 1,294,288 1,703,431 26 2 2.01 0.12
60 to 64 1,232,823 1,600,708 6 0 0.49 0
65 and over 3,297,141 4,315,821 5 1 0.15 0.02
Total 19,791,014 23,312,193 1,675 69 8.46 0.3

Table 4 outlines the cumulative incidence during the study period based on sex at birth, sexual orientation, and HIV status. We found a cumulative incidence of 4.05 cases per 100,000 people overall. The incidence among males was 8.46 cases per 100,000, while for females, it was much lower at 0.30 per 100,000. Heterosexual individuals (both male and female) had a cumulative incidence of 0.76 cases per 100,000, while non-heterosexual individuals (including MSM, bisexual, and lesbian) had a significantly higher incidence of 65.42 cases per 100,000. Within this group, MSM had the highest incidence, with 553.86 cases per 100,000. Among people living with HIV, the cumulative incidence rate was 1,179.94 per 100,000 persons, compared to 1.79 per 100,000 for those not living with HIV.

Table 4. Laboratory-confirmed mpox cases and cumulative incidence by sex assigned at birth, sexual orientation, and HIV status per 100,000 IMSS beneficiaries.

Categories Laboratory-confirmed mpox cases Population Cumulative incidence (per 100,000)
Total population 1,744 43,103,207 4.05
Female 69 23,312,193 0.30
Male 1,675 19,791,014 8.46
Heterosexual (female and male) 313 41,036,438 0.76
Non-heterosexual (including MSM, bisexual and lesbian) 1,352 2,066,769 65.42
Heterosexual (male) 250 19,570,740 1.28
MSM* 1,220 220,274 553.86
People not living with HIV 768 43,020,491 1.79
People living with HIV 976 82,716 1179.94

*Men who have sex with men

To determine the relationship between each potential predictor variable and the presence of mpox individually, we performed a bivariate analysis which is available in S1 Table.

Being male was strongly associated with laboratory-confirmed mpox cases: OR 10.87 (95% CI 8.28–14.29), p<0.001; the age groups with the greatest strength of association with the disease were 30 to 34 years OR 12.44 (95% CI 5.06–30.58), p<0.001; 35 to 39 years OR 13.59 (95% CI 5.47–33.75), p<0.001; and 40 to 44 years OR 12.87 (95% CI 5.10–32.47), p<0.001. Fever was associated with laboratory-confirmed cases OR 1.84 (95% CI 1.54–2.19), p<0.001; rash in the anogenital region was strongly associated laboratory-confirmed mpox cases OR 4.01 (95% CI 3.40–4.73), p<0.001; similarly, inguinal lymphadenopathy OR 4.60 (95% CI 3.66–5.77), p<0.001. Other sociodemographic and clinical characteristics, as well as the results of the bivariate analysis are shown in S1 Table.

Multivariate analysis (Table 5)

Table 5. Multivariate analysis of factors associated with laboratory-confirmed cases of mpox: Logistic regression results.

Variable Categories Sig. Adjusted Odds Ratio 95% confidence interval for Odds ratio
Lower Upper
Sex assigned at birth Female   1    
Male < .001 2.792 2.055 3.791
Age group 15–19 .932 1.050 .346 3.185
20–24 .644 1.266 .466 3.436
25–29 .063 2.552 .949 6.859
30–34 .015 3.406 1.263 9.181
35–39 .009 3.800 1.390 10.387
40–44 .008 4.006 1.435 11.184
45–49 .021 3.432 1.209 9.739
50–54 .116 2.387 .806 7.067
55–59 .187 2.184 .684 6.970
60–64 .943 .947 .214 4.185
65 +   1    
Sexual orientation MSM* < .001 4.325 3.437 5.442
Health condition Living with HIV < .001 2.499 1.951 3.202
Signs and symptoms Fever < .001 1.560 1.242 1.959
Rash in arms < .001 1.524 1.229 1.890
Rash anogenital < .001 2.226 1.809 2.738
Lymphadenopathy inguinal < .001 2.319 1.761 3.053
Constant   < .001 .034    

*Men who have sex with men

Regression was performed with a full sample of 2,830 patients, of which 1,744 (61.6%) had laboratory-confirmed cases of mpox and 1,086 (38.4%) were laboratory-discarded cases of mpox. The multivariate model had a statistical significance of p <0.001 using the Wald statistic, with a Nagelkerke R-squared of 0.485. The Hosmer and Lemeshow test was used to evaluate the model, resulting in a p = 0.083; the model was able to correctly classify 84.6% of mpox cases and 73.1% of non-mpox cases, with an overall prognostic classification percentage of 80.2%. After multivariate analysis, several variables remained statistically associated with a higher possibility of having a confirmed mpox infection. First, sex at birth indicated that males had significantly higher odds OR 3.287 (95% CI 2.445–4.418), p <0.001; age group analysis showed that several age groups were significantly associated with the condition, with older age groups generally having higher odds ratios; these odds ratios increased from ages 15–19 to ages 45–49, ranging from 1.050 to 4.006, with p-values < 0.05 for the significant age groups. In terms of sexual orientation, MSM OR 4.325 (95% CI 3.437–5.442), p < 0.001; health condition also played a role, individuals living with HIV had significantly higher odds OR 2.499 (95% CI 1.951–3.202), p <0.001 compared to those without HIV; finally, signs and symptoms statistically associated with laboratory-confirmed mpox case included fever OR 1.56 (95% CI 1.24–1.95), p <0.001; rash located in arms OR 1.52 (95% CI 1.22–1.89), p <0.001; rash in anogenital region OR 2.22 (95% CI 1.80–2.73), p <0.001; and inguinal lymphadenopathy OR 2.31 (95% CI 1.76–3.05), p <0.001, all compared to patients without these signs and symptoms.

Discussion

In this study, we investigated the cumulative incidence of laboratory-confirmed mpox cases and its associated factors among the Mexican population covered by the Mexican Social Security Institute during the 2022–2023 outbreak. Our findings show significant differences in incidence rates by sex assigned at birth and age groups. The data also indicated that non-heterosexual individuals, particularly MSM, and people living with HIV, had a high incidence of mpox infection.

Multivariate analysis indicated that being male, identifying as MSM, and people living with HIV were significantly associated with increased odds of laboratory-confirmed mpox cases. Additionally, symptoms such as fever, rash on the arms, and inguinal lymphadenopathy were significant predictors of mpox infection.

Our results on the age of mpox cases are consistent with other studies in the Americas, which report a median age of 32 years [31, 32]. However, this is lower than the median age reported in European countries (39 years) [33, 34], likely due to demographic trends between the Americas and Europe [35]. We found that mpox occurred more frequently in males (96%) than in females (4%), consistent with findings from other countries [32, 36]. The cumulative incidence of mpox in our study was 4.05 per 100,000 persons, direct comparisons are challenging due to the limited availability of incidence rate data for mpox across different countries.

The observed proportion of mpox cases in non-binary persons was 0.8%, lower than the 1.7% reported in the US [37]. Our findings did not establish any significant association between gender and mpox infection. In terms of sexual orientation, we found that the proportion of cases in the MSM group accounted for 70% of confirmed mpox cases. People with a non-heterosexual orientation had an incidence rate of 65.42 per 100,000. The MSM group showed higher associations with mpox infection. The WHO has established that gender-diverse and transgender people are more vulnerable to mpox infection than others [38].

Our study observed a statistically significant association between mpox infection and living with HIV, with a cumulative incidence of 1,179.94 per 100,000 persons. The proportion of mpox cases living with HIV was 56%, higher than the 40.32% reported in a systematic review and other studies [39, 40]. Our results demonstrate a hospitalization rate of 5.2% among confirmed mpox patients, which is close to the 6% reported in other studies [17, 41].

The found mortality rate of mpox was 0.69 per 100 cases, lower than the 0.72 per 100 cases reported by health authorities in Mexico [18], but 5.3 times higher than the rate reported in the United States of America, at 0.13 per 100 confirmed cases [31].

Clinically, confirmed mpox cases presented distinct symptoms, including fever, inguinal lymphadenopathy, and rash in the arms and anogenital region, which were significantly more prevalent compared to non-mpox cases. The monkeypox virus is spread through close skin-to-skin contact; clinically, we found that inguinal lymphadenopathy and rash located in the anogenital region were associated with a higher likelihood of being a confirmed mpox case, consistent with findings from other studies [42, 43]. These findings have been linked to increased mpox transmission through close physical contact during intimate or sexual activity.

This study provides an overview of mpox infection in the medical-insured population of Mexico. Due to the study’s observational nature, we must clarify that the information comes from a self-reported questionnaire answered by individuals participating in the survey, which may introduce bias, and the presence of diseases such as syphilis, or living with HIV has not been confirmed as part of the study. We also excluded suspected cases without laboratory results, accounting for 4.3% of the suspected cases, which may lead to an underestimation of mpox incidence.

We acknowledge that the absence of variables such as socioeconomic status, region or place of residence, and sexual behavior (including the number of sexual partners and casual sexual contacts) constitutes a limitation of our study. These factors could potentially influence the risk of mpox infection.

These findings underscore the importance of targeted public health interventions, and surveillance strategies, particularly for high-risk groups, to mitigate the spread of Mpox infection.

Supporting information

S1 Table. Bivariate analysis of variables associated with laboratory-confirmed mpox cases.

(DOCX)

pone.0313691.s001.docx (27.4KB, docx)

Acknowledgments

We would like to express our sincere gratitude to the epidemiological surveillance personnel of the Mexican Social Security Institute (IMSS) for their invaluable work and dedication.

Data Availability

The data underlying the results presented in the study are available at the following Figshare link: https://figshare.com/articles/dataset/Database_mpox_xls/25481266.

Funding Statement

The author(s) received no specific funding for this work.

References

Decision Letter 0

Abdelaziz Abdelaal

15 Feb 2024

PONE-D-24-01590Risk factors for human infection with Mpox among the Mexican populationPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Nieto,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Mar 31 2024 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Abdelaziz Abdelaal, M.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. When completing the data availability statement of the submission form, you indicated that you will make your data available on acceptance. We strongly recommend all authors decide on a data sharing plan before acceptance, as the process can be lengthy and hold up publication timelines. Please note that, though access restrictions are acceptable now, your entire data will need to be made freely accessible if your manuscript is accepted for publication. This policy applies to all data except where public deposition would breach compliance with the protocol approved by your research ethics board. If you are unable to adhere to our open data policy, please kindly revise your statement to explain your reasoning and we will seek the editor's input on an exemption. Please be assured that, once you have provided your new statement, the assessment of your exemption will not hold up the peer review process.

Additional Editor Comments:

Thanks to the authors for considering PLOS ONE to publish their research. Based on my evaluation and the reviewers' comments, we believe that the manuscript, in its current form, provides quite similar results to available evidence without any novel findings. Additionally, there were several major limitations that limited the interpretability of the reported findings.

These comments, listed below, require the redoing of the statistical analysis. A consultation with an expert statistician is recommended.

If the authors can address these concerns and modify their manuscript accordingly, I'd be happy to reconsider the manuscript for further evaluation.

The Editor's Comments:

1- Why was the HR caclulated as an epidemiological measure? In your case, the best measure would be the cumulative incidence rate, known as the incidence proportion over the specified time period.

2- Given the large sample size, i would suspect that age be normally distributed. Why was the age presented as median (IQR)? I would advise the authors to provide age in different forms (continuous data, categorical data)

3- There is lack of information on how the regression analysis was attempted? Which variables were included in the univariate model? and how was the selected of the variables imported in the multivariable model made?

4- Was model fit analysis performed? I known that the authors provided the Hosmer and Lemeshow test results; however, there are NOT consistent with the provided R-squared which reflects poor fit (which indicates that the analyzed factors do not reflect the change in the measured outcomes; there are other factors that were not accounted for). This is also supported by the wide confidence interval for variables that have a large sample size, which would normally reflect a narrow CI (like male in the multivariate model).

5- This issue is the most important of all, which is the lack of enough baseline data of included patients. Providing age, gender, sexual orientation, and HIV coinfection is not sufficient. Were not there any other data to be analyzed in your dataset? The interpretation from this dataset, given the scarcity of data, is very limited and not different from that already reported in the literature during the disease outbreak.

6- Was multicollinearity considered? and how was it identified and dealt with?

7- In line 203, diabetes was put in the regression mode, where it was not even mentioned in the baseline variables table (Table 1). Were variables selected on purpose? You need to standardize the reporting of your data.

8- What comorbid conditions were considered in Table 1? numerical data is required. Was HIV considered a part of these data?

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Partly

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: N/A

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The paper titled "Risk factors for human infection with Mpox among the Mexican population" provides a comprehensive analysis of the Mpox outbreak in Mexico, identifying key risk factors associated with the disease. However, like any scientific study it may have limitations or criticisms.

The study is based on data from the Mexican Institute of Social Security (IMSS), which covers 46.3% of the Mexican population. While this is a substantial proportion, findings may not fully represent the entire population, especially those not covered by IMSS, perhaps because of different socioeconomic backgrounds. The results cannot be referred to the entire Mexican population, as the title of the paper states.

The study mentions that some data, such as sexual orientation and living with HIV status, were self-reported. Self-reported data can introduce bias due to underreporting or misreporting, especially if it concerns sexual orientation and HIV status, affecting the accuracy of the associations found.

The study excluded cases without laboratory confirmation. While this strengthens the reliability of confirmed cases, it may also omit cases with clinical symptoms of mpox but lacking laboratory confirmation, potentially underestimating the actual number of cases and the full spectrum of disease presentation.

Given the observational nature of the study, it can identify associations but cannot establish causality between risk factors and Mpox infection. Longitudinal studies would be necessary to understand the temporal sequence of exposure and infection better.

While the study performed multivariate logistic regression to adjust for several variables, there might be other confounding factors not accounted for, such as socioeconomic status, access to healthcare, and other behavioral factors that could influence the risk of Mpox infection.

The paper briefly mentions the importance of vaccination and epidemiological surveillance but does not delve deeply into specific strategies or challenges related to vaccine distribution, acceptance, and coverage, especially among high-risk groups.

Reviewer #2: It's an important study regarding the outbreak of mpox infections. However, the manuscript could be improved with some additional information:

Introduction, lines 72-74: it would be more appropraite to report the number of cases and deaths at time of declaring the global health emergency in july 2023 with the most recent update available on the epidemiology of the disease.

Also line 80-84, it's more appropriate to report the most recent data

Table 1: it would be more appropriate to report the colomn % than row % as it will show the caracteristics of the confirmed cases as compared to cases without mpox, the p-value should remain the same for conclusions on statistical differences.

please also report the min and max age and the mean+sd, and age in relevant categories.

what were the symptoms reported, treatments, vaccination status, transmission mode, hospitalisation rates, complications and/or deaths ?

Results on cumulative incidence, it would be interesting to show age and sex adjusted rates

Table III: multivariate logistic regression

- What was the total sample used

- What was the dependent variable and the size of each group in the analysis

- Were there any missing values for some variables

- Please show all the crude OR and 95% CI

- The age would be more appropriate in categories rather than continuous in this context

- Gender and sexual orientation are likely to have a colinearity in multivariable model, was this tested ?

- What was the reference category for each underlying condition, how many patients had more than one condition ?

- Diabetes seems to be associated with a lower risk of mpox infection, how is this explained

The conclusion of the manuscript and the abstract is shallow.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: Yes: Nicola Abrescia

Reviewer #2: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2025 Jan 8;20(1):e0313691. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0313691.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


27 Mar 2024

Firstly, all the authors would like to thank you for your time as reviewers, and we have responded to each of your kind inquiries. We believe that thanks to your feedback, this work has improved to achieve the set objectives.

Journal Requirements:

When completing the data availability statement of the submission form, you indicated that you will make your data available on acceptance. We strongly recommend all authors decide on a data sharing plan before acceptance, as the process can be lengthy and hold up publication timelines.

Answer: In response to your suggestion, we have placed the available data in an open repository and the link is noted in the manuscript. https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.25481266.v1

Additional Editor Comments:

The Editor's Comments:

1- Why was the HR caclulated as an epidemiological measure? In your case, the best measure would be the cumulative incidence rate, known as the incidence proportion over the specified time period.

Answer:

Hazard Ratio (HR) is often calculated as an epidemiological measure because it provides valuable insights into the relative risk or likelihood of an event occurring over time. In many epidemiological studies, particularly those researchers are interested in understanding how certain exposures or interventions affect the risk of developing a particular outcome or disease.

The HR compares the hazard rates, or instantaneous rates of experiencing the event of interest, between different groups. It's commonly used in studies where the time to event data is important, such as in examining the impact of risk factors on disease incidence.

However, when considering the best measure for a specific case, such as the one you mentioned, the cumulative incidence rate, also known as the incidence proportion over a specified time period, might be more appropriate. This measure provides a straightforward understanding of the proportion of individuals who experience the outcome of interest within a given time frame, without considering the time to event aspect.

Therefore, we have removed the Hazard Ratio (HR) from the manuscript.

2- Given the large sample size, i would suspect that age be normally distributed. Why was the age presented as median (IQR)? I would advise the authors to provide age in different forms (continuous data, categorical data)

Answer:

The variable age, by the Kolmogorov-Smirnov hypothesis test, had a non-normal distribution. (We attach the results).

The interquartile range (IQR) is primarily used in statistics to describe the dispersion of a dataset. The interquartile range is useful in various contexts, especially when the data do not follow a normal distribution.

We have followed your recommendation by presenting additionally the data in a categorical manner.

Age

3- There is lack of information on how the regression analysis was attempted? Which variables were included in the univariate model? and how was the selected of the variables imported in the multivariable model made?

Answer: Thank you for your feedback and inquiry regarding the regression analysis in our study. We understand the importance of transparency in reporting our methods.

In our regression analysis, we initially performed univariate modeling, which involved assessing the relationship between each potential predictor variable and the outcome variable individually. This step allowed us to identify variables that showed significant associations with the outcome. This analysis is available in Supplementary Material 1.

Regarding the selection of variables for the multivariable model, we employed a systematic approach. We considered variables that were not only statistically significant in the univariate analysis but also clinically relevant or theoretically plausible based on existing literature and biological understanding of mpox epidemiology.

4- Was model fit analysis performed? I known that the authors provided the Hosmer and Lemeshow test results; however, there are NOT consistent with the provided R-squared which reflects poor fit (which indicates that the analyzed factors do not reflect the change in the measured outcomes; there are other factors that were not accounted for). This is also supported by the wide confidence interval for variables that have a large sample size, which would normally reflect a narrow CI (like male in the multivariate model).

Answer: In the new analysis the result of the logistic regression model shows a Nagelkerke R-squared value of approximately 0.485. These values indicate that the model explains around 48.5% of the variability in the dependent variable, respectively. It's important to note that while these values provide a measure of the model's goodness of fit, they may be relatively low, suggesting that there are other variables or factors that could be influencing the dependent variable and are not included in the current model.

Additionally, the model summary shows that the variables "Sex at birth," "Age Group," "Sexual orientation, "Condition" and some signs and symptoms are statistically significant (p < 0.05), indicating that these variables are significantly associated with the dependent variable. The confidence intervals for the regression coefficients also provide information about the accuracy of the model parameter estimates.

In the new analysis we have gained in tightening the confidence intervals of the regression coefficients.

5- This issue is the most important of all, which is the lack of enough baseline data of included patients. Providing age, gender, sexual orientation, and HIV coinfection is not sufficient. Were not there any other data to be analyzed in your dataset? The interpretation from this dataset, given the scarcity of data, is very limited and not different from that already reported in the literature during the disease outbreak.

Answer: Our data source is the epidemiological surveillance system of mpox in Mexico. We understand that it would be beneficial to have more variables to expand our understanding of this infection. However, we provide valuable information in epidemiological terms, such as the value of cumulative incidence by key groups, which is not documented elsewhere. Additionally, quantifying the strength of association of variables is not universally established in the scientific community. By providing the value of R, we document that these variables only explain the phenomenon by 48%, thus opening a debate about which variables could provide greater insight into this disease.

6- Was multicollinearity considered? and how was it identified and dealt with?

Answer: Multicollinearity is a statistical phenomenon in which predictor variables in a logistic regression model are highly correlated. For moderate to large sample sizes, the approach to drop one of the correlated variables was established entirely satisfactory to reduce multicollinearity. On the light of different collinearity diagnostics, we may safely conclude that without increasing sample size, the second choice to omit one of the correlated variables, can reduce multicollinearity to a great extent.

Reference: Midi, H., Sarkar, S. K., & Rana, S. (2010). Collinearity diagnostics of binary logistic regression model. Journal of Interdisciplinary Mathematics, 13(3), 253–267. https://doi.org/10.1080/09720502.2010.10700699

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09720502.2010.10700699

After reviewing the editor's and reviewers' comments, we decided to remove the gender variable, which was clearly correlated with sex.

We also reduced categories in the sexual orientation variable, leaving only the group of men who have sex with men, which has been most strongly associated with mpox infection.

Contingency table Sex at birth * Gender

Gender Total

Female Male Non-binary / Bigender / Transgender / Other Unknown/ Not registered

Sex assigned at birth Women Count 367 2 0 36 405

% in Gender 97.9% 0.1% 0.0% 17.2% 14.3%

Man Count 8 2228 16 173 2425

% in Gender 2.1% 99.9% 100.0% 82.8% 85.7%

Total Count 375 2230 16 209 2830

% in Gender 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Contingency table Sex assigned at birth * Sexual Orientation

Sexual Orientation Total

Heterosexual Gay/HSH Bisexual Lesbian Other Unknown/ Not registered

Sex assigned at birth Women Count 353 1 7 3 0 41 405

% in Sex 87.2% 0.2% 1.7% 0.7% 0.0% 10.1% 100.0%

Man Count 744 1401 142 1 7 130 2425

% in Sex 30.7% 57.8% 5.9% 0.0% 0.3% 5.4% 100.0%

Total Count 1097 1402 149 4 7 171 2830

% in Sex 38.8% 49.5% 5.3% 0.1% 0.2% 6.0% 100.0%

7- In line 203, diabetes was put in the regression mode, where it was not even mentioned in the baseline variables table (Table 1). Were variables selected on purpose? You need to standardize the reporting of your data.

Answer: We have standardized the reporting of information; the diabetes variable has been removed from Table 1 and from the regression model, focusing on variables with biological plausibility and recognized by the scientific community to explain the event of interest.

8- What comorbid conditions were considered in Table 1? numerical data is required. Was HIV considered a part of these data?

The epidemiological study contains a question regarding whether the patient has any comorbidity (without specifying which), and it includes specific variables for hepatitis C, syphilis, gonorrhea, and HIV. We agree with you, and in Table 1, specific diseases are described.

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

Reviewer #1: The paper titled "Risk factors for human infection with Mpox among the Mexican population" provides a comprehensive analysis of the Mpox outbreak in Mexico, identifying key risk factors associated with the disease. However, like any scientific study it may have limitations or criticisms.

The study is based on data from the Mexican Institute of Social Security (IMSS), which covers 46.3% of the Mexican population. While this is a substantial proportion, findings may not fully represent the entire population, especially those not covered by IMSS, perhaps because of different socioeconomic backgrounds. The results cannot be referred to the entire Mexican population, as the title of the paper states.

Answer: Indeed, it cannot be extrapolated to the Mexican population. Therefore, following your comment, the title and interpretation of the results were adjusted to refer to the population with social security in Mexico.

The study mentions that some data, such as sexual orientation and living with HIV status, were self-reported. Self-reported data can introduce bias due to underreporting or misreporting, especially if it concerns sexual orientation and HIV status, affecting the accuracy of the associations found.

Answer: Given that this is a study based on epidemiological information and, in general, on medicine, pathological histories are directly queried to the patient and rely on the trust in the doctor-patient relationship to obtain information. However, we acknowledge the information bias you mentioned, so much so that we decided to report it in the methodology. To ensure that the reader takes this observation into account, in the limitations section of the study, we added the following:

This study supplies an overview of mpox infection in the medical-insured population of Mexico. Due to the study's observational nature, we want to clarify that the information comes from a self-reported questionnaire answered by the individuals taking part in the survey, so it is not unbiased, and that the presence of diseases such as gonorrea, syphilis or living with HIV has not been confirmed as a part of the study.

The study excluded cases without laboratory confirmation. While this strengthens the reliability of confirmed cases, it may also omit cases with clinical symptoms of mpox but lacking laboratory confirmation, potentially underestimating the actual number of cases and the full spectrum of disease presentation.

Answer: You are correct in the observation you make; therefore, we have stated in a paragraph the fact that the incidence of cases may be underestimated.

“This study excluded suspected cases that did not have laboratory results, accounting for 4.3% of the suspected cases. Therefore, the incidence of mpox may be underestimated”.

Given the observational nature of the study, it can identify associations but cannot establish causality between risk factors and Mpox infection. Longitudinal studies would be necessary to understand the temporal sequence of exposure and infection better.

Answer: We agree that causality cannot be established with this study but does not achieve this objective.

While the study performed multivariate logistic regression to adjust for several variables, there might be other confounding factors not accounted for, such as socioeconomic status, access to healthcare, and other behavioral factors that could influence the risk of Mpox infection.

Answer: Acknowledging the validity of the concern raised. Despite the multivariate logistic regression conducted to adjust for various variables, it is true that there may still be other confounding factors not considered, such as socioeconomic status, access to healthcare, and additional behavioral factors that could potentially influence the risk of Mpox infection. These factors indeed play significant roles in epidemiological studies and could impact the interpretation of results. Therefore, it's important to acknowledge these limitations and recognize that further research or adjustments may be necessary to better understand the true relationship between the variables studied and the risk of Mpox infection.

In the discussion, we have acknowledged what you mention as follows: “We acknowledge that the absence of variables such as socioeconomic status, region or place of residence, and sexual behavior, including the number of sexual partners and casual sexual contacts, is a limitation of our study. These factors could potentially influence the risk of mpox infection”.

The paper briefly mentions the importance of vaccination and epidemiological surveillance but does not delve deeply into specific strategies or challenges related to vaccine distribution, acceptance, and coverage, especially among high-risk groups.

Answer: the manuscript was complemented as suggested.

Reviewer #2: It's an important study regarding the outbreak of mpox infections. However, the manuscript could be improved with some additional information:

Introduction, lines 72-74: it would be more appropraite to report the number of cases and deaths at time of declaring the global health emergency in july 2023 with the most recent update available on the epidemiology of the disease. Also line 80-84, it's more appropriate to report the most recent data

Answer: The manuscript was complemented by describing the global epidemiological situation of mpox at the time a PHEIC was declared and with the most recent data published by WHO. The epidemiological situation in Mexico was also complemented with the most recent update.

Table 1: it would be more appropriate to report the colomn % than row % as it will show the caracteristics of the confirmed cases as compared to cases without mpox, the p-value should remain the same for conclusions on statistical differences. Please also report the min and max age and the mean+sd, and age in relevant categories. what were the symptoms reported, treatments, vaccination status, transmission mode, hospitalisation rates, complications and/or deaths ?

Results on cumulative incidence, it would be interesting to show age and sex adjusted rates.

Answer: Thank you for these comments, we made the change of % in columns in table 1 to observe the percentage of each independent variable between the confirmed cases and between the cases without mpox, what indeed do not change the p values.

Regarding other statistical measures of the age variable, because the age variable has a non-normal distribution, in Table 1 we presented the median and the interquartile range, as the most appropriate measures of central tendency and dispersion. The age variable was grouped into categories by five-year periods and is also presented in

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

pone.0313691.s002.docx (60.6KB, docx)

Decision Letter 1

Moises Leon Juarez

22 Jul 2024

PONE-D-24-01590R1Risk factors for human infection with Mpox among the Mexican population with social security.PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Arriaga Nieto,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Sep 05 2024 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Moises Leon Juarez

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments:

Dear Dr. Arriaga, We inform you of your work entitled “Risk factors for human infection with Mpox among the Mexican population.” The peer review process has ended. According to the reviewers' comments and observations, we consider that his work requires Major revision which is why we mention these observations below. We await his response to continue with the process.

The manuscript “Risk factors for human infection with Mpox among the Mexican population” presents a relevant topic and has the potential to contribute significantly to the field. However, the revised version submitted by the authors still contains important issues that need to be addressed for the manuscript to be suitable for the PLOS ONE audience.

Specific comments

Review the English. There are issues with the language and writing that hinder understanding and compromise the readability and flow.

Abstract: The "Materials and Methods" section should include information about the incidence and parameters of the models conducted. The results presented must be supported by the methods.

Consider including more references in the introduction. Each paragraph makes multiple assertions but only cites one reference per paragraph. Why is this the case?

The introduction needs reorganization. In the first paragraph, the authors start by discussing the 2022 outbreak. In the second and third paragraphs, they describe the transmission mode of the virus, including the hypothesis of sexual transmission relevant to the recent outbreak (2022) but not present in the description of previous cases (before 2022). In the fourth and fifth paragraphs, they discuss the clinical presentation and symptoms. In the sixth paragraph, they revisit (to some extent) the content of the first paragraph. Thus, reorganization is necessary to eliminate repeated sections and improve the coherence of the historical context and background presented.

It would be worthwhile to include the origin and historical context of mpox, its endemic regions, and how cases were previously described. When discussing the 2022 outbreak, provide temporal context, as well as epidemiological and clinical characteristics that differ from previous cases. It is necessary to contextualize the research problem and the current state of the art for the reader.

The last sentence of the final paragraph of the introduction could be moved to the methodology section. The aim at the end of the introduction differs from the aim at the beginning of the methods section. Ensure consistency (consider the abstract as well).

At the beginning of the methods section, the authors should briefly explain the health system and the IMSS, including the coverage percentage (currently listed in the last sentence of the introduction). It is not clear whether the IMSS system and the National Epidemiological Surveillance System were linked or if the notifications from NESS are part of IMSS.

In the study population section, the authors mention that they included probable and confirmed cases of mpox. Later, they state that they calculated the incidence considering the population covered by IMSS. This is confusing. The study population for each analysis conducted must be clearly defined for the reader.

The authors do not specify the data access date. Especially for studies using secondary and surveillance data, the access date must be provided as these data are continuously updated by the responsible entities.

In the definitions section, a new unnamed category is introduced in the second paragraph, where the authors state that these cases “were also studied for mpox.” What does this mean? In which category do these cases fall?

It is unnecessary to explain sexual orientation definition, just indicate whether it was self-reported (hopefully!) and what categories were included in the study. Gender identity is a separate variable from sexual orientation. The explanation in the methods section is unclear, making it difficult to understand whether these variables were analyzed separately, as they should be.

What are confirmatory studies? Are these the tests conducted to confirm mpox cases? If so, this should be defined in the definitions section. For all patients classified as suspected/probable and who provided samples, was PCR conducted for case confirmation?

How were the other variables studied obtained? It is important to describe all variables, including their origin, method of collection (self-reported?), temporal reference, and response categories (when applicable).

Explain how was calculated the incidence. What is the incidence reference? 10,000 people? This needs to be described in the methods.

The authors refer to “key populations” without defining what it is and how this variable was created to estimate the stratified incidence.

In the univariate model, what did the authors consider as “strength of association”? (line 184). The described method should be in the main text.

The paragraph (lines 183 to 189) and the following paragraph (lines 190-197) contain repetitions. Review these sections. What parameters were used in the multivariate model? Variables described here appear for the first time in the text without explanations.

Ensure consistency of variables presented in the dataset, main text, and tables. For example, the variable “gender” appears under different denominations and different categorizations in the main text, tables and dataset.

Figure S1 is dispensable. Table S1 needs to be formatted according to the journal's formatting and style guidelines. Adjust the titles.

Tables S1 and S2 should be in the same document, in Word/PDF format, following the journal's table formatting rules.

Figure 1 (sample composition flowchart) is cited incorrectly at the end of the methods section.

In the results, the authors present stratified results by confirmed (by PCR) and unconfirmed cases, which was not described in the methods.

In Figure 2, it would be more informative to present the positivity rate per month (% of positives among those tested). In its current form, the figure title is inadequate.

Only in the description of the results in Table 3 do we learn that the incidence rate presented is per 100,000 IMSS beneficiaries. This needs to be described in the methods and table title.

The multivariate model results are presented in a segmented manner. Review this to create a cohesive text with logical flow.

The first paragraph of the discussion presents an objective conflicting with those in the abstract, the end of the introduction, and the beginning of the methods section. The first paragraph of the discussion should provide an overview of the main study findings, which will be discussed further.

“The discovery of mpox transmission” does not seem an appropriate term.

The second paragraph of the discussion should be in the introduction/repeats content already in the introduction without adding value to the discussion. I suggest removing it.

How the authors created the category “bigender", presented at the discussion?

There seems to be some difficulty on the part of the authors regarding the variables of sex, gender identity, and sexual orientation. I suggest reviewing studies that have clearly addressed these variables. https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanam/article/PIIS2667-193X(22)00223-X/fulltext

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(23)00273-8/fulltext

The authors present results for confirmed cases but refer back to probable cases in the conclusions. The conclusion needs to be revised to address the study's proposed aims.

All figures and tables need to be reviewed for adherence to formatting standards and appropriate titles.

Reviwer 2

1) Improve the English wording

2) Lack of congruence between the objective of the study, methodology and results. It seems that it is looking for an incidence, but it is not a cohort. We suggest reviewing the methodology when you are looking for description of the characteristics and associated factors, we suggest a cross-sectional study with prevalence and associated factors.

3) Improve language, avoid the word gay, only MSM, use inclusive language.

4) Table 1.- two columns are not necessary.

5) The results are reported in means with IQR, but due to the size of the sample it is worth looking at its distribution.

6) The OR data are poorly written, it should be as follows: MSM OR 8.28 (95%CI 6.50 – 10.55), p<0.001; the semicolon is used to separate ideas

7) 207-208 eliminate, emphasize the main results of your research

8) 210-211 Seems like information is repeated. 212 The terminology “American House” is not well understood. 215 Do we have the complete data to affirm Mexico is the fourth country in America with Mpox cases?

9) Discussion could improve if the author compares local data with other similar studies in other countries. 223: We suggest that cumulative incidence could not be reported with de current methodology

10) Idea of 225-226 is not understood.

13) The conclusion does not answer the main objective.

14) It is difficult to consider a descriptive study

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

Reviewer #4: (No Response)

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #3: Partly

Reviewer #4: Partly

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #3: I Don't Know

Reviewer #4: No

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #3: No

Reviewer #4: No

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #3: General comments

The manuscript “Risk factors for human infection with Mpox among the Mexican population” presents a relevant topic and has the potential to contribute significantly to the field. However, the revised version submitted by the authors still contains important issues that need to be addressed for the manuscript to be suitable for the PLOS ONE audience.

Specific comments

Review the English. There are issues with the language and writing that hinder understanding and compromise the readability and flow.

Abstract: The "Materials and Methods" section should include information about the incidence and parameters of the models conducted. The results presented must be supported by the methods.

Consider including more references in the introduction. Each paragraph makes multiple assertions but only cites one reference per paragraph. Why is this the case?

The introduction needs reorganization. In the first paragraph, the authors start by discussing the 2022 outbreak. In the second and third paragraphs, they describe the transmission mode of the virus, including the hypothesis of sexual transmission relevant to the recent outbreak (2022) but not present in the description of previous cases (before 2022). In the fourth and fifth paragraphs, they discuss the clinical presentation and symptoms. In the sixth paragraph, they revisit (to some extent) the content of the first paragraph. Thus, reorganization is necessary to eliminate repeated sections and improve the coherence of the historical context and background presented.

It would be worthwhile to include the origin and historical context of mpox, its endemic regions, and how cases were previously described. When discussing the 2022 outbreak, provide temporal context, as well as epidemiological and clinical characteristics that differ from previous cases. It is necessary to contextualize the research problem and the current state of the art for the reader.

The last sentence of the final paragraph of the introduction could be moved to the methodology section. The aim at the end of the introduction differs from the aim at the beginning of the methods section. Ensure consistency (consider the abstract as well).

At the beginning of the methods section, the authors should briefly explain the health system and the IMSS, including the coverage percentage (currently listed in the last sentence of the introduction). It is not clear whether the IMSS system and the National Epidemiological Surveillance System were linked or if the notifications from NESS are part of IMSS.

In the study population section, the authors mention that they included probable and confirmed cases of mpox. Later, they state that they calculated the incidence considering the population covered by IMSS. This is confusing. The study population for each analysis conducted must be clearly defined for the reader.

The authors do not specify the data access date. Especially for studies using secondary and surveillance data, the access date must be provided as these data are continuously updated by the responsible entities.

In the definitions section, a new unnamed category is introduced in the second paragraph, where the authors state that these cases “were also studied for mpox.” What does this mean? In which category do these cases fall?

It is unnecessary to explain sexual orientation definition, just indicate whether it was self-reported (hopefully!) and what categories were included in the study. Gender identity is a separate variable from sexual orientation. The explanation in the methods section is unclear, making it difficult to understand whether these variables were analyzed separately, as they should be.

What are confirmatory studies? Are these the tests conducted to confirm mpox cases? If so, this should be defined in the definitions section. For all patients classified as suspected/probable and who provided samples, was PCR conducted for case confirmation?

How were the other variables studied obtained? It is important to describe all variables, including their origin, method of collection (self-reported?), temporal reference, and response categories (when applicable).

Explain how was calculated the incidence. What is the incidence reference? 10,000 people? This needs to be described in the methods.

The authors refer to “key populations” without defining what it is and how this variable was created to estimate the stratified incidence.

In the univariate model, what did the authors consider as “strength of association”? (line 184). The described method should be in the main text.

The paragraph (lines 183 to 189) and the following paragraph (lines 190-197) contain repetitions. Review these sections. What parameters were used in the multivariate model? Variables described here appear for the first time in the text without explanations.

Ensure consistency of variables presented in the dataset, main text, and tables. For example, the variable “gender” appears under different denominations and different categorizations in the main text, tables and dataset.

Figure S1 is dispensable. Table S1 needs to be formatted according to the journal's formatting and style guidelines. Adjust the titles.

Tables S1 and S2 should be in the same document, in Word/PDF format, following the journal's table formatting rules.

Figure 1 (sample composition flowchart) is cited incorrectly at the end of the methods section.

In the results, the authors present stratified results by confirmed (by PCR) and unconfirmed cases, which was not described in the methods.

In Figure 2, it would be more informative to present the positivity rate per month (% of positives among those tested). In its current form, the figure title is inadequate.

Only in the description of the results in Table 3 do we learn that the incidence rate presented is per 100,000 IMSS beneficiaries. This needs to be described in the methods and table title.

The multivariate model results are presented in a segmented manner. Review this to create a cohesive text with logical flow.

The first paragraph of the discussion presents an objective conflicting with those in the abstract, the end of the introduction, and the beginning of the methods section. The first paragraph of the discussion should provide an overview of the main study findings, which will be discussed further.

“The discovery of mpox transmission” does not seem an appropriate term.

The second paragraph of the discussion should be in the introduction/repeats content already in the introduction without adding value to the discussion. I suggest removing it.

How the authors created the category “bigender", presented at the discussion?

There seems to be some difficulty on the part of the authors regarding the variables of sex, gender identity, and sexual orientation. I suggest reviewing studies that have clearly addressed these variables. https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanam/article/PIIS2667-193X(22)00223-X/fulltext

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(23)00273-8/fulltext

The authors present results for confirmed cases but refer back to probable cases in the conclusions. The conclusion needs to be revised to address the study's proposed aims.

All figures and tables need to be reviewed for adherence to formatting standards and appropriate titles.

Reviewer #4: 1) Improve the English wording

2) Lack of congruence between the objective of the study, methodology and results. It seems that it is looking for an incidence, but it is not a cohort. We suggest reviewing the methodology when you are looking for description of the characteristics and associated factors, we suggest a cross-sectional study with prevalence and associated factors.

3) Improve language, avoid the word gay, only MSM, use inclusive language.

4) Table 1.- two columns are not necessary.

5) The results are reported in means with IQR, but due to the size of the sample it is worth looking at its distribution.

6) The OR data are poorly written, it should be as follows: MSM OR 8.28 (95%CI 6.50 – 10.55), p<0.001; the semicolon is used to separate ideas

7) 207-208 eliminate, emphasize the main results of your research

8) 210-211 Seems like information is repeated. 212 The terminology “American House” is not well understood. 215 Do we have the complete data to affirm Mexico is the fourth country in America with Mpox cases?

9) Discussion could improve if the author compares local data with other similar studies in other countries. 223: We suggest that cumulative incidence could not be reported with de current methodology

10) Idea of 225-226 is not understood.

13) The conclusion does not answer the main objective.

14) It is difficult to consider a descriptive study

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #3: No

Reviewer #4: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2025 Jan 8;20(1):e0313691. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0313691.r004

Author response to Decision Letter 1


22 Oct 2024

Dear Reviewers, we greatly appreciate your comments. We have addressed each of them.

Reviewer 1.

1. Review the English. There are issues with the language and writing that hinder understanding and compromise the readability and flow.

A=We have carefully reviewed the language and writing in the manuscript.

2. Abstract: The "Materials and Methods" section should include information about the incidence and parameters of the models conducted. The results presented must be supported by the methods.

A= Thank you for your comment, we carefully reviewed the abstract section to ensure it was consistent with the manuscript, including the materials and methods section where we added the cumulative incidence and the models we performed.

3. Consider including more references in the introduction. Each paragraph makes multiple assertions but only cites one reference per paragraph. Why is this the case?

A= The introduction was modified, and several references were included to support the assertions.

4. The introduction needs reorganization. In the first paragraph, the authors start by discussing the 2022 outbreak. In the second and third paragraphs, they describe the transmission mode of the virus, including the hypothesis of sexual transmission relevant to the recent outbreak (2022) but not present in the description of previous cases (before 2022). In the fourth and fifth paragraphs, they discuss the clinical presentation and symptoms. In the sixth paragraph, they revisit (to some extent) the content of the first paragraph. Thus, reorganization is necessary to eliminate repeated sections and improve the coherence of the historical context and background presented.

A= The introduction was reorganized, repeated sections were removed, and background and historical events were arranged chronologically to improve the coherence of the section.

5. It would be worthwhile to include the origin and historical context of mpox, its endemic regions, and how cases were previously described. When discussing the 2022 outbreak, provide temporal context, as well as epidemiological and clinical characteristics that differ from previous cases. It is necessary to contextualize the research problem and the current state of the art for the reader.

A= The origin and historical context of mpox, as well as the description of the epidemiological and clinical features of the multinational outbreak in 2022, were added to the introduction.

6. The last sentence of the final paragraph of the introduction could be moved to the methodology section. The aim at the end of the introduction differs from the aim at the beginning of the methods section. Ensure consistency (consider the abstract as well).

A= As suggested, the last sentence of the last paragraph of the introduction was moved to the methodology section. The objective was checked to be consistent across all sections such as the end of the introduction, methodology and abstract.

7. At the beginning of the methods section, the authors should briefly explain the health system and the IMSS, including the coverage percentage (currently listed in the last sentence of the introduction). It is not clear whether the IMSS system and the National Epidemiological Surveillance System were linked or if the notifications from NESS are part of IMSS.

A= In the methods section, information was expanded to explain IMSS coverage and the link between the IMSS and the National Epidemiological Surveillance System of Mpox.

8. In the study population section, the authors mention that they included probable and confirmed cases of mpox. Later, they state that they calculated the incidence considering the population covered by IMSS. This is confusing. The study population for each analysis conducted must be clearly defined for the reader.

A= In the study population section, it is clarified that the study population was all probable cases of mpox reported by IMSS medical units in 2022-2023. In later sections, it is clarified how the cumulative incidence was calculated.

9. The authors do not specify the data access date. Especially for studies using secondary and surveillance data, the access date must be provided as these data are continuously updated by the responsible entities.

A= In the methodology, at the end of the study population section, it was specified that June 26, 2023 was the date the database was accessed.

10. In the definitions section, a new unnamed category is introduced in the second paragraph, where the authors state that these cases “were also studied for mpox.” What does this mean? In which category do these cases fall?

A= Thank you very much for your comment. In the variable definition section it was specified that these cases referred to in the commented paragraph are also probable cases of mpox.

11. It is unnecessary to explain sexual orientation definition, just indicate whether it was self-reported (hopefully!) and what categories were included in the study. Gender identity is a separate variable from sexual orientation. The explanation in the methods section is unclear, making it difficult to understand whether these variables were analyzed separately, as they should be.

A= In accordance with your comments, thank you very much. The definition of sexual orientation was removed. In the methodology section, it was specified that the sexual orientation variable was collected by self-report and the categories of the variable are described. Likewise, the gender variable was collected by self-report and the categories of the variable were described. These variables were analyzed separately.

12. What are confirmatory studies? Are these the tests conducted to confirm mpox cases? If so, this should be defined in the definitions section. For all patients classified as suspected/probable and who provided samples, was PCR conducted for case confirmation?

A= The subheading for confirmatory studies was removed. The definitions of confirmed case and ruled out case were added to the variable definitions section. It was also clarified that all patients classified as probable cases had samples taken for confirmation by PCR testing performed by authorized laboratories.

13. How were the other variables studied obtained? It is important to describe all variables, including their origin, method of collection (self-reported?), temporal reference, and response categories (when applicable).

A= In the methodology section, it was described how the other variables such as sociodemographic, epidemiological and clinical variables were collected. The definition of the variables and their categories was also added.

14. Explain how was calculated the incidence. What is the incidence reference? 10,000 people? This needs to be described in the methods.

A= In the methods section, further information was provided on how the cumulative incidence was calculated.

15. The authors refer to “key populations” without defining what it is and how this variable was created to estimate the stratified incidence.

A= The term “key populations” was eliminated since, in effect, it was not defined; rather, we refer to population subgroups and this was indicated in the statistical analysis section of the methodology. It was also described how the stratified cumulative incidence was estimated in population subgroups such as MSM and people living with HIV.

16. In the univariate model, what did the authors consider as “strength of association”? (line 184). The described method should be in the main text.

A= In the univariate model, the term “strength of association” was corrected, clarifying that it is statistical significance.

17. The paragraph (lines 183 to 189) and the following paragraph (lines 190-197) contain repetitions. Review these sections. What parameters were used in the multivariate model? Variables described here appear for the first time in the text without explanations.

A= Thank you for your comment. We have reviewed the highlighted paragraphs and removed the repeated sections, writing a clearer description of the analysis performed. It was described that the multivariate analysis was performed with the independent variables that showed statistical significance in the univariate analysis, with a level of statistical significance of p<0.05. Additionally, the variables that were indicated in this section were eliminated and included in the variable definitions and data collection section.

18. Ensure consistency of variables presented in the dataset, main text, and tables. For example, the variable “gender” appears under different denominations and different categorizations in the main text, tables and dataset.

A= Thank you for your valuable comment. We have reviewed the database, the main text, and the tables, and made corrections to the gender and sexual orientation categories. We ensured consistency across the tables, database, and manuscript text.

19. Figure S1 is dispensable. Table S1 needs to be formatted according to the journal's formatting and style guidelines. Adjust the titles.

A= Thank you very much for your comment. Figure S1 has been removed and Table S1 was formatted according to the PLOS ONE formatting and style guidelines and the title was adjusted.

20. Tables S1 and S2 should be in the same document, in Word/PDF format, following the journal's table formatting rules.

A= Thank you very much for your comment. Table S1 were inserted into a Word sheet that was converted to a PDF document and Table S2 was removed.

21. Figure 1 (sample composition flowchart) is cited incorrectly at the end of the methods section.

A= We adjusted the citation of Figure 1 according to manuscript body formatting guidelines.

22. In the results, the authors present stratified results by confirmed (by PCR) and unconfirmed cases, which was not described in the methods.

A= Thank you for your comment. The methodology section was complemented with the description of the comparative analysis carried out to evaluate the clinical symptoms and signs between patients with laboratory-confirmed mpox and those with laboratory-ruled mpox; the statistical test and level of significance used are indicated.

23. In Figure 2, it would be more informative to present the positivity rate per month (% of positives among those tested). In its current form, the figure title is inadequate.

A= Thank you for your comment, we gladly accept this suggestion and present in Figure 2 the mpox positivity rate per month and change the figure title to a more appropriate one.

24. Only in the description of the results in Table 3 do we learn that the incidence rate presented is per 100,000 IMSS beneficiaries. This needs to be described in the methods and table title.

A= Thank you very much for your comment. We have included in the methodology section the complete description of how the incidence rate per 100,000 IMSS beneficiaries was calculated; we also included this description in the titles and tables where we present the incidence rate.

25. The multivariate model results are presented in a segmented manner. Review this to create a cohesive text with logical flow.

A= Thank you for your comment, the segmented way of presenting the results of the multivariate analysis has been changed, creating a more fluid text.

26. The first paragraph of the discussion presents an objective conflicting with those in the abstract, the end of the introduction, and the beginning of the methods section. The first paragraph of the discussion should provide an overview of the main study findings, which will be discussed further.

A= Thank you for your comment, there was indeed a mismatch between the first paragraph of the discussion and the sections indicated, so the first paragraph of the discussion was changed to provide an overview of the main findings of the study.

27. “The discovery of mpox transmission” does not seem an appropriate term.

A= Thank you very much for your comment, the entire paragraph that included this inappropriate term was removed from the discussion in accordance with the following comment.

28. The second paragraph of the discussion should be in the introduction /repeats content already in the introduction without adding value to the discussion. I suggest removing it.

A= Thank you for your comment, we agree with your suggestion and removed the paragraph from the discussion as it contained repetitions of the description of the evolution of the multinational mpox outbreak, and effectively did not add value to the discussion.

29. How the authors created the category “bigender", presented at the discussion?

A= The gender variable was collected according to the categories established in the standardized mpox CRF provided by the national mpox epidemiological surveillance system. The bigender category was one of the categories collected directly from the patient through the questionnaire. Since no patient (0 cases) was reported in this bigender category and based on the review of the articles you recommended to us on the classification of the gender variable, we eliminated this category without affecting the analysis.

30. There seems to be some difficulty on the part of the authors regarding the variables of sex, gender identity, and sexual orientation. I suggest reviewing studies that have clearly addressed these variables. https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanam/article/PIIS2667-193X(22)00223-X/fulltext

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(23)00273-8/fulltext

A= Thank you very much for your suggestions, we reviewed the recommended articles, and the gender and sexual orientation variables were corrected in the different sections of the manuscript.

31. The authors present results for confirmed cases but refer back to probable cases in the conclusions. The conclusion needs to be revised to address the study's proposed aims.

A= The discussion and conclusions section has been modified so that it no longer refers to probable cases.

32. All figures and tables need to be reviewed for adherence to formatting standards and appropriate titles.

A= Thank you for your comment, all tables were reviewed, and the format was adjusted according to the PLOS ONE formatting and style guidelines. Table titles have also been adjusted.

Reviwer 2

1) Improve the English wording

A= We have carefully reviewed the language and writing in the manuscript.

33. Lack of congruence between the objective of the study, methodology and results. It seems that it is looking for an incidence, but it is not a cohort. We suggest reviewing the methodology when you are looking for description of the characteristics and associated factors, we suggest a cross-sectional study with prevalence and associated factors.

A= Thank you very much for your comment. Since all the cases were new cases identified in the IMSS medical units and reported to the national epidemiological surveillance system, we calculated the cumulative incidence per 100,000 IMSS beneficiaries.

Regarding the type of study, indeed, in the methodology we describe that we conducted a retrospective observational study using a cross-sectional survey to assess mpox cumulative incidence and associated factors.

34. Improve language, avoid the word gay, only MSM, use inclusive language.

A=The language was improved by using inclusive language by eliminating the word gay and using only the term MSM throughout the manuscript.

35. Table 1.- two columns are not necessary.

A= Based on your comment, the second column of Table 1 was removed.

36. The results are reported in means with IQR, but due to the size of the sample it is worth looking at its distribution.

A= The variable age, by the Kolmogorov-Smirnov hypothesis test, had a non-normal distribution. (We attach the results in response to reviewers document).

The interquartile range (IQR) is primarily used in statistics to describe the dispersion of a dataset. The interquartile range is useful in various contexts, especially when the data do not follow a normal distribution.

37. The OR data are poorly written, it should be as follows: MSM OR 8.28 (95%CI 6.50 – 10.55), p<0.001; the semicolon is used to separate ideas

A=We have revised the data presentation as suggested, including the appropriate use of the semicolon to

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers 211024.docx

pone.0313691.s003.docx (49.3KB, docx)

Decision Letter 2

Moises Leon Juarez

30 Oct 2024

Risk factors for human infection with Mpox among the Mexican population with social security.

PONE-D-24-01590R2

Dear Dr. Arriaga Nieto,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager® and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. If you have any questions relating to publication charges, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Moises Leon Juarez

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

The authors responded and made the changes recommended by the reviewers, so that the article is ready to be published in the journal.

Reviewers' comments:

Acceptance letter

Moises Leon Juarez

6 Nov 2024

PONE-D-24-01590R2

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Arriaga Nieto,

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now being handed over to our production team.

At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following:

* All references, tables, and figures are properly cited

* All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission,

* There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset

If revisions are needed, the production department will contact you directly to resolve them. If no revisions are needed, you will receive an email when the publication date has been set. At this time, we do not offer pre-publication proofs to authors during production of the accepted work. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few weeks to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps.

Lastly, if your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at customercare@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Moises Leon Juarez

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Table. Bivariate analysis of variables associated with laboratory-confirmed mpox cases.

    (DOCX)

    pone.0313691.s001.docx (27.4KB, docx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

    pone.0313691.s002.docx (60.6KB, docx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers 211024.docx

    pone.0313691.s003.docx (49.3KB, docx)

    Data Availability Statement

    The data underlying the results presented in the study are available at the following Figshare link: https://figshare.com/articles/dataset/Database_mpox_xls/25481266.


    Articles from PLOS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES