1921
Volume 102, Issue 5
  • ISSN: 0002-9637
  • E-ISSN: 1476-1645

Abstract

Abstract.

Following the large outbreak of Zika virus in the Western Hemisphere, many infants have been born with congenital Zika virus infection. It is important to describe the functional outcomes seen with congenital infections to allow for their recognition and appropriate interventions. We evaluated 120 children conceived during the 2015–2016 Zika virus outbreak in Paraíba, Brazil, who were approximately 24 months old, to assess functional outcomes. All children met either anthropometric criteria or laboratory criteria suggestive of possible congenital Zika virus infection. We collected results of previous medical evaluations, interviewed parents, and performed physical examinations and functional assessments, for example, the Hammersmith Infant Neurological Examination (HINE). We compared patterns of neurologic outcomes and developmental delay at age 24 months by whether children met anthropometric or laboratory criteria, or both. Among children meeting both criteria, 60% (26/43) were multiply affected (had severe motor impairment, severe developmental delay, and suboptimal HINE scores), compared with 5% (3/57) meeting only laboratory criteria and none (0/20) meeting only anthropometric criteria. Of the remaining 91 children, 49% (45) had developmental delay, with more severe delay seen in children meeting both criteria. Although children meeting physical and laboratory criteria for potential congenital Zika virus infection were more severely affected, we did identify several children with notable adverse neurologic outcomes and developmental delay with no physical findings but potential laboratory evidence of Zika virus infection. Given this, all children who were potentially exposed in utero to Zika virus should be monitored in early childhood for deficits to allow for early intervention.

[open-access] This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY) License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

The graphs shown below represent data from March 2017
/content/journals/10.4269/ajtmh.19-0961
2020-03-30
2020-06-06
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/14761645/102/5/tpmd190961.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.4269/ajtmh.19-0961&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

References

  1. Faria NR et al., 2016. Zika virus in the Americas: early epidemiological and genetic findings. Science 352: 345349.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Brito C, 2015. Zika virus: A new chapter in the history of medicine. Acta Med Port 28: 679680.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Cardoso CW, Paploski JAD, Kikuti M, Rodrigues MS, Silva MM, Campos GS, Sardi SI, Kitron U, Reis MG, Ribeiro GS, 2015. Outbreak of actue exanthematous illness associated with Zika, chikungunya, and dengues viruses, Salvador, Brazil [letter]. Emerg Infect Dis 21: 22742276.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Pan American Health Organization, 2016. Timeline of Emergence of Zika Virus in the Americas. Available at: http://www.paho.org/hq/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=11959:timeline-of-emergence-of-zika-virus-in-the-americas&Itemid=41711&lang=en. Accessed July 15, 2019.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Kleber de Oliveira W, Cortez-Escalante J, De Oliveira WT, do Carmo GM, Henriques CM, Coelho GE, Araújo de França GV, 2016. Increase in reported prevalence of microcephaly in infants born to women living in areas with confirmed Zika virus transmission during the first trimester of pregnancy–Brazil, 2015. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 65: 242247.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Brasil P et al., 2016. Zika virus infection in pregnant women in rio de Janeiro. N Engl J Med 375: 23212334.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Rasmussen SA, Jamieson DJ, Honein MA, Petersen LR, 2016. Zika virus and birth defects–reviewing the evidence for causality. N Engl J Med 374: 19811987.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Moore CA et al., 2017. Characterizing the pattern of anomalies in congenital Zika syndrome for pediatric clinicians. JAMA Pediatr 171: 288295.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Schuler-Faccini L et al., Brazilian Medical Genetics Society–Zika Embryopathy Task Force, 2016. Possible association between Zika virus infection and microcephaly–Brazil, 2015. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 65: 5962.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. França GV et al., 2016. Congenital Zika virus syndrome in Brazil: a case series of the first 1501 livebirths with complete investigation. Lancet 388: 891897.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. van der Linden V et al., 2016. Description of 13 infants born during October 2015-January 2016 with congenital Zika virus infection without microcephaly at birth - Brazil. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 65: 13431348.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Nogueira ML et al., 2018. Adverse birth outcomes associated with Zika virus exposure during pregnancy in São José do Rio Preto, Brazil. Clin Microbiol Infect 24: 646652.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Moura da Silva AA et al., 2016. Early growth and neurologic outcomes of infants with probable congenital Zika virus syndrome. Emerg Infect Dis J 22: 19531956.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Nielsen-Saines K et al., 2019. Delayed childhood neurodevelopment and neurosensory alterations in the second year of life in a prospective cohort of ZIKV-exposed children. Nat Med 25: 12131217.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Einspieler C et al., The GM Zika Working Group, 2018. Association of infants exposed to prenatal Zika virus infection with their clinical, neurologic, and developmental status evaluated via the general movement assessment tool. JAMA Netw Open 2: e187235.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Oliveira Melo AS, Malinger G, Ximenes R, Szejnfeld PO, Alves Sampaio S, Bispo de Filippis AM, 2016. Zika virus intrauterine infection causes fetal brain abnormality and microcephaly: tip of the iceberg? Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 47: 67.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Aragao MFVV et al., 2017. Nonmicrocephalic infants with congenital Zika syndrome suspected only after neuroimaging evaluation compared with those with microcephaly at birth and postnatally: how large is the Zika virus “iceberg”? Am J Neuroradiol 38: 14271434.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Munoz-Jordan JL, 2017. Diagnosis of Zika virus infections: challenges and opportunities. J Infect Dis 216 (Suppl–10): S951S956.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Wheeler AC, Ventura CV, Ridenour T, Toth D, Nobrega LL, Silva de Souza Dantas LC, Rocha C, Bailey DB Jr, Ventura LO, 2018. Skills attained by infants with congenital Zika syndrome: pilot data from Brazil. PLoS One 13: e0201495.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Krow-Lucal ER et al., Paraíba Microcephaly Work Group, 2018. Association and birth prevalence of microcephaly attributable to Zika virus infection among infants in Paraíba, Brazil, in 2015–16: a case-control study. Lancet Child Adolesc Health 2: 205213.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Walker CL et al., 2018. Femur-sparing pattern of abnormal fetal growth in pregnant women from New York city after maternal Zika virus infection. Am J Obstet Gynecol 219: 187.e1187.e20.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Satterfield-Nash A et al., 2017. Health and development at age 19–24 months of 19 children who were born with microcephaly and laboratory evidence of congenital Zika virus infection during the 2015 Zika virus outbreak–Brazil, 2017. Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 66: 13471351.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. International Fetal and Newborn Growth Consortium for the 21st Century, 2017. Standards for Newborns and References for Very Preterm Infants. Available at: https://intergrowth21.tghn.org/. Accessed July 15, 2019.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. World Health Organization, 2017. Child Growth Standards. Head Circumference for Age. Available at: http://www.who.int/childgrowth/standards/hc_for_age/en/. Accessed July 15, 2019.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Maitre NL, Chorna O, Romeo DM, Guzzetta A, 2016. Implementation of the Hammersmith infant neurological exam in a high-risk infant follow-up program. Pediatr Neurol 65: 3138.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Douglass LM et al., 2016. A novel parent questionnaire for the detection of seizures in children. Pediatr Neurol 54: 6469.e1.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Squires J, Twombly E, Bricker D, Potter L, 2009. ASQ-3™ User’s Guide, 3rd edition. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brooks Publishing Company, Inc., 157169.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Harris PA, Taylor R, Thielke R, Payne J, Gonzalez N, Conde JG, 2009. Research electronic data capture (REDCap) – a metadata-driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research informatics support. J Biomed Inform 42: 377381.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Filgueiras A, Pires P, Maissonette S, Landeira-Fernandez J, 2013. Psychometric properties of the Brazilian-adapted version of the ages and stages questionnaire in public child daycare centers. Early Hum Dev 89: 561576.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Lopes Moreira ME et al., 2018. Neurodevelopment in infants exposed to Zika virus in utero. N Engl J Med 379: 23772379.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Rice ME et al., 2018. Vital signs: Zika-associated birth defects and neurodevelopmental abnormalities possibly associated with congenital Zika virus infection–U.S. territories and freely associated states, 2018. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 67: 858867.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Valdes V et al., 2019. Cognitive development of infants exposed to the Zika virus in Puerto Rico. JAMA Netw Open 2: e1914061.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Simeonson RJ, Sharp MC, 1992. Developmental delays. Hoekelman RA, Friedman SB, Nelson NM, Seidel HM, eds. Primary Pediatric Care, 2nd edition. St. Louis, MO: C. V. Mosby, 867870.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Gottlieb CA, Maenner MJ, Cappa C, Curkin MS, 2009. Child disability screening, nutrition, and early learning in 18 countries with low and middle incomes: data from the third round of UNICEF’s multiple indicator cluster survey (2005–06). Lancet 374: 18311839.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Durkin M, 2002. The epidemiology of developmental delays in low-income countries. Ment Retard Dev Disabil Res Rev 8: 206211.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Tsui I et al., 2018. Eye findings in infant with suspected or confirmed antenatal Zika virus exposure. Pediatrics 142: e20281104.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.4269/ajtmh.19-0961
Loading
/content/journals/10.4269/ajtmh.19-0961
Loading

Data & Media loading...

Supplemental appendix

  • Received : 23 Dec 2019
  • Accepted : 21 Feb 2020
  • Published online : 30 Mar 2020
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error