2006
DOI: 10.2223/jped.1436
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The prevalence of congenital cytomegalovirus infection in newborn infants at an intensive care unit in a public hospital

Abstract: The prevalence of congenital cytomegalovirus infection in an intensive care unit at a public hospital in Porto Alegre was not considered elevated and was comparable with prevalence rates found by other studies.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
4
0
1

Year Published

2008
2008
2020
2020

Publication Types

Select...
6

Relationship

0
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 7 publications
(5 citation statements)
references
References 24 publications
0
4
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…Despite the recognized importance of congenital CMV infection in the world, only limited information is available about the incidence and natural history of this infection in Brazil [11, 12, 14, 15, 17]. In this population based newborn screening study, we found a 1.1% (95%CI: 0.86–1.33) birth prevalence of congenital CMV infection and 8.1% (95%CI: 3.3–15.9) of infected infants exhibited at least one clinical finding suggestive of congenital infection in the newborn period while 4.6% (CI95%:1.3–11.3) had multisystem CMV disease.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Despite the recognized importance of congenital CMV infection in the world, only limited information is available about the incidence and natural history of this infection in Brazil [11, 12, 14, 15, 17]. In this population based newborn screening study, we found a 1.1% (95%CI: 0.86–1.33) birth prevalence of congenital CMV infection and 8.1% (95%CI: 3.3–15.9) of infected infants exhibited at least one clinical finding suggestive of congenital infection in the newborn period while 4.6% (CI95%:1.3–11.3) had multisystem CMV disease.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, the infection rate was higher in comparison with Portugal (0.4%) and Belgium (0.5%) using viral isolation in cell cultures from urine samples 24,25 ; the USA (0.5%) using qPCR in saliva specimens targeting the glycoprotein B (gB) and the immediate early gene 2 (IE-2) exon 5 region 12 ; and with the sub-Saharan Africa (3.8%) using qPCR in saliva, serum and urine samples targeting the phosphoprotein pp65 (UL83) 26 . Lower prevalences have also been reported in previous studies conducted in Brazil: Sao Paulo (1%) (1980)(1981)(1982) using viral isolation in cell culture from urine samples and specific immunofluorescence anti-HCMV IgM in umbilical-cord serum 27 , Belo Horizonte (6.8%) (1995)(1996)(1997)(1998) and Porto Alegre (0.8%) (2003) using conventional PCR in urine samples 28,29 ; Ribeirao Preto (1%) (2003)(2004)(2005)(2006)(2007)(2008)(2009) and Ilheus (1.2%) (2010-2012) using conventional PCR in urine and/ or saliva samples 9,10 . This observed disagreement may be mostly associated with differences in the diagnostic methods and clinical samples 10,24 .…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 54%
“…Jaundice, microcephaly, elevated liver enzyme levels, presence of intracranial calcification, intrauterine growth retardation were other findings. Preterm infants (< 32 weeks of gestation) with symptomatic congenital CMV are more likely to have pneumonitis, signs of viral sepsis, thrombocytopenia, and co-infections, and they are less likely to have microcephaly or intracranial calcifications compared to term neonates (2,4,13). In the case series of Ulubas Isik et al, 75% of the cases were preterm (12).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Although the importance of congenital CMV infection is obvious, the majority of maternal and fetal infections are not identified even in developed countries unless there is a screening program implemented. This may be due to the fact that only 10% of the infants with CMV infections manifest clinical symptoms (2,3). Furthermore, making a diagnosis of congenital/perinatal CMV infection is difficult because the sample from the infant collected on day 21 before birth should be negative and the sample collected from the same infant 21 days after birth should be positive in order to diagnose postnatal infection (4).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%