13
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      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

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          In November 2015, the Brazilian Ministry of Health (MOH) declared the Zika virus outbreak a public health emergency after an increase in microcephaly cases was reported in the northeast region of the country ( 1 ). During 2015–2016, 15 states in Brazil with laboratory-confirmed Zika virus transmission reported an increase in birth prevalence of microcephaly (2.8 cases per 10,000 live births), significantly exceeding prevalence in four states without confirmed transmission (0.6 per 10,000) ( 2 ). Although children with microcephaly and laboratory evidence of Zika virus infection have been described in early infancy ( 3 ), their subsequent health and development have not been well characterized, constraining planning for the care and support of these children and their families. The Brazilian MOH, the State Health Secretariat of Paraíba, and CDC collaborated on a follow-up investigation of the health and development of children in northeastern Brazil who were reported to national surveillance with microcephaly at birth. Nineteen children with microcephaly at birth and laboratory evidence of Zika virus infection were assessed through clinical evaluations, caregiver interviews, and review of medical records. At follow-up (ages 19–24 months), most of these children had severe motor impairment, seizure disorders, hearing and vision abnormalities, and sleep difficulties. Children with microcephaly and laboratory evidence of Zika virus infection have severe functional limitations and will require specialized care from clinicians and caregivers as they age. The Zika Outcomes and Development in Infants and Children (ZODIAC) investigation sought to compile a comprehensive description of health and development among children aged >12 months who were born with microcephaly and participated in a 2016 case-control investigation. The case-control investigation assessed the association of Zika virus infection and microcephaly among children aged 1–7 months, living in Paraíba state. The children and their caregivers were evaluated by multidisciplinary teams at two state clinics in Campina Grande and João Pessoa (macroregions 1 and 2) in Paraíba state during August–October 2017. This report describes a subsample of 19 children, aged 19–24 months, who participated in ZODIAC and were born with microcephaly and with laboratory evidence of Zika virus infection. All children in the ZODIAC investigation were born from October 1, 2015 through January 31, 2016, and were reported to the Registro de Eventos de Saúde Pública (RESP)—Microcefalias, Brazil’s national microcephaly registry. For infants to be eligible for the 2016 case-control investigation, their mothers must have resided in Paraíba state for at least 80% of their pregnancy. For the ZODIAC investigation, microcephaly was defined as head circumference below the third percentile for gestational age and sex, according to INTERGROWTH 21st standards ( 4 ). Subsequent measurements are reported in standard deviations (SD) to better characterize growth deficiencies ( 5 ). Laboratory evidence of Zika virus infection was defined as a positive test for Zika virus immunoglobulin M (IgM) and virus specific-neutralizing antibodies or a positive test for Zika virus-specific neutralizing antibodies in an infant sample ( 6 ). Samples were obtained at age 1–7 months in the 2016 case-control investigation, and any evidence of infection was assumed to be prenatal in origin. Results of prenatal and newborn testing to rule out other congenital infections were available for some infants and their mothers. ZODIAC data were collected through clinical evaluations, caregiver interviews, and review of medical records. Licensed physicians performed growth, ophthalmologic and physical exams, and a neurologic assessment. Physicians were trained to use the Hammersmith Infant Neurological Examination (HINE), a standardized neurologic exam, to assess neuromotor function and visual and auditory responses ( 7 ). Trained interviewers administered screening and assessment instruments to the primary caregiver (usually the mother) regarding the child’s health and development, including a seizure screener ( 8 ), the Ages and Stages Questionnaires (ASQ-3),* and the Ages and Stages Social-Emotional Questionnaires (ASQ:SE). † Data were captured in REDCap, a secure web application. The families of 278 previously studied children residing in the ZODIAC investigation catchment area were eligible for inclusion; 122 children were enrolled, including 19 who were aged <24 months and who had both microcephaly at birth and laboratory evidence of Zika virus infection. Among the 19 children, 11 had a blood specimen that tested positive for Zika virus-specific IgM antibodies and neutralizing antibodies against Zika virus, and eight had only neutralizing antibodies against Zika virus. Among the eight with neutralizing antibodies only, seven had at least one test for other congenital infections; one had a positive Toxoplasma immunoglobulin G (IgG) antibody result and one had positive rubella virus and cytomegalovirus IgG results. Both had negative IgM antibody results for these infections; the first had brain imaging findings consistent with congenital Zika virus infection and the second had no record of imaging. The median age at follow-up evaluation was 22 months (range = 19–24 months); 10 were male and nine were female. At the time of assessment, 15 children (seven males and eight females) had head circumference measurements more than 3 SDs below the mean for their age and sex (Table 1) (Table 2). Four children had an increase in head circumference for age from birth measurements: three males had head circumference within 1 SD below the mean and one female had head circumference within 1 SD above the mean. Thirteen children (six males and seven females) had length measurements 1–3 SDs below the mean, and 13 children (six males and seven females) had weight measurements 1 to >3 SDs below the mean for their age and sex. TABLE 1 Growth measurements* of children aged 19–24 months with confirmed or probable congenital Zika virus infection†,§ and microcephaly classification at birth¶,** — Paraíba, Brazil, August–October 2017 Growth No. (%) Male (n = 10) Female (n = 9) Head circumference†† >3 SD below mean for age and sex§§ 7 (70) 8 (89) Length¶¶ 1–3 SD below mean for age and sex*** 6 (60) 7 (78) Weight††† 1 to >3 SD below mean for age and sex§§§ 6 (60) 7 (78) Abbreviation: SD = standard deviation. * http://www.who.int/childgrowth/standards/en . † Confirmed congenital Zika virus infection was indicated by a positive Zika virus-specific immunoglobulin M [IgM] capture enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay [MAC-ELISA] result on infant cerebrospinal fluid [CSF] or serum) and positive plaque reduction neutralization testing (PRNT). Serologic evidence without confirmation via PRNT indicated probable congenital Zika virus infection. § http://jcm.asm.org/content/38/5/1823.full.pdf+html. ¶ Microcephaly at birth was defined according to the internationally accepted definition, head circumference below the 3rd percentile for gestational age and sex, from the standards for newborns and references for very preterm infants compiled by the International Fetal and Newborn Growth Consortium for the 21st Century. ** https://intergrowth21.tghn.org/ . †† http://www.who.int/childgrowth/standards/hc_for_age/en/ . §§ Of the remaining males, three (30%) had a head circumference equal to the mean or up to 1 SD below the mean, and of the remaining females, one (11%) had a head circumference equal to the mean or up to 1 SD above the mean. ¶¶ http://www.who.int/childgrowth/standards/height_for_age/en/. *** Of the remaining males, the length of 4 (40%) was equal to the mean or up to 3 SDs above the mean, and of the remaining females, the length of 2 (22%) was equal to the mean or up to 1 SD above the mean. ††† http://www.who.int/childgrowth/standards/weight_for_age/en/. §§§ Of the remaining males, the weight of 3 (30%) was equal to the mean or up to 2 SDs above the mean; the weight of 1 (10%) male was >3 SDs above the mean. Of the remaining females, the weight of 2 (22%) was equal to the mean or up to 2 SDs above the mean. TABLE 2 Growth parameters,* evaluations, and medical and developmental conditions for 19 infants aged 19–24 months with confirmed or probable congenital Zika virus infection,†,§ and microcephaly classification¶,** at birth — ZODIAC investigation, Paraíba, Brazil, August–October 2017 Infant no. Sex Birth HC** (%) ZODIAC HC†† (Z score) ZODIAC weight§§ (Z score) Brain imaging consistent with CZS Zika laboratory evidence Seizures Eating challenges Sleep challenges Severe motor impairment Vision limitation Hearing abnormalities ASQ-3 age interval¶¶ 1 F <3rd -7.85 -1.68 Yes IgM +; NAb + Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes <6 months 2 F <3rd -7.21 -0.98 Yes IgM +; NAb + No No Yes Yes Yes Yes <6 months 3 F <3rd -7.08 -4.47 Yes IgM +; NAb + Yes No Yes Yes No No <6 months 4 M <3rd -4.88 -2.40 Yes NAb + only No Yes No Yes No Yes <6 months 5 M <3rd -4.20 1.90 Yes NAb + only Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes <6 months 6 F <3rd -5.36 -0.86 Yes IgM +; NAb + No No No Yes No Yes <6 months 7 F <3rd -8.02 -1.56 Yes NAb + only Yes Yes No Yes Yes No <6 months 8 M <3rd -5.75 -4.11 Yes IgM +; NAb + Yes No No Yes No Yes <6 months 9 M <3rd -5.83 -1.46 Yes IgM +; NAb + No Yes No Yes Yes Yes <6 months 10 F <3rd -6.65 -1.23 Yes IgM +; NAb + Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes <6 months 11 F <3rd -5.67 -0.91 Yes NAb + only Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes <6 months 12 M <3rd -3.69 3.52 Yes IgM +; NAb + Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes <6 months 13 M <3rd -7.03 -2.36 Yes IgM +; NAb + Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes <6 months 14 F <3rd -8.45 0.18 Yes IgM +; NAb + Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes <6 months 15 M <3rd -6.29 -1.60 Yes IgM +; NAb + Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes <6 months 16 M <3rd -0.68 1.52 No record NAb + only No No Yes No No No >6 months 17 M <3rd -0.18 -0.87 No record NAb + only No No Yes No No No >6 months 18 F <3rd 0.23 1.28 No anomaly NAb + only No Yes No No No No >6 months 19 M <3rd -0.09 1.14 No record NAb + only No No Yes No No No >6 months Abbreviations: ASQ-3 = Ages and Stages-III Questionnaire; CZS = congenital Zika syndrome; F = female; HC = head circumference; IgM = immunoglobulin M; M = male; NAb = neutralizing antibodies; ZODIAC = Zika Outcomes and Development in Infants and Children. * http://www.who.int/childgrowth/standards/en . † Confirmed congenital Zika virus infection was indicated by a positive Zika virus-specific IgM capture enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay result on infant cerebrospinal fluid or serum) and positive plaque reduction neutralization testing (PRNT). Serologic evidence without confirmation via PRNT indicated probable congenital Zika virus infection. § http://jcm.asm.org/content/38/5/1823.full.pdf+html. ¶ Microcephaly at birth was defined according to the internationally accepted definition, head circumference below the 3rd percentile for gestational age and sex from the standards for newborns and references for very preterm infants compiled by the International Fetal and Newborn Growth Consortium for the 21st Century. ** https://intergrowth21.tghn.org/ . †† http://www.who.int/childgrowth/standards/hc_for_age/en/ . §§ http://www.who.int/childgrowth/standards/weight_for_age/en/. ¶¶ The ASQ-3 is a series of 21 parent-completed questionnaires designed to screen the developmental performance of children aged 1–66 months in the areas of communication, gross motor skills, fine motor skills, problem solving, and personal-social skills (http://agesandstages.com); based on ASQ-3 screening, an age interval of <6 months indicates that the child’s parent-reported developmental progress has not advanced beyond that typical of an infant at age 6 months. Eleven children screened positive for nonfebrile seizures, indicating possible seizure disorder (Table 2) (Table 3). Caregivers reported that eight children were previously hospitalized, including six hospitalized for bronchitis/pneumonia, and that 10 children had frequent sleeping difficulties and nine had eating or swallowing challenges. Thirteen children had an impaired response to auditory stimuli. Four children had retinal abnormalities and 11 had an impaired response to visual stimuli. Fifteen children did not pass the ASQ-3 age interval questionnaire designed for a child aged 6 months. Fifteen children had a global score below 40 on the HINE, indicating severe motor impairment, including 14 who had findings consistent with cerebral palsy ( 7 ). Outcomes including feeding challenges, sleeping difficulties, severe motor impairment, vision and hearing abnormalities, and seizures tended to co-occur. All children had at least one of these outcomes, 12 had three to five of these outcomes, and two had all six outcomes. Four children (infant number 16, 17, 18, and 19) (Table 2) had typical growth and development at follow-up and might have been misclassified at birth. TABLE 3 Health and developmental outcomes of 19 children aged 19–24 months with confirmed or probable congenital Zika virus infection,* ,† and microcephaly classification§,¶ at birth — Paraíba, Brazil, August–October 2017 Outcome No. (%) Medical findings Seizures**,†† 11 (58) Retinal abnormalities§§ 4 (21) Hospitalization** 8 (42) Pneumonia/Bronchitis 6 (75) Intestinal infection 1 (14) High fever 1 (14) Failure to thrive/feed 1 (14) Functional outcomes Sleeping difficulties** 10 (53) Feeding difficulties** 9 (47) Impaired response to auditory stimuli (hearing asymmetric or no response)¶¶ 13 (68) Impaired response to visual stimuli¶¶ 11 (58) Neurologic outcomes¶¶ Severe motor impairment¶¶ 15 (79) Cerebral palsy*** 14 (74) * Confirmed congenital Zika virus infection was indicated by a positive Zika virus-specific immunoglobulin M capture enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay result on infant cerebrospinal fluid or serum and positive plaque reduction neutralization testing (PRNT) at birth. Serologic evidence without confirmation via PRNT indicated probable congenital Zika virus infection. † http://jcm.asm.org/content/38/5/1823.full.pdf+html. § Microcephaly at birth was defined according to the internationally accepted definition, head circumference below the 3rd percentile for gestational age and sex from the standards for newborns and references for very preterm infants compiled by the International Fetal and Newborn Growth Consortium for the 21st Century. ¶ https://intergrowth21.tghn.org/. ** Reported by the caregiver. †† https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pediatrneurol.2015.09.016 . §§ Retinal abnormalities were identified by ophthalmologic exam. ¶¶ Motor function, functional hearing, and functional vision were assessed using the Hammersmith Infant Neurologic Exam (HINE). A global score below 40 on the HINE is associated with severe motor impairment, according to findings published in 2016 (https://doi.org/10.1111/dmcn.12876). *** Cerebral palsy was identified by neurologist. Discussion As of September 2017, 2,986 newborns with microcephaly in Brazil were reported to RESP and 2,959 cases are being monitored ( 9 ). Children with Zika virus–associated microcephaly face medical and functional challenges that span many areas of development. Previous reports established a baseline of poor health outcomes at birth, including severe brain and ophthalmologic abnormalities, and other serious central nervous system abnormalities ( 3 ). This report expands on initial findings by demonstrating that specific outcomes, such as severe motor impairment and impaired visual and auditory response to stimuli, affect the majority of children with evidence of congenital Zika virus infection and microcephaly and become more apparent as these children age. Approximately three quarters of young children affected by Zika virus infection in this analysis had at least three of the specified co-occurring outcomes. Many of the initial findings identified at birth remain present at ages 19–24 months, and these children are falling far behind in achievement of age-appropriate developmental milestones, indicating the need for long-term follow-up and support. The findings in this report are subject to at least four limitations. First, although all children with microcephaly recruited into the 2016 case-control investigation from selected areas of Paraíba state were offered enrollment in the ZODIAC investigation, not all families chose to participate. Consequently, the findings might not be representative of all children with microcephaly associated with congenital Zika virus infection. Second, errors in head circumference measurement at birth and passive transfer of maternal antibodies might have led to misidentification and might explain the divergent observations for the four children showing more typical development. Additionally, some of the parent-assessment findings, such as those from the seizure screener, were not medically verified. Finally, the ages of infants in the original case-control investigation ranged from 1 to 7 months at the time of blood collection, and it is possible that the laboratory results for some infants reflected postnatal, rather than prenatal, exposure. This report provides information on the ongoing challenges facing children with severe congenital Zika virus syndrome; these children will require specialized care from clinicians and caregivers as they age. These findings allow for anticipation of medical and social service needs of affected children and their families, including early intervention services, and planning for resources to support these families in health care and community settings in Brazil, the United States, and other countries. Children with disabilities related to congenital Zika virus infection will need multidisciplinary care from various pediatric subspecialists ( 10 ). Long-term follow-up and measurement of developmental progression of children affected by Zika virus can inform intervention services and sub-specialties needed to provide optimal care for these children. Summary What is already known about this topic? Congenital Zika virus infection has been linked to increased rates of microcephaly and a unique pattern of birth defects among infants. Although children with microcephaly and laboratory evidence of Zika virus infection have been described in early infancy, the subsequent health and development in young children have not been well characterized, constraining planning for the care of these children. What is added by this report? The growth and development of 19 children, aged 19–24 months, with laboratory evidence of Zika virus infection were thoroughly assessed. All children had at least one adverse outcome including feeding challenges, sleeping difficulties, severe motor impairment, vision and hearing abnormalities, and seizures, and these outcomes tended to co-occur. What are the implications for public health practice? Children with microcephaly and laboratory evidence of Zika virus infection face medical and functional challenges that span many areas of development, some of which become more evident as children age. They will continue to require specialized care from clinicians and caregivers. These data allow for anticipation of medical and social services needs of affected children and families, such as early intervention services, and planning for resources to support these families in healthcare and community settings.

          Related collections

          Most cited references3

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          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.

          Widespread transmission of Zika virus by Aedes mosquitoes has been recognized in Brazil since late 2014, and in October 2015, an increase in the number of reported cases of microcephaly was reported to the Brazil Ministry of Health.* By January 2016, a total of 3,530 suspected microcephaly cases had been reported, many of which occurred in infants born to women who lived in or had visited areas where Zika virus transmission was occurring. Microcephaly surveillance was enhanced in late 2015 by implementing a more sensitive case definition. Based on the peak number of reported cases of microcephaly, and assuming an average estimated pregnancy duration of 38 weeks in Brazil (1), the first trimester of pregnancy coincided with reports of cases of febrile rash illness compatible with Zika virus disease in pregnant women in Bahia, Paraíba, and Pernambuco states, supporting an association between Zika virus infection during early pregnancy and the occurrence of microcephaly. Pregnant women in areas where Zika virus transmission is occurring should take steps to avoid mosquito bites. Additional studies are needed to further elucidate the relationship between Zika virus infection in pregnancy and microcephaly.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            Update: Interim Guidance for the Diagnosis, Evaluation, and Management of Infants with Possible Congenital Zika Virus Infection — United States, October 2017

            CDC has updated its interim guidance for U.S. health care providers caring for infants with possible congenital Zika virus infection ( 1 ) in response to recently published updated guidance for health care providers caring for pregnant women with possible Zika virus exposure ( 2 ), unknown sensitivity and specificity of currently available diagnostic tests for congenital Zika virus infection, and recognition of additional clinical findings associated with congenital Zika virus infection. All infants born to mothers with possible Zika virus exposure* during pregnancy should receive a standard evaluation at birth and at each subsequent well-child visit including a comprehensive physical examination, age-appropriate vision screening and developmental monitoring and screening using validated tools ( 3 – 5 ), and newborn hearing screen at birth, preferably using auditory brainstem response (ABR) methodology ( 6 ). Specific guidance for laboratory testing and clinical evaluation are provided for three clinical scenarios in the setting of possible maternal Zika virus exposure: 1) infants with clinical findings consistent with congenital Zika syndrome regardless of maternal testing results, 2) infants without clinical findings consistent with congenital Zika syndrome who were born to mothers with laboratory evidence of possible Zika virus infection, † and 3) infants without clinical findings consistent with congenital Zika syndrome who were born to mothers without laboratory evidence of possible Zika virus infection. Infants in the first two scenarios should receive further testing and evaluation for Zika virus, whereas for the third group, further testing and clinical evaluation for Zika virus are not recommended. Health care providers should remain alert for abnormal findings (e.g., postnatal-onset microcephaly and eye abnormalities without microcephaly) in infants with possible congenital Zika virus exposure without apparent abnormalities at birth. Congenital Zika Virus Infection Zika virus infection during pregnancy can cause serious fetal brain anomalies and microcephaly ( 7 ). Among infants with substantial loss of brain volume, severe microcephaly and partial collapse of the bones of the upper skull or cranium produce a distinctive physical appearance. Characteristic findings in the brain and spinal cord include thin cerebral cortices with enlarged ventricles and increased extra-axial fluid collections, intracranial calcifications particularly between the cortex and subcortex, abnormal gyral patterns, absent or hypoplastic corpus callosum, hypoplasia of the cerebellum or cerebellar vermis, and hypoplasia of the ventral cord ( 8 – 10 ). Reported anomalies of the anterior and posterior eye include microphthalmia, coloboma, intraocular calcifications, optic nerve hypoplasia and atrophy, and macular scarring with focal pigmentary retinal mottling ( 11 – 13 ). Some infants with suspected congenital Zika virus infection without structural eye lesions have cortical visual impairment, attributable to abnormalities in the visual system of the brain ( 13 ). Other reported neurologic sequelae include congenital limb contractures, dysphagia, sensorineural hearing loss, epilepsy, and abnormalities of tone or movement, including marked hypertonia and signs of extrapyramidal involvement ( 14 , 15 ). Currently, there is no evidence suggesting that delayed-onset hearing loss occurs following congenital Zika virus infection. Since publication of the previous interim guidance in August 2016 ( 1 ), additional clinical findings have been reported in the setting of laboratory evidence of Zika virus infection in the mother or infant, including eye findings in infants without microcephaly or other brain anomalies ( 16 ), postnatal-onset microcephaly in infants born with normal head circumferences ( 17 ), postnatal-onset hydrocephalus in infants born with microcephaly ( 18 ), abnormalities on sleep electroencephalogram (EEG) in some infants with microcephaly who did not have recognized seizures ( 19 ), and diaphragmatic paralysis in infants born with microcephaly and arthrogryposis ( 20 – 22 ). Zika Virus Laboratory Testing Laboratory testing for Zika virus has a number of limitations. Zika virus RNA is only transiently present in body fluids; thus, negative nucleic acid testing (NAT) does not rule out infection. Serologic testing is affected by timing of sample collection: a negative immunoglobulin M (IgM) serologic test result does not rule out infection because the serum specimen might have been collected before the development of IgM antibodies, or after these antibodies have waned. Conversely, IgM antibodies might be detectable for months after the initial infection; for pregnant women, this can make it difficult to determine if infection occurred before or during a current pregnancy. In addition, cross-reactivity of the Zika virus IgM antibody tests with other flaviviruses can result in a false-positive test result, especially in persons previously infected with or vaccinated against a related flavivirus, further complicating interpretation ( 23 , 24 ). Limitations of Zika virus IgM antibody assays that were approved under an Emergency Use Authorization have been recognized; both false-positive and false-negative test results have occurred. CDC is updating the Emergency Use Authorization to improve assay performance and develop more standardized methods to improve precision ( 25 ). Recent epidemiologic data indicate a declining prevalence of Zika virus infection in the Americas; lower prevalence results in a lower pretest probability of infection and a higher probability of false-positive test results. Updated Guidance for Testing of Pregnant Women with Possible Zika Virus Exposure Given the decreasing prevalence of Zika virus infection cases in the Americas and emerging data regarding Zika virus laboratory testing, on July 24, 2017, CDC published updated guidance for testing of pregnant women with possible Zika virus exposure ( 2 ). Zika virus NAT testing should be offered as part of routine obstetric care to asymptomatic pregnant women with ongoing possible Zika virus exposure (residing in or frequently traveling to an area with risk for Zika virus transmission); serologic testing is no longer routinely recommended because of the limitations of IgM tests, specifically the potential persistence of IgM antibodies from an infection before conception and the potential for false-positive results. Zika virus testing is not routinely recommended for asymptomatic pregnant women who have possible recent, but not ongoing, Zika virus exposure; however, guidance might vary among jurisdictions ( 2 ). The updated guidance for maternal testing ( 2 ) is intended to reduce the possibility of false-positive results in the setting of the lower pretest probability; however, there is a possibility that the lack of routine testing might delay identification of some infants without clinical findings apparent at birth, but who may have complications from congenital Zika virus infection. Communication regarding possible maternal exposures between pediatric health care providers and obstetric care providers is critical, and strategies to enhance coordination of care and communication of health information are being developed. For families of infants with possible congenital Zika virus infection, health care providers should ensure that psychosocial support is in place and that families have access to care. The long-term prognosis for infants with congenital Zika virus infection is not yet known; health care providers should strive to address families’ concerns, facilitate early identification of abnormal findings, and refer infants for neurodevelopmental follow-up and therapy when indicated. Forum on the Diagnosis, Evaluation, and Management of Zika Virus Infection Among Infants On August 30–31, 2017, CDC, in collaboration with the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, convened the Forum on the Diagnosis, Evaluation, and Management of Zika Virus Infection among Infants, with the goal of obtaining individual expert opinion to inform development of updated guidance for diagnosing, evaluating, and managing infants with possible congenital Zika virus infection and to identify strategies to enhance communication and coordination of care of mothers and infants affected by Zika virus. Experts from various medical specialties, professional organizations, public health agencies, and federal agencies participated in the Forum (Box 1). Discussion focused on the diagnosis, evaluation, and management of three groups of infants born to mothers with possible Zika virus exposure during pregnancy: 1) infants with clinical findings consistent with congenital Zika syndrome, regardless of maternal testing results, 2) infants without clinical findings consistent with congenital Zika syndrome who were born to mothers with laboratory evidence of possible Zika virus infection, and 3) infants without clinical findings consistent with congenital Zika syndrome who were born to mothers without laboratory evidence of possible Zika virus infection (Figure). BOX 1 Areas of expertise and organizations represented at the Forum on the Diagnosis, Evaluation, and Management of Zika Virus Infection among Infants — Atlanta, Georgia, August 30–31, 2017 Specialties represented Audiology Clinical genetics Developmental and behavioral pediatrics Infectious disease Maternal-fetal medicine Neonatology Neurology Obstetrics and gynecology Ophthalmology Pediatrics Pediatric rehabilitation and medicine Radiology Professional organizations American Academy of Pediatrics (including representation from the Puerto Rico chapter) American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists Association of Maternal and Child Health Programs Association of Public Health Laboratories Association of State and Territorial Health Officials Council of State and Territorial Epidemiologists Family Voices March of Dimes National Association of County and City Health Officials National Association of Pediatric Nurse Practitioners Public health organizations California Department of Public Health County of San Diego Health and Human Services Agency Department of Health of Puerto Rico Florida Department of Health New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene Texas Department of State Health Services Federal agencies Administration for Children and Families Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Maternal and Child Health Bureau, Health Resources and Services Administration National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, National Institutes of Health Office of the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response FIGURE Recommendations for the evaluation of infants with possible congenital Zika virus infection based on infant clinical findings,* , † maternal testing results, § ,¶ and infant testing results**,†† — United States, October 2017 Abbreviations: ABR= auditory brainstem response; CSF = cerebrospinal fluid; CZS = congenital Zika syndrome; IgM = immunoglobulin M; NAT = nucleic acid test; PRNT = plaque reduction neutralization test. * All infants should receive a standard evaluation at birth and at each subsequent well-child visit by their health care providers including 1) comprehensive physical examination, including growth parameters and 2) age-appropriate vision screening and developmental monitoring and screening using validated tools. Infants should receive a standard newborn hearing screen at birth, preferably using auditory brainstem response. † Automated ABR by age 1 month if newborn hearing screen passed but performed with otoacoustic emission methodology. § Laboratory evidence of possible Zika virus infection during pregnancy is defined as 1) Zika virus infection detected by a Zika virus RNA NAT on any maternal, placental, or fetal specimen (referred to as NAT-confirmed), or 2) diagnosis of Zika virus infection, timing of infection cannot be determined or unspecified flavivirus infection, timing of infection cannot be determined by serologic tests on a maternal specimen (i.e., positive/equivocal Zika virus IgM and Zika virus PRNT titer ≥10, regardless of dengue virus PRNT value; or negative Zika virus IgM, and positive or equivocal dengue virus IgM, and Zika virus PRNT titer ≥10, regardless of dengue virus PRNT titer). The use of PRNT for confirmation of Zika virus infection, including in pregnant women, is not routinely recommended in Puerto Rico (https://www.cdc.gov/zika/laboratories/lab-guidance.html ). ¶ This group includes women who were never tested during pregnancy as well as those whose test result was negative because of issues related to timing or sensitivity and specificity of the test. Because the latter issues are not easily discerned, all mothers with possible exposure to Zika virus during pregnancy who do not have laboratory evidence of possible Zika virus infection, including those who tested negative with currently available technology, should be considered in this group. ** Laboratory testing of infants for Zika virus should be performed as early as possible, preferably within the first few days after birth, and includes concurrent Zika virus NAT in infant serum and urine, and Zika virus IgM testing in serum. If CSF is obtained for other purposes, Zika virus NAT and Zika virus IgM testing should be performed on CSF. †† Laboratory evidence of congenital Zika virus infection includes a positive Zika virus NAT or a nonnegative Zika virus IgM with confirmatory neutralizing antibody testing, if PRNT confirmation is performed. The figure above is a diagram showing the recommendations for the evaluation of infants with possible congenital Zika virus infection based on infant clinical findings, maternal testing results, and infant testing results in the United States during October 2017 This updated interim guidance is based on current, limited data about Zika virus infection, the interpretation of individual expert opinion collected during the Forum, and knowledge about other congenital infections, and reflects the information available as of September 2017. As more information becomes available, this guidance will be updated. Diagnosis of Congenital Zika Virus Infection The optimal assays, specimens, and timing of testing for congenital Zika virus infection are unknown. A few reports have described infants with clinical findings consistent with possible congenital Zika syndrome but with negative laboratory results ( 20 , 26 ). Recommended laboratory testing for congenital Zika virus infection includes evaluation for Zika virus RNA in infant serum and urine and Zika virus IgM antibodies in serum. In addition, if cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) is obtained for other purposes, NAT and IgM antibody testing should be performed on CSF because CSF was the only sample that tested positive in some infants with congenital Zika virus syndrome ( 26 ). Testing of cord blood is not recommended because it can yield false-positive and false-negative test results ( 27 , 28 ). Because levels of Zika virus RNA and IgM antibodies decline over time, laboratory testing of infants should be performed as early as possible, preferably within the first few days after birth, although testing specimens within the first few weeks to months after birth might still be useful ( 17 , 29 , 30 ). Diagnosis of congenital Zika virus infection is confirmed by a positive Zika virus NAT result (Table). If Zika virus IgM antibodies are detected in the infant with a negative NAT, the infant is considered to have probable congenital Zika virus infection. If neither Zika virus RNA nor Zika IgM antibodies is detected on the appropriate specimens (e.g., serum or urine) obtained within the first few days after birth, congenital Zika virus infection is unlikely. Distinguishing between congenital and postnatal infection is difficult in infants who live in areas where there is ongoing transmission of Zika virus and who are not tested soon after birth. If the timing of infection cannot be determined, infants should be evaluated as if they had congenital Zika virus infection. TABLE Interpretation of results of laboratory testing of infant’s blood, urine, and/or cerebrospinal fluid for evidence of congenital Zika virus infection Infant test result* Interpretation NAT IgM Positive Any result Confirmed congenital Zika virus infection† Negative Nonnegative Probable congenital Zika virus infection§,¶ Negative Negative Congenital Zika virus infection unlikely§,** Abbreviations: IgM = immunoglobulin M; NAT = nucleic acid test. *Infant serum, urine, or cerebrospinal fluid. † Distinguishing between congenital and postnatal infection is difficult in infants who live in areas where there is ongoing transmission of Zika virus and who are not tested soon after birth. If the timing of infection cannot be determined, infants should be evaluated as if they had congenital Zika virus infection. § Laboratory results should be interpreted in the context of timing of infection during pregnancy, maternal serology results, clinical findings consistent with congenital Zika syndrome, and any confirmatory testing with plaque reduction neutralization testing. ¶ If Zika virus plaque reduction neutralization test is negative, this suggests that the infant’s Zika virus IgM test is a false positive. ** Congenital Zika virus infection is unlikely if specimens are collected within the first few days after birth and the clinical evaluation is normal; however, health care providers should remain alert for any new findings of congenital Zika virus infection. The plaque reduction neutralization test (PRNT), which measures virus-specific neutralizing antibodies, can be used to help identify false-positive results ( 24 ). In the United States and U.S. territories, if the infant’s initial sample is IgM nonnegative (nonnegative serology terminology varies by assay and might include “positive,” “equivocal,” “presumptive positive,” or “possible positive”) and NAT negative, but PRNT was not performed on the mother’s sample, PRNT for Zika and dengue viruses should be performed on the infant’s initial sample if the test is appropriate given the setting. A negative Zika virus PRNT suggests that the infant’s Zika virus IgM test was a false positive ( 23 ). PRNT cannot distinguish between maternal and infant antibodies in specimens collected from infants at or near birth; however, based on what is known about other congenital infections, maternal antibodies are expected to become undetectable by age 18 months and might become undetectable earlier ( 31 ). For infants whose initial sample is IgM nonnegative and Zika virus neutralizing antibodies are detected on either the infant’s specimen at birth or the mother’s specimen, PRNT at age ≥18 months might help confirm or rule out congenital Zika virus infection. However, PRNT cannot be used to determine timing of infection. If PRNT is positive in an infant at age ≥18 months, congenital Zika virus infection is presumed; however, for infants living in or traveling to areas with risk of Zika virus transmission, postnatal infection cannot be excluded. If PRNT is negative at age ≥18 months, congenital Zika virus infection is unlikely. For infants with clinical findings consistent with congenital Zika syndrome who have maternal laboratory evidence of possible Zika virus infection during pregnancy, PRNT at age ≥18 months could be considered if the infant testing results are negative (i.e., negative Zika virus NAT and IgM on infant serum and urine) or if the infant was not tested at birth. Updated Recommendations for Diagnosis, Clinical Evaluation, and Management of Infants with Clinical Findings Consistent with Congenital Zika Syndrome Born to Mothers with Possible Zika Virus Exposure in Pregnancy Laboratory testing. Zika virus testing is recommended for infants with clinical findings consistent with congenital Zika syndrome and possible maternal Zika virus exposure during pregnancy, regardless of maternal testing results (Figure). Testing CSF for Zika virus RNA and Zika virus IgM antibodies should be considered, especially if serum and urine testing are negative and another etiology has not been identified. Clinical Evaluation and Management. In addition to a standard evaluation (Box 2), infants with clinical findings consistent with congenital Zika syndrome should have a head ultrasound and a comprehensive ophthalmologic exam § performed by age 1 month by an ophthalmologist experienced in assessment of and intervention in infants. Infants should be referred for automated ABR by age 1 month if the newborn hearing screen was passed using only otoacoustic emissions methodology ( 6 ). Because infants with clinical findings consistent with congenital Zika syndrome are at risk for developmental delay and disabilities, referrals to a developmental specialist and early intervention service programs are recommended, and family support services should be provided. In addition, the following consultations should be considered: 1) infectious disease for evaluation of other congenital infections and assistance with Zika virus diagnosis, testing, and counseling; 2) clinical genetics for confirmation of the clinical phenotype and evaluation for other causes of microcephaly or congenital anomalies; and 3) neurology by age 1 month for comprehensive neurologic examination and consideration for other evaluations, such as advanced neuroimaging and EEG. Consultations with other clinical specialists should be based on the infant’s clinical findings (Box 3). Health care providers and families might consider fewer consultations for the evaluation of severely affected infants who are receiving palliative care. BOX 2 Standard evaluation recommended at birth and during each well visit for all infants with possible congenital Zika virus exposure during pregnancy — United States, October 2017 Comprehensive physical exam, including growth parameters Developmental monitoring and screening using validated screening tools recommended by the American Academy of Pediatrics (https://www.aap.org/en-us/advocacy-and-policy/aap-health-initiatives/Screening/Pages/Screening-Tools.aspx) Vision screening as recommended by the American Academy of Pediatrics Policy Statement “Visual System Assessment in Infants, Children, and Young Adults by Pediatricians” (http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/137/1/e20153596) Newborn hearing screen at birth, preferably with automated auditory brainstem response BOX 3 Consultations for infants with clinical findings consistent with congenital Zika syndrome — United States, October 2017 Consider consultation with the following specialists: Infectious disease specialist for evaluation for other congenital infections (e.g., toxoplasmosis, syphilis, rubella, cytomegalovirus, or herpes simplex virus) and assistance with Zika virus diagnosis, testing, and counseling Neurologist by age 1 month for comprehensive neurologic examination and consideration for other evaluations such as advanced neuroimaging and EEG Ophthalmologist for comprehensive eye exam by age 1 month Clinical geneticist for confirmation of the clinical phenotype and evaluation for other causes of microcephaly or congenital anomalies Early intervention and developmental specialists Family and supportive services Additional possible consultations, based on clinical findings of the infant: Endocrinologist for evaluation of hypothalamic or pituitary dysfunction and consideration for thyroid testing Lactation specialist, nutritionist, gastroenterologist, or speech or occupational therapist for evaluation for dysphagia and management of feeding issues Orthopedist, physiatrist, or physical therapist for the management of hypertonia, clubfoot or arthrogrypotic-like conditions Pulmonologist or otolaryngologist for concerns about aspiration The initial clinical evaluation, including subspecialty consultations, can be performed before hospital discharge or as an outpatient, taking into account hospital capabilities and needs of the family. Transfer to a facility with access to pediatric subspecialty care typically is not necessary unless there is an urgent clinical need. Health care providers should maintain vigilance for the appearance of other clinical findings associated with congenital Zika syndrome. Diaphragmatic paralysis should be considered in an infant who develops respiratory distress or failure or who fails to wean from a ventilator. Infant feedings should be monitored closely, and if there are signs of swallowing dysfunction, such as difficulty breathing with feeding, coughing or choking during feeding, or extended feeding times, an assessment for dysphagia should be performed ( 32 , 33 ). Signs of increasing intracranial pressure (e.g., increasing head circumference, irritability, or vomiting) should prompt neuroimaging to assess for postnatal hydrocephalus. The follow-up care of infants with findings consistent with congenital Zika syndrome requires a multidisciplinary team and an established medical home to facilitate the coordination of care and ensure that abnormal findings are addressed ( 34 ). At each subsequent well-child visit, all infants should have a standard evaluation (Box 2) along with routine preventive pediatric care and immunizations ( 35 ), with decisions about further evaluation guided by clinical findings and made in consultation with the family. Follow-up visits with an ophthalmologist after the initial eye examination should be based on ophthalmology recommendations. As a change from the previous guidance ( 1 ), a diagnostic ABR is no longer recommended at age 4–6 months for infants who passed the initial hearing screen with automated ABR because of the absence of data suggesting delayed-onset hearing loss in infants with congenital Zika virus infection. Additional follow-up will depend on clinical findings in the infant. Updated Recommendations for Diagnosis, Clinical Evaluation, and Management of Infants without Clinical Findings Consistent with Congenital Zika Syndrome Born to Mothers with Laboratory Evidence of Possible Zika Virus Infection During Pregnancy Laboratory testing. Zika virus testing is recommended for infants without clinical findings consistent with congenital Zika syndrome born to mothers with laboratory evidence of possible Zika virus infection during pregnancy (Figure). Clinical evaluation and management. In addition to a standard evaluation (Box 2), infants who do not have clinical findings consistent with congenital Zika syndrome born to mothers with laboratory evidence of possible Zika virus infection during pregnancy should have a head ultrasound and a comprehensive ophthalmologic exam performed by age 1 month to detect subclinical brain and eye findings. Further follow-up visits with an ophthalmologist after the initial examination should be based on ophthalmology recommendations. Infants should also be referred for automated ABR by age 1 month if newborn hearing screen was passed using only otoacoustic emissions methodology. Health care providers should perform a standard evaluation along with routine preventive pediatric care and immunizations ( 35 ) at each subsequent well-child visit, and they should be vigilant for signs that might be associated with congenital Zika virus infection. If findings consistent with congenital Zika syndrome (e.g., impaired visual acuity/function, hearing problems, developmental delay, or delay in head growth) are identified at any time, referrals to the appropriate specialists should be made and further evaluation should follow recommendations for infants with clinical findings consistent with congenital Zika syndrome (Figure). Infants with laboratory evidence of congenital Zika virus infection. Laboratory evidence of congenital Zika virus infection includes a positive Zika virus NAT or a nonnegative Zika virus IgM with confirmatory neutralizing antibody testing, if PRNT confirmation is performed. Further clinical evaluation for infants with laboratory evidence of congenital Zika virus infection should follow recommendations for infants with clinical findings even in the absence of clinically apparent abnormalities (Figure). As a change from the previous guidance ( 1 ), a diagnostic ABR at 4–6 months or behavioral audiology at age 9 months is no longer recommended if the initial hearing screen is passed by automated ABR, because of absence of data suggesting delayed-onset hearing loss in congenital Zika virus infection. Infants without laboratory evidence of congenital Zika virus infection. If adequate laboratory testing is performed (e.g., concurrent testing on infant serum and urine within the first few days after birth), there is no laboratory evidence of congenital Zika virus infection (i.e., negative NAT and IgM on infant samples), and the clinical evaluation is normal, then congenital Zika virus infection is unlikely. Infants should continue to receive routine pediatric care, and health care providers should remain alert for any new findings of congenital Zika virus infection. Updated Recommendations for Diagnosis, Clinical Evaluation, and Management of Infants without Clinical Findings Consistent with Congenital Zika Syndrome Born to Mothers with Possible Zika Virus Exposure in Pregnancy but without Laboratory Evidence of Possible Zika Virus Infection During Pregnancy This heterogeneous group includes mothers who were never tested during pregnancy as well as those whose test result could have been negative because of issues related to timing or sensitivity and specificity of the test. Because the latter issues are not easily discerned, all mothers with possible exposure to Zika virus during pregnancy who do not have laboratory evidence of possible Zika virus infection, including those who tested negative with currently available technology, should be considered in this group. Laboratory testing. Laboratory testing for congenital Zika virus infection is not routinely recommended for infants born to mothers in this category based on the unknown risk for infection; the lower likelihood of congenital Zika virus infection as a result of the declining prevalence of Zika virus infection; and limitations of infant laboratory testing. If abnormal findings are identified, these infants should receive further evaluation, including evaluation and testing for congenital Zika virus infection. Clinical evaluation and management. Infants without clinical findings consistent with congenital Zika syndrome born to mothers without laboratory evidence of possible Zika virus infection during pregnancy should have a standard evaluation (Box 2) performed at birth and at each subsequent well-child visit along with routine preventive pediatric care and immunizations ( 35 ). Health care providers should be alert to the possibility of congenital infection, especially in infants born to mothers with ongoing possible Zika virus exposure during pregnancy. Further clinical evaluation for congenital Zika virus infection beyond a standard evaluation and routine pediatric care is not routinely indicated. Health care providers can consider additional evaluation in consultation with families, taking into account the infant’s complete physical examination with emphasis on neurologic findings; risks of screening (e.g., identification of incidental findings); and maternal factors, including the presence and timing of symptoms, and type, location, and length of possible Zika virus exposure. Older infants in whom maternal Zika virus exposure was not assessed at birth and who are evaluated later might also have more clinical data available (e.g., neurologic status, development, visual/hearing impairments, or head circumference trajectory) to guide the evaluation. If findings consistent with congenital Zika syndrome are identified at any time, referrals to the appropriate specialists should be made, and subsequent evaluation should follow recommendations for infants with clinical findings consistent with congenital Zika syndrome (Figure). Special Considerations for the Prenatal Diagnosis of Congenital Zika Virus Infection While much has been learned about congenital Zika syndrome, limitations of laboratory testing exist and the full spectrum of congenital Zika virus infection is not yet known. Similar to other congenital infections, prenatal diagnostic evaluation can inform the clinical evaluation of infants with possible Zika virus exposure. Current CDC guidance regarding prenatal diagnosis is reviewed below ( 2 ); as more data become available, understanding of the diagnostic role of prenatal ultrasound and amniocentesis in the clinical evaluation of congenital Zika syndrome will improve and guidance will be updated. Ultrasound. Routine screening for fetal abnormalities is a component of prenatal care in the United States. Comprehensive ultrasound examination to evaluate fetal anatomy is recommended for all women at 18–22 weeks’ gestation ( 36 ). However, for the detection of abnormalities associated with congenital Zika virus infection, the sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values of ultrasound are unknown. Prenatal ultrasound findings associated with congenital Zika virus infection include intracranial calcifications at the gray-white matter junction, ventriculomegaly, abnormalities of the corpus callosum, microcephaly, and limb anomalies ( 10 , 37 ). The reliability of ultrasound detection for each of these abnormalities as isolated findings is unknown ( 37 , 38 ). Limited data suggest that a constellation of ultrasound abnormalities (e.g., microcephaly, ventriculomegaly, or abnormalities of the corpus callosum) identified prenatally in the context of maternal Zika virus exposure correlates with reported structural abnormalities in infants at birth ( 20 , 21 , 39 – 43 ). Questions remain about optimal timing of ultrasound among pregnant women with possible maternal Zika virus exposure. Abnormalities have been detected anywhere from 2 to 29 weeks after symptom onset ( 39 , 41 , 43 , 44 ); therefore, insufficient data are available to define the optimal timing between exposure and initial sonographic screening. Brain abnormalities associated with congenital Zika syndrome have been identified by ultrasound in the second and third trimesters in published case reports ( 20 , 39 , 41 , 43 , 44 ). Currently, the negative predictive value of serial normal prenatal ultrasounds is unknown. Serial ultrasound monitoring can detect changes in fetal anatomy, particularly neuroanatomy, and growth patterns ( 39 , 41 , 44 ). CDC previously recommended serial ultrasounds every 3–4 weeks for women exposed during pregnancy with laboratory evidence of Zika virus infection, based upon existing fetal growth monitoring for other maternal conditions (e.g., hypertension or diabetes) ( 2 ). However, there are no data specific to congenital Zika virus infection to guide these timing recommendations; clinicians may consider extending the time interval between ultrasounds in accordance with patient preferences and clinical judgment. Women with possible exposure but without laboratory evidence of Zika virus infection during pregnancy should receive ultrasound screening as recommended for routine prenatal care. Future data will be used to inform the optimal timing and frequency of ultrasound in pregnant women with possible Zika virus infection. Amniocentesis. The role of amniocentesis for the detection of congenital Zika virus infection is unknown. Data regarding the positive and negative predictive values and optimal timing for amniocentesis are not available. Reports of the correlation between positive Zika test results in amniotic fluid and clinical phenotype or confirmatory infant laboratory testing are inconsistent ( 20 , 42 , 45 , 46 ). Zika virus RNA has been detected in amniotic fluid specimens; however, serial amniocenteses have demonstrated that Zika virus RNA might only be present transiently ( 45 ). Therefore, a negative test result on amniotic fluid cannot rule out congenital Zika virus infection. However, if amniocentesis is indicated as part of the evaluation for abnormal prenatal findings, NAT testing for Zika virus should be considered to assist with the diagnosis of fetal infection. Summary of prenatal diagnosis of congenital Zika virus infection. Given the limitations in the available screening modalities and the absence of effective interventions to prevent and treat congenital Zika virus infection, a shared decision-making model is essential to ensure that pregnant women and their families understand the risks and benefits of screening in the context of the patient’s preferences and values. For example, serial ultrasound examinations might be inconvenient, unpleasant, and expensive, and might prompt unnecessary interventions; amniocentesis carries additional known risks such as fetal loss. These potential harms of prenatal screening for congenital Zika syndrome might outweigh the clinical benefits for some patients; therefore, these decisions should be individualized ( 47 ).
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found

              A Novel Parent Questionnaire for the Detection of Seizures in Children

                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep
                MMWR Morb. Mortal. Wkly. Rep
                WR
                MMWR. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report
                Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
                0149-2195
                1545-861X
                15 December 2017
                15 December 2017
                : 66
                : 49
                : 1347-1351
                Affiliations
                Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education, Oak Ridge, Tennessee; Eagle Global Scientific, San Antonio, Texas; National Center on Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities, CDC; Ministry of Health Brazil; Hospital Infantil Albert Sabin, Fortaleza, Ceará, Brazil; Hospital Regional de Guarabira/Governo do Estado da Paraíba, Paraíba, Brazil; Center for Global Health, CDC Brazil.
                Author notes
                Corresponding author: Ashley Satterfield-Nash, yev6@ 123456cdc.gov , 404-498-6084.
                Article
                mm6649a2
                10.15585/mmwr.mm6649a2
                5730218
                29240727
                e857ee91-568f-4976-9db1-afd763d7a4f7

                All material in the MMWR Series is in the public domain and may be used and reprinted without permission; citation as to source, however, is appreciated.

                History
                Categories
                Full Report

                Comments

                Comment on this article