sábado, 27 de agosto de 2016

QuickStats: Percentage of Adults Aged ≥45 Years with Activity Limitations, by Age Group and Type of Limitation — National Health Interview Survey, United States, 2000–2015 | MMWR

QuickStats: Percentage of Adults Aged ≥45 Years with Activity Limitations, by Age Group and Type of Limitation — National Health Interview Survey, United States, 2000–2015 | MMWR



MMWR Logo
 
MMWR Weekly
Vol. 65, No. 33
August 26, 2016
 
PDF of this issue


QuickStats: Percentage of Adults Aged ≥45 Years with Activity Limitations, by Age Group and Type of Limitation* — National Health Interview Survey, United States, 2000–2015



 The figure above is a line chart showing the percentage of adults aged 45–64 years with limitations in activities of daily living (ADLs) increased from 1.3% in 2000 to 2.0% in 2015, and the percentage with limitations in instrumental activities of daily living (IADLs) increased from 2.8% to 4.0%. Among adults aged ≥65 years, the percentage with limitations in ADLs increased from 6.4% to 6.9%, and the percentage with limitations in IADLs decreased from 12.9% to 11.7%.
 Top
Abbreviations: ADLs= activities of daily living; IADLs= instrumental activities of daily living.
* Limitations in ADLs are based on response to the question, “Because of a physical, mental, or emotional problem, does [person] need the help of other persons with personal care needs, such as eating, bathing, dressing, or getting around inside this home?” Limitations in IADLs are based on response to the question, “Because of a physical, mental, or emotional problem, does [person] need the help of other persons in handling routine needs, such as everyday household chores, doing necessary business, shopping, or getting around for other purposes?”
 Estimates are based on household interviews of a sample of the noninstitutionalized U.S. civilian population and are derived from the National Health Interview Survey Family Core component.

 
 Top
The percentage of adults aged 45–64 years with limitations in activities of daily living (ADLs) increased from 1.3% in 2000 to 2.0% in 2015, and the percentage with limitations in instrumental activities of daily living (IADLs) increased from 2.8% to 4.0%. Among adults aged ≥65 years, the percentage with limitations in ADLs increased from 6.4% to 6.9%, and the percentage with limitations in IADLs decreased from 12.9% to 11.7%.
 Top

Source: National Health Interview Survey, 2000–2015. http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nhis.htm.
Reported by: Ellen A. Kramarow, PhD, ekramarow@cdc.gov, 301-458-4325.
 Top
Suggested citation for this article: QuickStats: Percentage of Adults Aged ≥45 Years with Activity Limitations, by Age Group and Type of Limitation — National Health Interview Survey, United States, 2000–2015. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2016;65:884. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.15585/mmwr.mm6533a8.

Notes from the Field: Cluster of Tuberculosis Cases Among Marshallese Persons Residing in Arkansas — 2014–2015 | MMWR

Notes from the Field: Cluster of Tuberculosis Cases Among Marshallese Persons Residing in Arkansas — 2014–2015 | MMWR

MMWR Logo
 
MMWR Weekly
Vol. 65, No. 33
August 26, 2016
 
PDF of this issue


Notes from the Field: Cluster of Tuberculosis Cases Among Marshallese Persons Residing in Arkansas — 2014–2015



Laura Lester Rothfeldt, DVM1,2; Naveen Patil, MD2,3; Dirk T. Haselow, MD2,3,4; Sandy Hainline Williams, MA2; J. Gary Wheeler, MD2,3,4; Leonard N. Mukasa, MBChB2,3 (View author affiliations)
View suggested citation
During early September 2014, the Arkansas Department of Health identified an increased number of tuberculosis (TB) cases among a unique population in a well-circumscribed geographical area in northwest Arkansas. The Compact of Free Association Act of 1985 (Public Law 99-239, amended in 2003 by Public Law 108-188) established the Republic of the Marshall Islands (RMI) as an independent nation, and persons from the RMI can travel freely (with valid RMI passport) to and from the United States as nonimmigrants without visas (1). Marshallese started settling in northwest Arkansas during the early 1990s because of employment and educational opportunities (2). According to the 2010 Census, an estimated 4,300 Marshallese resided in Arkansas (2), mostly within one county which ranked 6th in the United States for counties with the highest percentage of Native Hawaiians and Other Pacific Islanders (3). It is estimated that this number has been growing steadily each year since the 2010 Census; however, obtaining an accurate count is difficult. The RMI is a TB high-incidence country, with a case-rate of 212.7 per 100,000 persons for 2014, whereas the case-rate was 3.1 per 100,000 persons in Arkansas and 2.9 per 100,000 persons in the United States (4,5). Screening for either active TB or latent TB infection (LTBI) is not required for Marshallese entry to the United States (1).
A total of 107 active TB cases have been identified among Marshallese persons residing in Arkansas from 1997 through 2013. Despite establishment of an outreach team during 2002 and a satellite clinic during 2011, TB control among Marshallese residing in Arkansas remains challenging because of the high LTBI burden in this population, resulting in the increased likelihood of the development of active cases and exposure to persons with active disease. Outbreaks were identified during 2004 and again during 2014. During 2014, a total of 23 cases were identified among Marshallese persons, substantially above the average of six cases per year reported during the preceding 9 years. The Arkansas Department of Health identified an additional 11 cases through March 31, 2015, for a total of 34 TB cases, from self-reporting and contact tracing with targeted screening (tuberculin skin test and interferon-gamma release assay [T-Spot.TB test, Oxford Diagnostic Laboratories, Memphis, Tennessee]) of 412 contacts, which identified 165 additional persons (40%) with LTBI. Two deaths were reported, one of which occurred in a young child who died of TB meningitis after being symptomatic with cough for 3 months and altered mental status for 1 week, prompting an extensive review of contact investigations. Among 34 patients, 33 (97%) resided within two zip codes of a single county. TB incidence among the Marshallese community accounted for 25% of all TB cases in Arkansas for 2014 and 79% of all TB cases in the affected county (Table). Among the 23 patients born in the RMI, 50% developed TB within 2.4 years (95% confidence interval = 1.2–3.1) of arrival in Arkansas.
This cluster is characterized by a high number of cases in children aged ≤15 years (19/34; 55.9%), with 11 of 34 (32.4%) patients aged ≤4 years; 11 of 19 (57.9%) patients aged ≤15 years were born in the United States and had no history of travel outside of the United States. Eight of 14 (57.1%) culture-confirmed, genotyped cases had the G00017 genotype, which constitutes the majority of genotyped TB cases in the RMI (4) and has been found in Arkansas since 2006 (Table). Obtaining a Mycobacterium tuberculosis isolate is less common for pediatric TB cases because of the low bacterial load and difficulty in sputum collection, therefore, only two of 19 (10.5%) pediatric cases versus 12 of 15 (80.0%) adult cases were genotyped.
The TB burden in the Marshallese community in Arkansas is substantially higher than that in the rest of the state. During 2014–2015, there was a substantial increase in the number of TB cases reported among Marshallese persons in Arkansas. The majority of these cases occurred among children; cases among children are widely considered to be indicative of ongoing transmission in a community (6). Cases in adults likely resulted from reactivation of LTBI or local acquisition of disease within Arkansas. Efforts to investigate this cluster are ongoing with an emphasis on informing targeted methods to decrease TB-associated morbidity and M. tuberculosis transmission.
 Top

Acknowledgments

Dr. Jose Romero, Arkansas Children’s Hospital; Marshallese Outreach Workers, Dr. Joseph H. Bates Outreach Clinic; Michelle Herndon, Marsha Majors, Nancy Brannon, Arkansas Department of Health (ADH) Tuberculosis (TB) Control Program; Jane Voyles, ADH Public Health TB Laboratory.
 Top

Corresponding author: Laura Lester Rothfeldt, laura.k.rothfeldt.mil@mail.mil, 270-798-4749.
 Top
1Epidemic Intelligence Service, Division of Scientific Education and Professional Development, CDC; 2Arkansas Department of Health; 3University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences;4Arkansas Children’s Hospital.
 Top

References

  1. US Citizenship and Immigration Services. Status of citizens of the freely associated states of the Federated States of Micronesia and the Republic of the Marshall Islands fact sheet. Washington, DC: US Department of Homeland Security, US Citizenship and Immigration Services; 2015. https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/files/pressrelease/Micronesia_MarshallIslFS.pdf
  2. Jimeno S, Rafael A. A profile of the Marshallese community in Arkansas, volume 3. Little Rock, AR, and Fayetteville, AR: Winthrop Rockefeller Foundation and University of Arkansas; 2013.http://www.wrfoundation.org/media/1355/immigrantstudy_vol3_resources.pdf
  3. Hixson L, Hepler BB, Kim MO. The Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander population: 2010 US Census Bureau, 2010 Census Briefs, C2010BR-12. Washington, DC: US Department of Commerce Economics and Statistics Administration; 2012. http://www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/briefs/c2010br-12.pdf
  4. CDC. Reported tuberculosis in the United States, 2014. Atlanta, GA: US Department of Health and Human Services, CDC; 2015. http://www.cdc.gov/tb/statistics/reports/2014/default.htm
  5. Salinas JL, Mindra G, Haddad MB, Pratt R, Price SF, Langer AJ. Leveling of tuberculosis incidence—United States, 2013–2015. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2016;65:273–8. CrossRefPubMed
  6. CDC. Tuberculosis in children in the United States. Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, CDC; 2014.http://www.cdc.gov/tb/topic/populations/tbinchildren/default.htm#signsSymptoms
 Top
Return to your place in the textTABLEDemographic and clinical characteristics of reported tuberculosis (TB) cases among Marshallese in Arkansas — January 1, 2014–March 31, 2015 (N = 34)
CharacteristicNo. (%)
Born in Republic of the Marshall Islands23 (67.6)
Male16 (47.1)
Age group (yrs)
0–411 (32.4)
5–158 (23.5)
≥1615 (44.1)
Mycobacterium tuberculosis culture positive14 (41.2)
National TB genotype G00017 (n = 14)8 (57.1)
Proportion of TB cases in Arkansas, 2014 (n = 93)23 (24.7)
Proportion of TB cases in affected county, 2014 (n = 29)23 (79.3)
 Top
Suggested citation for this article: Rothfeldt LL, Patil N, Haselow DT, Williams SH, Wheeler JG, Mukasa LN. Notes from the Field: Cluster of Tuberculosis Cases Among Marshallese Persons Residing in Arkansas — 2014–2015. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2016;65:882–883. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.15585/mmwr.mm6533a7.

Notes from the Field: Outbreak of Listeriosis Associated with Consumption of Packaged Salad — United States and Canada, 2015–2016 | MMWR

Notes from the Field: Outbreak of Listeriosis Associated with Consumption of Packaged Salad — United States and Canada, 2015–2016 | MMWR

MMWR Logo
MMWR Weekly

Vol. 65, No. 33

August 26, 2016
PDF of this issue


Notes from the Field: Outbreak of Listeriosis Associated with Consumption of Packaged Salad — United States and Canada, 2015–2016



Julie L. Self, PhD1,2; Amanda Conrad, MPH2; Steven Stroika2; Alikeh Jackson, MPH3; Laura Burnworth, MPH2; Jennifer Beal, MPH3; Allison Wellman, MPH3; Kelly A. Jackson, MPH2; Sally Bidol, MPH4; Terri Gerhardt, MS5; Meghan Hamel, MSc6; Kristyn Franklin, MSc6; Christine Kopko7; Penelope Kirsch, MSc7; Matthew E. Wise, PhD2; Colin Basler, DVM2 (View author affiliations)
View suggested citation
In September 2015, PulseNet, the national molecular subtyping network for foodborne disease surveillance, identified a cluster of Listeria monocytogenes (Listeria) clinical isolates indistinguishable by two-enzyme pulsed-field gel electrophoresis (PFGE) pattern combination and highly related by whole-genome multilocus sequence typing (wgMLST). A case was defined as isolation of Listeria with the outbreak PFGE pattern and highly related by wgMLST with an isolation date on or after July 5, 2015, the isolate date of the earliest case in this cluster.
A standardized Listeria Initiative questionnaire (1) was used to gather information about foods consumed in the 4 weeks before illness from seven persons identified by November 30, 2015, with isolation dates occurring July 5, 2015–October 30, 2015. This tool did not include leafy green vegetables and failed to identify a common source for the infections. During December 2015 and January 2016, eight new or previously interviewed patients or their surrogates participated in open-ended interviews or provided shopper card records, and all reported consuming leafy greens in the month before illness onset. Among these, seven (88%) reported romaine and six (75%) reported spinach, higher than national food consumption estimates of 47% (p = 0.022) and 24% (p = 0.003), respectively (2). Six patients (75%) recalled consuming packaged salad, and three patients (38%) who recalled brands reported packaged salad brands processed by Company A.
The Ohio Department of Agriculture obtained packaged salad processed at Company A’s Ohio facility from a store during routine sampling. On January 14, 2016, PulseNet analyzed sequence data from Listeria isolated from the packaged salad, and the isolate was highly related to the clinical isolates by wgMLST (median allele differences <10). This molecular finding, combined with the epidemiologic information, led the Food and Drug Administration to initiate an inspection of Company A’s Ohio facility on January 16, 2016. Two food samples collected during the inspection yielded Listeria, and wgMLST analysis indicated that they were highly related (median allele differences <10) to clinical and retail product isolates (Figure).
On January 21, 2016, Company A voluntarily halted production at its Ohio facility and conducted a market withdrawal of all packaged salad products from that facility because of possible Listeriacontamination.* The market withdrawal included 22 varieties of packaged salads sold under various brand names. Company A issued a voluntary recall of these products on January 27, 2016, which further identified the list of affected products and brand names.
After the market withdrawal and recall, CDC fielded >450 inquiries about listeriosis from concerned consumers and clinicians, and the CDC outbreak website received >787,000 page views, more views than after any other foodborne illness outbreak to date.§
As of March 28, 2016, there were 19 persons meeting the case definition from nine states (Connecticut, Indiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, and Pennsylvania) with isolation dates through January 31, 2016. All were hospitalized; one died. One illness in a pregnant woman resulted in a preterm live birth. One otherwise healthy child developed meningitis.
The Public Health Agency of Canada investigated 14 cases of listeriosis associated with this outbreak, with onset dates from May 7, 2015 to February 23, 2016 (3). Six Canadian clinical isolates were compared with U.S. clinical isolates and were highly related by wgMLST. Three cases reported consuming packaged salad processed at the Ohio facility. In January 2016, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) collected 55 packaged salads from stores in Canada representing 12 different products processed at the Ohio facility. CFIA isolated the outbreak strain and issued a food recall warning on January 22, 2016, for all products processed at the Ohio facility and distributed in Canada.
The wgMLST analysis identified this listeriosis cluster and provided evidence of the link between contaminated food products and human illness. This allowed timely recall of potentially contaminated food, which might have prevented additional cases of serious illness.
This is the first reported outbreak of listeriosis associated with leafy greens and the eighth reported outbreak of listeriosis associated with fresh produce in the United States; all occurred since 2008 (4).** It is unclear whether the appearance of these outbreaks might be attributed to improved outbreak detection, changes in consumer behavior, or changes in production and distribution. Fresh produce processors are advised to review food safety plans and consider incorporating measures to avoid the growth and persistence of Listeria.†† The Listeria Initiative questionnaire has been revised to include additional questions about fresh produce to better identify produce vehicles of Listeria.
 Top

Corresponding author: Julie L. Self, yxj9@cdc.gov, 404-718-4689.
 Top
1Epidemic Intelligence Service, Division of Scientific Education and Professional Development, Center for Surveillance, Epidemiology, and Laboratory Services, CDC; 2Division of Foodborne, Waterborne, and Environmental Diseases, National Center for Emerging and Zoonotic Infectious Diseases, CDC; 3Food and Drug Administration; 4Michigan Department of Health and Human Service; 5Ohio Department of Agriculture; 6Public Health Agency of Canada; 7Canadian Food Inspection Agency.
 Top

References

  1. CDC. Listeria (listeriosis) surveillance. Atlanta, GA: US Department of Health and Human Services, CDC; 2016. http://www.cdc.gov/listeria/surveillance.html
  2. CDC. Foodborne Active Surveillance Network (FoodNet) population survey atlas of exposures. Atlanta, GA: US Department of Health and Human Services, CDC; 2006–2007.http://www.cdc.gov/foodnet/surveys/population.html
  3. Public Health Agency of Canada. Public health notice—outbreak of Listeria; consumers advised not to consume packaged salad products from the Dole processing plant. Ottawa, Ontario: Public Health Agency of Canada; 2016. http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/phn-asp/2016/listeria-eng.php
  4. Garner D, Kathariou S. Fresh produce-associated listeriosis outbreaks, sources of concern, teachable moments, and insights. J Food Prot 2016;79:337–44. CrossRef PubMed
 Top
* Food and Drug Administration. Recall—firm press release: Dole Fresh Vegetables announces voluntary withdrawal for salads. http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm482822.htm.
 Food and Drug Administration. What you need to know about our voluntary recall of salads processed at the Springfield, Ohio facility. http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm483588.htm.
§ CDC. Multistate outbreak of listeriosis linked to packaged salads produced at Springfield, Ohio Dole processing facility. http://www.cdc.gov/listeria/outbreaks/bagged-salads-01-16/.
 CFIA. Food recall warning—certain Dole brand pre-packaged chopped salads, salad blends and kits and leafy greens and certain PC Organics brand leafy greens recalled due to Listeria monocytogenes. http://www.inspection.gc.ca/about-the-cfia/newsroom/food-recall-warnings/complete-listing/2016-01-22c/eng/1453522915084/1453522920123.
** CDC. Foodborne Outbreak Online Database (FOOD Tool). http://wwwn.cdc.gov/foodborneoutbreaks/.
†† Food and Drug Administration. FSMA Final Rule for Preventive Controls for Human Food. http://www.fda.gov/Food/GuidanceRegulation/FSMA/ucm334115.htm.
 Top
Return to your place in the textFIGUREPhylogenetic tree by whole-genome multilocus sequence typing (wgMLST) of Listeria monocytogenes isolates* from patients and salad products with indistinguishable pulsed-field gel electrophoresis patterns — United States and Canada, July 5, 2015–January 31, 2016
 The figure above is a phylogenetic tree by whole-genome multilocus sequence typing of Listeria monocytogenes isolates from patients and salad products with indistinguishable pulsed-field gel electrophoresis patterns in the United States and Canada during July 5, 2015–January 31, 2016.
* By wgMLST, clinical and food isolates from the United States and Canada were closely related because they differed by a median of three alleles, with a range of 0–16 alleles.
 19 patients from nine U.S. states and six patients from Canada.
 Top
Suggested citation for this article: Self JL, Conrad A, Stroika S, et al. Notes from the Field: Outbreak of Listeriosis Associated with Consumption of Packaged Salad — United States and Canada, 2015–2016. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2016;65:879–881. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.15585/mmwr.mm6533a6.

Update: Interim Guidance for the Evaluation and Management of Infants with Possible Congenital Zika Virus Infection — United States, August 2016 | MMWR

Update: Interim Guidance for the Evaluation and Management of Infants with Possible Congenital Zika Virus Infection — United States, August 2016 | MMWR

MMWR Logo
 
MMWR Weekly
Vol. 65, No. 33
August 26, 2016
 
PDF of this issue


Update: Interim Guidance for the Evaluation and Management of Infants with Possible Congenital Zika Virus Infection — United States, August 2016



On August 19, 2016, this report was posted online as an MMWR Early Release.
Kate Russell, MD1,2; Sara E. Oliver, MD1,3; Lillianne Lewis, MD1,4; Wanda D. Barfield, MD5; Janet Cragan, MD6; Dana Meaney-Delman, MD7; J. Erin Staples, MD, PhD8; Marc Fischer, MD8; Georgina Peacock, MD9; Titilope Oduyebo, MD5; Emily E. Petersen, MD5; Sherif Zaki, MD, PhD10; Cynthia A. Moore, MD, PhD6; Sonja A. Rasmussen, MD11; Contributors (View author affiliations)
View suggested citation
CDC has updated its interim guidance for U.S. health care providers caring for infants born to mothers with possible Zika virus infection during pregnancy (1). Laboratory testing is recommended for 1) infants born to mothers with laboratory evidence of Zika virus infection during pregnancy and 2) infants who have abnormal clinical or neuroimaging findings suggestive of congenital Zika syndrome and a maternal epidemiologic link suggesting possible transmission, regardless of maternal Zika virus test results. Congenital Zika syndrome is a recently recognized pattern of congenital anomalies associated with Zika virus infection during pregnancy that includes microcephaly, intracranial calcifications or other brain anomalies, or eye anomalies, among others (2). Recommended infant laboratory evaluation includes both molecular (real-time reverse transcription–polymerase chain reaction [rRT-PCR]) and serologic (immunoglobulin M [IgM]) testing. Initial samples should be collected directly from the infant in the first 2 days of life, if possible; testing of cord blood is not recommended. A positive infant serum or urine rRT-PCR test result confirms congenital Zika virus infection. Positive Zika virus IgM testing, with a negative rRT-PCR result, indicates probable congenital Zika virus infection. In addition to infant Zika virus testing, initial evaluation of all infants born to mothers with laboratory evidence of Zika virus infection during pregnancy should include a comprehensive physical examination, including a neurologic examination, postnatal head ultrasound, and standard newborn hearing screen. Infants with laboratory evidence of congenital Zika virus infection should have a comprehensive ophthalmologic exam and hearing assessment by auditory brainstem response (ABR) testing before 1 month of age. Recommendations for follow-up of infants with laboratory evidence of congenital Zika virus infection depend on whether abnormalities consistent with congenital Zika syndrome are present. Infants with abnormalities consistent with congenital Zika syndrome should have a coordinated evaluation by multiple specialists within the first month of life; additional evaluations will be needed within the first year of life, including assessments of vision, hearing, feeding, growth, and neurodevelopmental and endocrine function. Families and caregivers will also need ongoing psychosocial support and assistance with coordination of care. Infants with laboratory evidence of congenital Zika virus infection without apparent abnormalities should have ongoing developmental monitoring and screening by the primary care provider; repeat hearing testing is recommended. This guidance will be updated when additional information becomes available.
Zika virus infection during pregnancy is a cause of microcephaly and other serious brain anomalies (3); however, the clinical spectrum of the effects of Zika virus infection during pregnancy is not yet known. A wide range of neurologic abnormalities, in addition to microcephaly, has been observed among infants with presumed or confirmed congenital Zika virus infection (2,4). Reported neuroimaging findings include intracranial calcifications; ventriculomegaly and extra-axial fluid; abnormal gyral patterns (e.g., polymicrogyria); decreased brain parenchymal volume; cortical atrophy and malformation; hypoplasia of the cerebellum, cerebellar vermis or brainstem; delayed myelination; and thinning or hypoplasia of the corpus callosum (5,6). Neurologic abnormalities apparent on examination of these infants have included hypertonia, hypotonia, spasticity, hyperreflexia, severe irritability, and seizures (2,4). Zika virus appears to primarily target neural progenitor cells resulting in cell death and disruption of neuronal proliferation, migration and differentiation, which slows brain growth and affects neural cell viability (79). Ocular findings reported in infants with presumed or confirmed congenital Zika virus infection have included chorioretinal atrophy or scarring, pigmentary changes, optic nerve hypoplasia, optic disc pallor, increased optic disc cupping, hemorrhagic retinopathy and abnormal retinal vasculature (1012). Some infants with presumed or confirmed congenital Zika virus infection have had a phenotype consistent with fetal brain disruption sequence, characterized by severe microcephaly, collapse of the skull, overlapping cranial sutures, prominent occipital bone, redundant scalp skin, and severe neurologic impairment (13,14). Other findings seen in infants with congenital Zika virus infection have included clubfoot and contractures of single or multiple joints (arthrogryposis), presumably secondary to central nervous system damage (4).
Experience with other congenital infections can provide insight to guide clinical management until more data emerge regarding outcomes associated with congenital Zika virus infection. Infants with congenital infections, such as cytomegalovirus (CMV) and rubella, can develop a range of clinical manifestations, including hearing loss, seizures, neurodevelopmental delays and diabetes mellitus later in life (15,16), even without apparent clinical manifestations of congenital infection at birth (17).
Diagnostic testing for congenital Zika virus infection can be challenging. Whereas a positive molecular (rRT-PCR) testing result in an infant can confirm Zika virus infection, a negative result does not exclude infection. Viral shedding can be prolonged in congenital CMV and rubella infections (18,19); however, little is known about the duration of viral shedding in infants with congenital Zika virus infection. IgM results might assist in making the diagnosis, but can be difficult to interpret because of false-positive results occurring from cross-reacting IgM antibodies or nonspecific reactivity (20). Because maternal IgG crosses the placenta, the presence of IgG in an infant specimen cannot be used as evidence of congenital infection.
Currently, there are >1,000 pregnant women with laboratory evidence of possible Zika virus infection in the United States and U.S. territories (http://www.cdc.gov/zika/geo/pregwomen-uscases.html). Pediatric health care providers need information to guide appropriate laboratory testing and clinical evaluation and management of infants born to these mothers. On July 21–22, 2016, CDC, in collaboration with the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), convened a meeting to obtain individual input from experts and partners to inform the development of guidance for the evaluation and management of infants with congenital Zika virus infection. In attendance were experts in pediatrics, infectious diseases, neurology, developmental and behavioral pediatrics, ophthalmology, audiology, physical medicine and rehabilitation, neonatology, lactation and nutrition, maternal-fetal medicine, clinical genetics, hospitalist medicine, neonatology, and endocrinology, and representatives from principal partner groups (Box 1). Discussion focused on three areas: 1) initial evaluation and laboratory testing of infants born to mothers with laboratory evidence of Zika virus infection during pregnancy, 2) outpatient management and follow-up of infants with microcephaly or other findings consistent with congenital Zika syndrome, and 3) outpatient management and follow-up of infants with laboratory evidence of congenital Zika virus infection but without findings consistent with congenital Zika syndrome.
 Top

Updated Recommendations for the Initial Laboratory Testing and Evaluation of Infants with Possible Congenital Zika Virus Infection

Infant diagnostic testing. Laboratory testing for congenital Zika virus infection is recommended for infants born to mothers with laboratory evidence of Zika virus infection, and for infants with findings suggestive of congenital Zika syndrome and a maternal epidemiologic link suggesting possible transmission, regardless of maternal testing results (Figure). Laboratory evidence of maternal Zika virus infection includes Zika virus RNA detected in any maternal clinical specimen by rRT-PCR and positive Zika virus IgM with confirmatory neutralizing antibody titer for Zika virus or flavivirus, not otherwise specified. Zika virus rRT-PCR testing should be performed on both infant serum and urine, and Zika virus IgM enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) should concurrently be performed on infant serum. If cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) is obtained for other studies, rRT-PCR testing for Zika virus RNA and Zika virus IgM should be performed on CSF. Laboratory testing should be performed on infant specimens; cord blood is not recommended because it can yield false positive results through contamination with maternal blood and might also yield false negative results (21). Infant laboratory testing for Zika virus should be performed within the first 2 days after birth; if testing is performed later, distinguishing between congenital, perinatal, and postnatal infection will be difficult. If the timing of infection cannot be determined, infants should be managed as if they have congenital Zika virus infection.
A Zika rRT-PCR positive result in an infant sample confirms the diagnosis of congenital Zika virus infection (Table 1). Zika virus IgM detected in an infant, without detectable Zika virus RNA, should be interpreted as probable congenital Zika virus infection. The plaque reduction neutralization test (PRNT) measures virus-specific neutralizing antibodies and is used to confirm the specificity of the IgM antibodies against Zika virus and rule out a false positive IgM result (20). If the infant’s initial sample is IgM-positive, but PRNT was not performed on the mother’s sample, PRNT should be performed on the infant’s initial sample. However, PRNT cannot distinguish between maternal and infant antibodies. Because of this, it might be necessary to wait until the child is at least age 18 months, when maternal antibodies are expected to wane, to confirm congenital infection. PRNT should be performed on a sample collected from a child aged ≥18 months whose initial sample was IgM positive if Zika-specific neutralizing antibodies were detected by PRNT on either the infant’s or mother’s sample. If the infant’s initial sample is negative by both IgM ELISA and rRT-PCR but clinical concerns remain (e.g., microcephaly with negative evaluation for other known causes), PRNT at age 18 months can be considered. If PRNT results at 18 months are negative, the child is considered to not have congenital Zika virus infection. If PRNT results are positive, congenital Zika infection is presumed, but postnatal infection cannot be excluded, especially for children living in an area with active Zika virus transmission.
In many cases, infant laboratory testing results will not be available before hospital discharge. In these cases, infants should be presumed to have congenital Zika virus infection until test results are available. For the purposes of this guidance, infants with confirmed or probable Zika virus infection should be managed in the same manner.
Detection of Zika virus RNA in the placenta can confirm the presence of maternal infection, but cannot distinguish between maternal and congenital infection. For circumstances in which maternal testing was not previously performed, performed more than 12 weeks after exposure (22), or was not definitive (e.g., flavivirus not otherwise specified) (20), a positive placental rRT-PCR result can confirm maternal Zika virus infection. Based on unpublished CDC data, placentas from mothers with Zika virus infection during pregnancy can have detectable Zika virus RNA at the time of delivery, regardless of the timing of maternal infection. Clinical implications for an infant with Zika virus RNA detected in the placenta, in the absence of laboratory evidence of Zika virus in the infant, are unknown.
Limited data are currently available regarding perinatal Zika virus transmission (23). Guidelines for evaluation and management of infants and children with postnatally acquired Zika virus disease (1) will be updated as more information is available.
Clinical evaluation of infants. Infants born to mothers with laboratory evidence of Zika virus infection should receive a comprehensive physical examination, including precise measurement of head (occipitofrontal) circumference,* length and weight, assessment of gestational age, and examination for neurologic abnormalities and dysmorphic features (Table 2). A postnatal head ultrasound should be performed on all infants born to mothers with laboratory evidence of Zika virus infection before discharge from the hospital, including those infants with normal prenatal ultrasound findings, because some abnormal findings associated with congenital Zika syndrome might not be readily apparent on prenatal ultrasounds. All infants should receive a hearing screen per universal screening recommendations before hospital discharge. Infants with laboratory evidence of congenital Zika virus infection should be referred for a comprehensive ophthalmologic exam and evaluation of hearing by ABR testing before 1 month of age. Other evaluations should be performed as clinically indicated.
Infants with negative IgM and negative rRT-PCR testing born to a mother with laboratory evidence of Zika virus infection should receive routine care, including monitoring of head circumference at every well child visit and age-appropriate developmental screening (24). Health care providers should report information on pregnant women in the United States and the U.S. territories with laboratory evidence of Zika virus infection and their infants (regardless of infant test results) to state, tribal, local, or territorial health departments for inclusion in the U.S. Zika Pregnancy Registry(http://www.cdc.gov/zika/hc-providers/registry.html), or the Puerto Rico Zika Active Pregnancy Surveillance System (ZAPSS) (http://www.cdc.gov/zika/public-health-partners/zapss.html).
For all infants with abnormal findings consistent with congenital Zika syndrome, an extensive evaluation is recommended (Box 2). Transfer to a facility with access to pediatric subspecialty care might facilitate this evaluation. However, the decision should not be based solely on the presence of maternal Zika virus infection during pregnancy. Health care providers should consider both the immediate needs of the infant and the potential negative impact of possible separation from his or her family. The recommended evaluation includes a complete blood count and metabolic panel, including liver function tests, a comprehensive examination by an ophthalmologist, ABR testing, and consideration of advanced neuroimaging in consultation with a neurologist. In addition, infants should be evaluated for other causes of microcephaly or intracranial calcifications, including genetic conditions and other congenital infections.
Infants born to mothers with risk factors for maternal Zika virus infection (travel to or residence in an area of Zika virus transmission or sex with a partner who traveled to or resided in such an area) and for whom maternal testing was not performed before delivery, should have a comprehensive physical examination, including standardized measurement of head circumference. Maternal diagnostic testing should be performed (20,22), and testing of the placenta for Zika virus PCR should be considered (http://www.cdc.gov/zika/hc-providers/test-specimens-at-time-of-birth.html); infant testing should be performed if maternal testing is consistent with laboratory evidence of Zika virus infection. If an infant appears clinically well, further evaluation, including head ultrasound, ophthalmologic assessment, and infant laboratory Zika virus testing, can be deferred until maternal test results are available. However, if there is concern about infant follow-up, head ultrasound, ophthalmologic assessment and infant Zika virus testing should be performed before hospital discharge. CDC recommends standard precautions in all health care settings to protect both health care personnel and patients from infection with blood-borne pathogens, including Zika virus (25).
Although Zika virus has been detected in breast milk (26), no cases of Zika virus infection associated with breastfeeding have been reported, and current evidence suggests that the benefits of breastfeeding outweigh the theoretical risks of Zika virus transmission. All women with Zika virus infection during pregnancy should be encouraged and supported to breastfeed their infants, regardless of infant Zika virus testing results.
 Top

Outpatient Management of Infants with Laboratory Evidence of Zika Virus Infection and Abnormalities Consistent with Congenital Zika Syndrome

The care of infants with abnormalities consistent with congenital Zika syndrome requires a multidisciplinary team and an established medical home to facilitate the coordination of care, which is critical to ensuring that these infants receive necessary testing and consultations (Box 3), and that abnormal findings are detected and appropriately addressed (27). If abnormalities are noted on prenatal evaluation, counseling specific to congenital Zika syndrome should occur during pregnancy, preferably with the involvement of obstetric and pediatric providers. Before the infant’s discharge from the birth hospital, follow-up appointments with specialists and services recommended during initial evaluation should be made. Consideration should be given to using preexisting coordinated multidisciplinary care clinics.
Infants should receive routine preventive pediatric health care, including regularly scheduled immunizations (24). Families of infants with congenital Zika syndrome should receive information that includes discussion of concerns for development, function, feeding and growth, and prognosis. Standardized measurement of growth parameters, including head circumference, weight, and length, should occur regularly through the first year of life.
Breastfeeding should be encouraged and supported for nutrition and enhanced bonding. Primary care providers should assess the infant for evidence of feeding difficulties and refer for consultations related to lactation, occupational therapy, speech therapy, nutrition, and/or gastroenterology for poor suck, swallowing dysfunction, gastroesophageal reflux, and aspiration. Swallowing dysfunction might not be evident initially and feeding should be monitored closely.
A neurologic examination should be performed at age 1 month and 2 months by a primary care provider and subsequently as needed depending on the infant’s clinical status. If not already initiated, neurology referral should occur for evaluation of any abnormalities, including sleep problems and excess irritability. If the ophthalmology exam performed within the first month of life was normal, another exam (including retinal assessment) is recommended at age 3 months. ABR testing is the preferred test to detect hearing loss resulting from neurologic damage. If the initial newborn hearing screen was performed using only otoacoustic emission testing, the infant should be referred for ABR screening before 1 month of age. If the newborn hearing screen was normal, an ABR should be performed at age 4–6 months. If vision or hearing results are abnormal, referrals to appropriate specialists should occur as soon as possible.
Infants with abnormal brain development can be at risk for hypothalamic dysfunction leading to pituitary insufficiency, and early manifestations of endocrine dysfunction might not be detected by routine newborn screening (28). Thyroid screening, including measurement of thyroid stimulation hormone (TSH) and thyroxine (either free T4 or both total T4 and estimated free T4) should be performed at age 2 weeks and again at age 3 months. If either of these results is abnormal, further evaluation of pituitary function should be performed by an endocrinologist.
Developmental monitoring should occur at each routine visit, and standardized, validated screening tools should be used to assess the presence of developmental delay (24). Referral to a developmental specialist and early intervention services should occur as soon as possible. It is important that primary care providers continue to monitor the child’s development and progress with standardized, validated developmental screening tools to ensure that the child’s developmental needs are addressed.
Overall, families and caregivers of infants with congenital Zika syndrome will require ongoing psychosocial assessment and support. Health care providers should work closely with parents to ensure that the care plan that is developed is consistent with the infant’s needs and the family’s wishes. Monitoring for depression among caregivers should occur during primary care visits, because depression or family stress might be associated with the infant’s complex medical needs. Families might also face financial stressors, social stigma, and other forms of discrimination. Existing national and local resources for families of children with complex care needs should be made available to families (29).
Referrals for abnormal findings should occur as clinically indicated, either to a pediatric specialist or a specialist with expertise in the care of children. In areas with limited access to pediatric subspecialty care, the numerous services recommended for infants with congenital Zika syndrome might not be readily available; in these situations, telehealth might be explored as a potential means of providing subspecialty care and support to families in areas with limited access (30).
 Top

Outpatient Management of Infants with Laboratory Evidence of Zika Virus Infection but Without Abnormalities Consistent with Congenital Zika Syndrome

Infants with laboratory evidence of Zika virus infection but without apparent abnormalities at birth are recommended to have additional monitoring (Box 4), until further information is available regarding outcomes, because some neurologic sequelae of congenital Zika virus infection (e.g., seizures, cognitive impairment, and vision and hearing abnormalities) might be subtle or have delayed onset. During routine infant follow-up with primary care providers, a standardized, validated developmental screening tool should be used at age 9 months, as currently recommended by the American Academy of Pediatrics (24), or sooner, if there are any developmental concerns. Referral to a developmental specialist and early intervention programs should be considered as soon as caregiver or provider concerns are noted, and additional referrals to specialists should be made as clinically indicated.
A vision screening, including assessment of visual regard, should be performed at each well child visit, and referral to an ophthalmologist should be made for any caregiver or provider concerns. Infants with abnormalities on initial hearing screen should be referred to an audiologist for a complete evaluation. Later development of hearing loss in infants without other clinical findings has been observed in other congenital infections (15); however, the likelihood that an infant with congenital Zika virus infection without clinical findings consistent with congenital Zika syndrome and with an initial normal hearing screen will develop hearing loss is unknown. ABR testing of infants at age 4–6 months can be considered, although the risk from sedation needs to be taken into account. Infants who passed an initial ABR and without an ABR at age 4–6 months should be referred for behavioral audiologic diagnostic testing at age 9 months, or sooner for any hearing concerns. Behavioral audiologic testing is recommended because of the potential need for sedation with ABR testing in infants.
As a critical component of patient care and to facilitate early identification of developmental delays, families should be empowered to be active participants in their child’s monitoring and care. Anticipatory guidance provided to caregivers should emphasize developmental milestones, feeding and growth, sleep, irritability, and seizure recognition.
A disproportionate burden of congenital Zika virus infection might affect families with already limited access to health care. Families might face language and cultural barriers, financial barriers, and inadequate access. Rural populations might have difficulty accessing specialists. Barriers to care for all affected infants and their families should be addressed through linkage to national, state, and local health programs.
 Top

Contributors

Michael Agus, MD, Boston Children’s Hospital; Donald B. Bailey, PhD, RTI International; Jim Bale, MD, University of Utah; Katherine A. Beckmann, PhD, Administration for Children and Families; Jatinder Bhatia, MD, Augusta University; Jennifer Bolden Pitre, JD, Family Voices, Inc.; Timothy J. Brei, MD, Seattle Children’s Hospital; Lekisha Daniel-Robinson, MSPH, Center for Medicaid and CHIP Services, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services; Eric Dziuban, MD, CDC; Marcus Gaffney, MPH, CDC; Dixie D. Griffin, MD, Tift Regional Health System; Alyson B. Goodman, MD, CDC; Manda Hall, MD, Texas Department of State Health Services; R. Phillips Heine, MD, Duke University; Amy Houtrow, MD, PhD, University of Pittsburgh; Lisa Hunter, PhD, Cincinnati Children’s Hospital; Susan L. Hyman, MD, University of Rochester Medical Center; Wanda K. Jones, DrPH, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health; Bill G. Kapogiannis, MD, National Institute of Child Health and Human Development; Sharon S. Lehman, MD, Nemours Children’s Health System, Sidney Kimmel Medical College of Thomas Jefferson University; Aaron Lopata, MD, Maternal and Child Health Bureau, Health Resources and Services Administration; Yvonne Maldonado, MD, Stanford University; Edward McCabe, MD, PhD, March of Dimes; Rima McLeod, MD, University of Chicago; Joan Y. Meek, MD, Florida State University College of Medicine; Michael E. Msall, MD, University of Chicago Medicine-Comer Children’s Hospital; Lynne M. Mofenson, MD, Elizabeth Glaser Pediatric AIDS Foundation; Sitara Nayak, Parent to Parent of Georgia; Scott Needle, MD, Healthcare Network of Southwest Florida; Susan Reef, MD, CDC; Sydney Rice, MD, University of Arizona; Scott Rivkees, MD, University of Florida; Jeannie Rodriguez, PhD, Emory University; Elizabeth Rosenblum, MD, University of California, San Diego; Pablo Sanchez, MD, Nationwide Children’s Hospital; Renate Savich, MD, University of Mississippi Medical Center; Angela Scheuerle, MD, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center; Lee Segal, MD, University of Wisconsin, Madison; Camille Smith, EdS,, CDC; Parminder S. Suchdev, MD, Emory University; V. Fan Tait, MD, American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP; Edwin Trevathan, MD, Vanderbilt University School of Medicine; Camila V. Ventura, MD, Altino Ventura Foundation; Richard Whitley, MD, Children’s of Alabama,, University of Alabama at Birmingham; Susan Wiley, MD, Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center; Fernando Ysern, MD, Puerto Rico Chapter, AAP.
 Top

Acknowledgments

American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP); Laura Aird, MS, AAP; Giovanna Beauchamp, MD, University of Florida; Denise Boggs, CDC; Kristin Dayton, MD, University of Florida; Sean Diederich, AAP; Michelle Z. Esquivel, MPH, AAP; Jessica Franks, MPH, CDC; Margaret A. Honein, PhD, CDC; Irogue Igbinosa, MD, CDC; David W. Kimberlin, MD, University of Alabama at Birmingham; Kara Polen, MPH, CDC; Ingrid Rabe, MBChB, CDC.
 Top

Corresponding authors: Kate Russell, kerussell@cdc.gov, 404-718-1178; Sara E. Oliver, seoliver@cdc.gov, 404-639-1204.
 Top
1Epidemic Intelligence Service, CDC; 2Influenza Division, National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, CDC; 3Division of Viral Diseases, National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, CDC; 4Division of Environmental Hazards and Health Effects, National Center for Environmental Health, CDC; 5Division of Reproductive Health, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, CDC; 6Division of Congenital and Developmental Disorders, National Center on Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities, CDC; 7Office of the Director, National Center for Emerging and Zoonotic Infectious Diseases, CDC; 8Division of Vector-Borne Diseases, National Center for Emerging and Zoonotic Infectious Diseases, CDC;9Division of Human Development and Disability, National Center on Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities, CDC; 10Infectious Diseases Pathology Branch, Division of High-Consequence Pathogens and Pathology, National Center for Emerging and Zoonotic Infectious Diseases, CDC; 11Division of Public Health Information Dissemination, Center for Surveillance, Epidemiology, and Laboratory Services, CDC.
 Top

References

  1. Fleming-Dutra KE, Nelson JM, Fischer M, et al. Update: interim guidelines for health care providers caring for infants and children with possible Zika virus infection—United States, February 2016. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2016;65:182–7. CrossRef PubMed
  2. França GV, Schuler-Faccini L, Oliveira WK, et al. Congenital Zika virus syndrome in Brazil: a case series of the first 1501 livebirths with complete investigation. Lancet 2016. Epub June 29, 2016. PubMed
  3. Rasmussen SA, Jamieson DJ, Honein MA, Petersen LR. Zika virus and birth defects—reviewing the evidence for causality. N Engl J Med 2016;374:1981–7. CrossRef PubMed
  4. Miranda-Filho DB, Martelli CM, Ximenes RA, et al. Initial description of the presumed congenital Zika syndrome. Am J Public Health 2016;106:598–600. CrossRef PubMed
  5. de Fatima Vasco Aragao M, van der Linden V, Brainer-Lima AM, et al. Clinical features and neuroimaging (CT and MRI) findings in presumed Zika virus related congenital infection and microcephaly: retrospective case series study. BMJ 2016;353:i1901. CrossRef PubMed
  6. Hazin AN, Poretti A, Turchi Martelli CM, et al. ; Microcephaly Epidemic Research Group. Computed tomographic findings in microcephaly associated with Zika virus. N Engl J Med 2016;374:2193–5. CrossRef PubMed
  7. Li C, Xu D, Ye Q, et al. Zika virus disrupts neural progenitor development and leads to microcephaly in mice. Cell Stem Cell 2016;19:120–6. CrossRef PubMed
  8. Garcez PP, Loiola EC, Madeiro da Costa R, et al. Zika virus impairs growth in human neurospheres and brain organoids. Science 2016;352:816–8. CrossRef PubMed
  9. Tang H, Hammack C, Ogden SC, et al. Zika virus infects human cortical neural progenitors and attenuates their growth. Cell Stem Cell 2016;18:587–90. CrossRef PubMed
  10. Ventura CV, Maia M, Bravo-Filho V, Góis AL, Belfort R . Zika virus in Brazil and macular atrophy in a child with microcephaly. Lancet 2016;387:228. CrossRef PubMed
  11. Ventura CV, Maia M, Ventura BV, et al. Ophthalmological findings in infants with microcephaly and presumable intra-uterus Zika virus infection. Arq Bras Oftalmol 2016;79:1–3. CrossRefPubMed
  12. Miranda HA , Costa MC, Frazão MA, Simão N, Franchischini S, Moshfeghi DM. Expanded spectrum of congenital ocular findings in microcephaly with presumed Zika infection. Ophthalmology 2016;123:1788–94. CrossRef PubMed
  13. Schuler-Faccini L, Ribeiro EM, Feitosa IM, et al. Possible association between Zika virus infection and microcephaly—Brazil, 2015. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2016;65:59–62. CrossRefPubMed
  14. Corona-Rivera JR, Corona-Rivera E, Romero-Velarde E, Hernández-Rocha J, Bobadilla-Morales L, Corona-Rivera A. Report and review of the fetal brain disruption sequence. Eur J Pediatr 2001;160:664–7. CrossRef PubMed
  15. Fowler KB, Stagno S, Pass RF, Britt WJ, Boll TJ, Alford CA. The outcome of congenital cytomegalovirus infection in relation to maternal antibody status. N Engl J Med 1992;326:663–7.CrossRef PubMed
  16. Sever JL, South MA, Shaver KA. Delayed manifestations of congenital rubella. Rev Infect Dis 1985;7(Suppl 1):S164–9. CrossRef PubMed
  17. Fowler KB, McCollister FP, Dahle AJ, Boppana S, Britt WJ, Pass RF. Progressive and fluctuating sensorineural hearing loss in children with asymptomatic congenital cytomegalovirus infection. J Pediatr 1997;130:624–30. CrossRef PubMed
  18. Cannon MJ, Hyde TB, Schmid DS. Review of cytomegalovirus shedding in bodily fluids and relevance to congenital cytomegalovirus infection. Rev Med Virol 2011;21:240–55. CrossRefPubMed
  19. Rawls WE, Phillips A, Melnick JL, Desmond MM. Persistent virus infection in congenital rubella. Arch Ophthalmol 1967;77:430–3. CrossRef PubMed
  20. Rabe IB, Staples JE, Villanueva J, et al. . Interim guidance for interpretation of Zika virus antibody test results. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2016;65:543–6. CrossRef PubMed
  21. Masuzaki H, Miura K, Miura S, et al. Labor increases maternal DNA contamination in cord blood. Clin Chem 2004;50:1709–11 . CrossRef PubMed
  22. Oduyebo T, Igbinosa I, Petersen EE, et al. Update: interim guidance for health care providers caring for pregnant women with possible Zika virus exposure—United States, July 2016. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2016;65:739–44. CrossRef PubMed
  23. Besnard M, Lastere S, Teissier A, Cao-Lormeau V, Musso D. Evidence of perinatal transmission of Zika virus, French Polynesia, December 2013 and February 2014. Euro Surveill 2014;19:20751. CrossRef PubMed
  24. Committee on Practice and Ambulatory Medicine and Bright Futures Periodicity Schedule Workgroup. 2016 recommendations for preventive pediatric health care. Pediatrics 2016;137:1–3.
  25. Olson CK, Iwamoto M, Perkins KM, et al. Preventing transmission of Zika virus in labor and delivery settings through implementation of standard precautions—United States, 2016. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2016;65:290–2. CrossRef PubMed
  26. Dupont-Rouzeyrol M, Biron A, O’Connor O, Huguon E, Descloux E. Infectious Zika viral particles in breastmilk. Lancet 2016;387:1051. CrossRef PubMed
  27. Kuo DZ, Houtrow AJ, Arango P, Kuhlthau KA, Simmons JM, Neff JM. Family-centered care: current applications and future directions in pediatric health care. Matern Child Health J 2012;16:297–305. CrossRef PubMed
  28. Birkebaek NH, Patel L, Wright NB, et al. Endocrine status in patients with optic nerve hypoplasia: relationship to midline central nervous system abnormalities and appearance of the hypothalamic-pituitary axis on magnetic resonance imaging. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2003;88:5281–6. CrossRef PubMed
  29. American Academy of Pediatrics. Healthy children. Elk Grove Village, IL: American Academy of Pediatrics; 2016. https://www.healthychildren.org
  30. Marcin JP, Shaikh U, Steinhorn RH. Addressing health disparities in rural communities using telehealth. Pediatr Res 2016;79:169–76. CrossRef PubMed
 Top
* Standard head circumference charts are based on measurements taken within 24 hours of birth. Additional information on child growth standards is available athttp://www.who.int/childgrowth/en/. Additional information on head circumference measurement is available at https://www.cdc.gov/zika/pdfs/microcephaly_measuring.pdf.
 Top
Return to your place in the textBOX 1Areas of expertise and organizations represented at the Clinical Evaluation and Management of Infants with Congenital Zika Virus Infection meeting — Atlanta, Georgia, July 21–22, 2016

Specialties represented

Audiology
Clinical genetics
Critical care
Developmental and behavioral pediatrics
Endocrinology
Hospitalist medicine
Infectious disease
Lactation and infant feeding
Maternal-fetal medicine
Neonatology
Neurology
Nutrition
Ophthalmology
Orthopedics
Pediatrics
Physical medicine and rehabilitation

Partner organizations

American Academy of Family Physicians
American Academy of Pediatrics (including representation from the Puerto Rico chapter)
American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists
Association of Maternal & Child Health Programs
Family Voices, Inc.
March of Dimes
National Association of Pediatric Nurse Practitioners
Parent to Parent of Georgia
Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine

Federal agencies

Administration for Children and Families
CDC
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
 Top
Return to your place in the textFIGURERecommended Zika virus testing and evaluation of infants born to mothers with laboratory evidence of Zika virus infection during pregnancy *
 The figure above is a diagram showing recommended Zika virus testing and evaluation of infants born to mothers with laboratory evidence of Zika virus infection during pregnancy.
Abbreviation: ABR = auditory brainstem response.
* Laboratory evidence of maternal Zika virus infection includes 1) Zika virus RNA detected by real-time reverse transcription–polymerase chain reaction (rRT-PCR) in any clinical specimen; or 2) positive Zika virus immunoglobulin M (IgM) with confirmatory neutralizing antibody titers. Mothers should be tested by rRT-PCR within 2 weeks of exposure or symptom onset, or by IgM within 2–12 weeks of exposure or symptom onset. Because of the decline in IgM antibody and viral RNA levels over time, negative maternal testing 12 weeks after exposure does not rule out maternal infection. Source: Oduyebo T, Igbinosa I, Petersen EE, et al. Update: interim guidance for health care providers caring for pregnant women with possible Zika virus exposure—United States, July 2016. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2016;65:739–44. http://dx.doi.org/10.15585/mmwr.mm6529e1.
 Top
Return to your place in the textTABLE 1Interpretation of results of laboratory testing of infant’s blood, urine and/or cerebrospinal fluid for evidence of congenital Zika virus infection
Infant test results*Interpretation
rRT-PCRIgM
PositivePositive or NegativeConfirmed congenital Zika virus infection
NegativePositiveProbable congenital Zika virus infection
NegativeNegativeNegative for congenital Zika virus infection
Abbreviations: rRT-PCR = real-time reverse transcription–polymerase chain reaction; IgM = immunoglobulin M.
* Infant serum, urine, or cerebrospinal fluid.
 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 (PRNT).
 Top
Return to your place in the textTABLE 2Initial evaluation and recommended outpatient management during the first 12 months of life for infants with possible congenital Zika virus infection, based on maternal and infant laboratory tests and infant clinical findings
MotherInfant clinical examBefore hospital dischargeInfant testing2 wks.1 mo.2 mos.3 mos.4–6 mos.9 mos.12 mos.
Laboratory evidence of Zika virus infection*No evidence of abnormalitiesRoutine newborn care: PE, HC, weight/length, and neurologic exam
Hearing screen
Head US
Infant Zika virus testing (Table 1)
Negative for Zika virus infectionRoutine care, including monitoring of OFC and development at every well child visit and age-appropriate developmental screening
Laboratory evidence of Zika virus infection*Ophthalmology exam ABRConsider repeat ABRBehavioral audiology if ABR not done at 4–6 mos.
Monitoring of OFC and development at every visit and age-appropriate developmental screening (Box 4)
Abnormalities consistent with congenital Zika syndromeAs above plus:
Consider transfer to hospital with subspecialty care
CBC, metabolic panel, LFTs, ophthalmology exam
ABR
Consider advanced neuroimaging (Box 2)
Negative for Zika virus infectionEvaluate for other causes of congenital anomalies
Further management as clinically indicated
Laboratory evidence of Zika virus infection*Thyroid screenNeurologic examNeurologic examThyroid screen, ophthalmology examRepeat ABR
Routine preventive health care including monitoring of feeding and growth
Routine and congenital infection-specific anticipatory guidance
Referral to specialists, including evaluation of other causes of congenital anomalies as needed (Box 3)
Not tested, or tested outside of appropriate windowNo evidence of abnormalitiesMaternal Zika virus testing
Consider Zika virus placental testing
Routine newborn care: PE, HC, weight/length and neurologic exam
Hearing screen
Head US
Perform infant Zika virus testing if evidence of Zika virus infection on maternal testing*,†Outpatient management for appropriate infant clinical exam and test results
Abnormalities consistent with congenital Zika syndromeAs above, plus:
Consider transfer to hospital with subspecialty care.
CBC, metabolic panel, LFTs, ophthalmology exam
ABR
Consider advanced neuroimaging
Infant Zika virus testing (Table 1)
Negative for Zika virus infectionEvaluate for other causes of congenital anomalies
Further management as clinically indicated
Laboratory evidence of Zika virus infection*Refer to outpatient management for infant with abnormalities consistent with congenital Zika syndrome
Abbreviations: ABR = auditory brainstem response; CBC = complete blood count; LFTs = liver function tests; HC = head (occipitofrontal) circumference; PE = physical examination; rRT-PCR = real-time reverse transcription–polymerase chain reaction; US = ultrasound.
* Laboratory evidence of maternal Zika virus infection includes 1) Zika virus RNA detected by real-time reverse transcription–polymerase chain reaction (rRT-PCR) in any clinical specimen; or 2) positive Zika virus immunoglobulin M (IgM) with confirmatory neutralizing antibody titers. Confirmatory neutralizing antibody titers are needed in addition to IgM for maternal Zika virus infection.
 Mothers should be tested by rRT-PCR within 2 weeks of exposure or symptom onset, or by IgM within 2–12 weeks of exposure or symptom onset. Because of the decline in IgM antibody titers and viral RNA levels over time, negative maternal testing 12 weeks after exposure does not rule out maternal infection. Source: Oduyebo T, Igbinosa I, Petersen EE, et al. Update: interim guidance for health care providers caring for pregnant women with possible Zika virus exposure—United States, July 2016. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2016;65:739–44.http://dx.doi.org/10.15585/mmwr.mm6529e1.
 Top
Return to your place in the textBOX 2Initial clinical evaluation and management of infants with laboratory evidence of Zika virus infection and abnormalities consistent with congenital Zika syndrome
  • Consultation with:
    • Neurologist for determination of appropriate neuroimaging and additional evaluation.
    • Infectious disease specialist for diagnostic evaluation of other congenital infections (e.g., syphilis, toxoplasmosis, rubella, cytomegalovirus infection, lymphocytic choriomeningitis virus infection, and herpes simplex virus infection).
    • Ophthalmologist for comprehensive eye exam and evaluation for possible cortical visual impairment prior to discharge from the hospital or within 1 month of birth.
    • Endocrinologist for evaluation for hypothalamic or pituitary dysfunction.
    • Clinical geneticist to evaluate for other causes of microcephaly or other anomalies if present.
  • Consider consultation with:
    • Orthopedist, physiatrist, or physical therapist for the management of hypertonia, club foot or arthrogrypotic-like conditions.
    • Pulmonologist or otolaryngologist for concerns about aspiration.
    • Lactation specialist, nutritionist, gastroenterologist, or speech or occupational therapist for the management of feeding issues.
  • Perform auditory brainstem response to assess hearing.
  • Perform complete blood count and metabolic panel, including liver function tests.
  • Provide family and supportive services.
 Top
Return to your place in the textBOX 3Outpatient management of infants with laboratory evidence of Zika virus infection and abnormalities consistent with congenital Zika syndrome
  • A medical home should be established, and visits with primary care provider should occur monthly for at least the first 6 months of life.
    • Follow growth parameters; monitor development; provide routine immunizations, anticipatory guidance, and psychosocial support; and ensure infants receive necessary testing and consultations.
  • Neurologic examination by the primary care provider at 1 and 2 months of age. Refer to neurology for any abnormalities, or for any parental or provider concerns.
  • Refer to developmental specialist and early intervention services.
  • Repeat comprehensive ophthalmologic exam at age 3 months, and refer to ophthalmology for any abnormal findings, or for any parental or provider concerns.
  • Repeat auditory brainstem response testing at age 4–6 months, and refer to audiology for any abnormal findings, or for any parental or provider concerns.
  • Repeat testing for hypothyroidism at age 2 weeks and 3 months, even if the initial testing results were normal. Refer to endocrinology for any abnormal findings.
  • Provide family and supportive services.
 Top
Return to your place in the textBOX 4Outpatient management of infants with laboratory evidence of Zika virus infection, but without abnormalities consistent with congenital Zika syndrome
  • A medical home should be established.
    • Follow growth parameters, and perform developmental screening at each well child visit.
    • Emphasize anticipatory guidance for families regarding developmental milestones, feeding and growth, sleep and irritability, and abnormal movements.
  • Use a standardized, validated developmental screening tool at 9 months as currently recommended, or earlier for any parental or provider concerns.
  • Referral to ophthalmology for comprehensive eye exam within one month of birth. Perform vision screening and assess visual regard at every well child visit, and refer to ophthalmology for any abnormal findings, or for any parental or provider concerns.
  • Perform auditory brainstem response within one month of birth. Consider repeat auditory brainstem response at 4–6 months or perform behavioral diagnostic testing at 9 months of age and refer to audiology for any abnormal findings, or for any parental or provider concerns.
  • Provide family and supportive services.
 Top
Suggested citation for this article: Russell K, Oliver SE, Lewis L, et al. Update: Interim Guidance for the Evaluation and Management of Infants with Possible Congenital Zika Virus Infection — United States, August 2016. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2016;65:870–878. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.15585/mmwr.mm6533e2.