4.6 Article

Congenital cytomegalovirus infection: Association between virus burden in infancy and hearing loss

Journal

JOURNAL OF PEDIATRICS
Volume 146, Issue 6, Pages 817-823

Publisher

MOSBY-ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jpeds.2005.01.059

Keywords

-

Categories

Funding

  1. NCRR NIH HHS [M01 RR000032] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NIAID NIH HHS [P01 AI43681, P01 AI043681] Funding Source: Medline
  3. NICHD NIH HHS [P01 HD10699] Funding Source: Medline
  4. NIDCD NIH HHS [R01 DC04163, R01 DC004163] Funding Source: Medline
  5. PHS HHS [M01 R00032] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective To determine the relationship between the virus burden in infancy and hearing loss in congenital CMV infection. Study design A cohort of 76 infants with congenital cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection identified by means of newborn virologic screening was monitored for outcome. The amount of infectious CMV was analyzed in urine specimens obtained during early infancy. Peripheral blood (PB) samples obtained during early infancy were available from 75 children and CMV DNA was quantitated with a real-time quantitative polymerase chain reaction. Results Infants with clinical abnormalities at birth (symptomatic congenital CMV infection) had higher amounts of CMV in urine (P = .005) and CMV DNA in PB (P = .001) than infants with no symptoms. Eight children with and 4 children without symptoms had hearing loss. Among children without symptoms, those with hearing loss had a significantly greater amount of CMV in urine (P = .03) and PB virus burden (P = .02) during infancy than those with normal hearing. Infants with < 5 X 10(3) pfulmL of urine CMV and infants with < 1 X 10(4) copies/mL of viral DNA in PB were at a lower risk for hearing loss. Conclusion In children with asymptomatic congenital CMV infection, hearing loss was associated with increased amounts of urine CMV and PB CMV DNA during early infancy.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available