4.6 Article

Congenital Cytomegalovirus among Children with Cerebral Palsy

期刊

JOURNAL OF PEDIATRICS
卷 181, 期 -, 页码 267-+

出版社

MOSBY-ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jpeds.2016.10.024

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Health and Medical Research Council [1055901, 1087062]
  2. Rebecca L. Cooper Medical Research Foundation
  3. Cerebral Palsy Alliance Research Foundation
  4. Sydney Medical School Foundation
  5. National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia [1087062] Funding Source: NHMRC

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives To determine the proportion of children with cerebral palsy (CP) and cytomegalovirus (CMV) DNA detected retrospectively in their newborn screening cards (NBSC), to compare the proportion of children with CMV DNA in their NBSC across spastic subtypes of CP, and to compare the sex and other characteristics of children with CP and CMV detected on their NSBC with those in whom CMV DNA was not detected. Study design Retrospective observational study. Data were extracted from patient records on children with CP (birth years 1996-2014) from 2 Australian state CP registers and state-wide paediatric rehabilitation services with consent. NBSCs were retrospectively analyzed for CMV DNA by nested polymerase chain reaction (PCR) using primers against gB. Positive samples were validated using real time PCR for CMV UL83. Results Of 401 children recruited, 323 (80.5%) had an available NBSC. Of these, 31 (9.6%; 95% CI, 6.8-13.3) tested positive for CMV DNA by nested PCR for CMV gB, of whom 28 (8.7%; 95% CI, 6.1-12.2) also had CMV DNA detected by real-time PCR for CMV UL83. Detection of CMV DNA was significantly associated with epilepsy, but not with clinical or epidemiologic characteristics, including sex and pattern of spasticity. Conclusions CMV viremia in the newborn period, indicating congenital CMV infection, is highly prevalent among children with CP. Further research is needed to investigate the mechanisms and contribution of congenital CMV to the causal pathways to CP.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据