Skip to main content
NCBI home page
JAMA Network logoLink to JAMA Network
. 2021 Aug 23;4(8):e2120736. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.20736

Congenital Cytomegalovirus Infection Burden and Epidemiologic Risk Factors in Countries With Universal Screening

A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Paddy Ssentongo 1,2,3,✉, Christine Hehnly 4, Patricia Birungi 5, Mikayla A Roach 6, Jada Spady 7, Claudio Fronterre 8, Ming Wang 3, Laura E Murray-Kolb 9, Laila Al-Shaar 3, Vernon M Chinchilli 3, James R Broach 4, Jessica E Ericson 10, Steven J Schiff 1,2,11,12,13
PMCID: PMC8383138  PMID: 34424308

Key Points

Question

What are the pooled prevalence of congenital cytomegalovirus infection and factors associated with the rates in high-income and low- and middle-income countries?

Findings

In this systematic review and meta-analysis including 77 studies from 36 countries comprising 515 646 infants younger than 3 weeks, the pooled overall prevalence of congenital cytomegalovirus was 0.67%. The infection burden was 3-fold greater in low- and middle-income countries than in high-income countries. Lower rates were reported in screening methods using blood compared with urine or saliva.

Meaning

The findings of this study suggest that low- and middle-income countries incur the greatest infection burden of congenital cytomegalovirus; a global effort to address congenital cytomegalovirus in regions with the greatest prevalence is needed to reduce disease incidence and morbidity.

Abstract

Importance

Congenital cytomegalovirus (cCMV) infection is the most common congenital infection and the leading acquired cause of developmental disabilities and sensorineural deafness, yet a reliable assessment of the infection burden is lacking.

Objectives

To estimate the birth prevalence of cCMV in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) and high-income countries (HICs), characterize the rate by screening methods, and delineate associated risk factors of the infection.

Data Sources

MEDLINE/PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews databases were searched from January 1, 1960, to March 1, 2021, and a total of 1322 studies were identified.

Study Selection

Studies that provided data on the prevalence of cCMV derived from universal screening of infants younger than 3 weeks were included. Targeted screening studies were excluded.

Data Extraction and Synthesis

Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guideline was followed. Extraction was performed independently by 3 reviewers. Quality was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for cohort studies. Random-effects meta-analysis was undertaken. Metaregression was conducted to evaluate the association of sociodemographic characteristics, maternal seroprevalence, population-level HIV prevalence, and screening methods with the prevalence of cCMV.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Birth prevalence of cCMV ascertained through universal screening of infants younger than 3 weeks for CMV from urine, saliva, or blood samples.

Results

Seventy-seven studies comprising 515 646 infants met the inclusion criteria from countries representative of each World Bank income level. The estimated pooled overall prevalence of cCMV was 0.67% (95% CI, 0.54%-0.83%). The pooled birth prevalence of cCMV was 3-fold greater in LMICs (1.42%; 95% CI, 0.97%-2.08%; n = 23 studies) than in HICs (0.48%; 95% CI, 0.40%-0.59%, n = 54 studies). Screening methods with blood samples demonstrated lower rates of cCMV than urine or saliva samples (odds ratio [OR], 0.38; 95% CI, 0.23-0.66). Higher maternal CMV seroprevalence (OR, 1.19; 95% CI, 1.11-1.28), higher population-level HIV prevalence (OR, 1.22; 95% CI, 1.05-1.40), lower socioeconomic status (OR, 3.03; 95% CI, 2.05-4.47), and younger mean maternal age (OR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.78-0.92, older age was associated with lower rates) were associated with higher rates of cCMV.

Conclusions and Relevance

In this meta-analysis, LMICs appeared to incur the most significant infection burden. Lower rates of cCMV were reported by studies using only blood or serum as a screening method.

This systematic review and meta-analysis examines the prevalence of congenital cytomegalovirus (cCMV) in young infants by economic status of countries as well as factors contributing to the diagnosis and prevalence.

Introduction

Human herpesvirus 5, cytomegalovirus (CMV), is a common cause of asymptomatic or mild illness in immunocompetent children and adults. However, congenital CMV (cCMV) infection can lead to permanent sequelae in 15% to 18% of births, including death in 1%, neurocognitive sequelae in 5% to 15%, and hearing loss in 12% of individuals with cCMV.1,2,3,4

Studies have suggested that cCMV infection is a disease of disparity, with increased incidence, prevalence, and severity in low-income populations.5,6,7,8 However, most studies that have been used to generate estimates of the burden of cCMV infection are from high-income countries (HICs).5,9 Thus, the burden of cCMV infection is likely higher than currently available studies suggest. Congenital CMV is likely underreported worldwide owing to the lack of available testing in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) and lack of systematic testing in countries of all income levels.

Differentiation of congenital vs early postnatal CMV infections requires testing near the time of birth and also after 3 weeks.10,11 Symptomatic infants are more likely to undergo testing shortly after birth than asymptomatic infants. However, most infants with cCMV will be asymptomatic at birth, and the sequelae of congenital infection will not be evident until weeks, months, or even years later.12 By the time sequelae are noted, it is too late to accurately assess the association of cCMV with the child’s outcome.11

These difficulties in accurately diagnosing cCMV in low-resource settings have led to estimating the burden of cCMV from prevalence estimates derived primarily in HICs.5 This factor, in addition to not accounting for differences in risk factors, such as maternal educational level, HIV exposure, and income distribution, contribute to underestimating the burden of infection.5,13 We sought to estimate the prevalence of cCMV with a meta-analysis of LMIC and HIC prevalence studies and estimate the influence that diagnostic methods as well as demographic and clinical factors have on cCMV prevalence.

Methods

Data Sources and Extraction

We searched the MEDLINE/PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews databases for studies published between January 1, 1960, and March 1, 2021, using a combination of medical subject headings and key words in the title and abstract denoting birth prevalence of cCMV. We used terms CMV or cytomegalovirus combined with congenital, or newborn combined with epidemiology (eg, incidence, prevalence, burden, mortality) to search peer-reviewed publications. A full list of search terms is provided in the eMethods in the Supplement. The search was performed for all countries by their categorization in the July 2019 World Bank list.14 This study followed the Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) reporting guideline15 and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) reporting guideline.16

We also searched the references cited by the retrieved articles for additional material. We applied the following inclusion criteria: (1) original peer-reviewed studies, (2) identification of cCMV through universal screening, and (3) detection of CMV based on culture or polymerase chain reaction of urine, saliva, blood, serum, or dried blood spot samples collected within 3 weeks of birth. Studies not conducted in humans, case reports, letters to editor, case series, case-control studies, comparison studies, practice guidelines, meta-analyses, literature reviews, and commentaries were excluded. Studies that did not document CMV screening methods were also excluded. We did not impose any restrictions based on language of the articles or country. To further minimize selection bias and inflation of the prevalence estimates, we excluded studies that carried out targeted screening of CMV. These included studies conducted only in the HIV population, in neonates with abnormal results on hearing screening, and those admitted to the intensive care units. Some studies used the same population in several articles. For example, articles by the CMV and Hearing Multicenter Screening study group17,18 had multiple overlapping populations. Therefore, we excluded articles with overlapping study populations.

Birth prevalence was defined as the number of infants with CMV infection divided by the total number of live-born infants tested for CMV in a defined population. Symptomatic cCMV infection was defined by each study, and definitions varied substantially across studies. The typical definition of the term symptomatic to describe clinical indications of CMV infection in newborns, known as cytomegalovirus inclusion disease, includes the presence of 1 or more of the following symptoms: petechiae, jaundice with associated hyperbilirubinemia, hepatosplenomegaly, thrombocytopenia, chorioretinitis, seizures, sensorineural hearing loss, microcephaly, intracranial calcifications, or fetal hydrops.19,20 The less-severe symptoms are usually transient in newborns. Many of the signs and symptoms listed are not specific to CMV or readily apparent, and hence symptomatic CMV often goes unrecognized in the absence of systematic attempts to identify it.

We extracted information on the studies’ characteristics and their participants, methods used to diagnose CMV, country-specific potential predictors of cCMV (HIV status, income level), and methodologic quality. Three of us (P.B., M.A.R., and J.S.) initially independently screened the titles and abstracts of articles and obtained the full-text articles and performed data extraction on those meeting the inclusion criteria. Three of us (P.B., M.A.R., and J.S.) jointly reviewed a random subset of articles to ensure selection accuracy. Disagreements about the included articles were resolved by 2 of us (P.S. and C.H.). A detailed account of the inclusion/exclusion process is shown in eFigure 1 in the Supplement.

Two of us (P.S. and C.H.) independently assessed the quality of the articles included in our analysis. Assessment of methodologic quality was conducted using the Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale, a validated tool for assessing cross-sectional, case-control, and cohort studies.21 Scores of 8 to the maximum score of 9 were defined as high quality; scores of 5 to 7 were defined as intermediate quality, and scores of 1 to 4 were considered low quality. Studies were included regardless of the risk of bias and quality scores, but metaregression analysis was conducted to ascertain the outcome of their inclusion.

Race or ethnicity was classified by the investigators of each study included in the meta-analysis. Options were defined by participants. Race or ethnicity was assessed because it is associated with the incidence of cCMV.

Statistical Analysis

We adopted a narrative approach describing the number of studies, study settings, and diagnostic criteria for cCMV. Descriptive statistics are reported as proportions of a population and as medians (interquartile range).

We applied random-effects models to estimate the prevalence of cCMV and their respective 95% CIs, and we reported the pooled prevalence as a percentage of the screened newborn infants. To pool the study estimates, we used a generalized linear mixed-effects model with the logit link. We estimated all parameters via maximizing the pseudolikelihood. The generalized linear mixed-effects model method is not affected by the potential problems of back-transformation of Freeman-Tukey double arcsine transformation of single proportions.22,23 Individual and pooled estimates are displayed using forest plots. Between-study variation was assessed using I2, which describes the percentage of total variation across studies that is due to heterogeneity rather than chance, expressed as percentage (low [25%], moderate [50%], and high [75%]).24 We report the pooled estimates as percentages.

We conducted random-effects metaregression analysis to investigate the sources of heterogeneity. We examined the associations of each of the explanatory variables included in the metaregression in association with the prevalence of cCMV. These variables included study-level maternal median or mean age, the proportion with HIV/AIDS exposure, maternal CMV seroprevalence (IgG or IgM antibodies), the proportion born premature, the proportion of males, and the proportion of Black individuals for studies conducted in the US or Canada. We also explored the association of socioeconomic status (defined by country-specific income level as described by the World Bank14; low and middle income [≤$12 535] vs high income [≥$12 536], eFigure 2 in the Supplement), and population-level HIV prevalence. Differences in prevalence were also estimated by the biological specimen used for screening of CMV (blood, saliva, or urine). We regressed the estimates as a function of the study year to explore the prevalence trend.

To evaluate possible publication bias, we visually inspected the funnel plot for asymmetry by plotting the study effect size against SEs of the effect size and performed the Egger linear regression test25 and Begg rank correlation test.26 The Duval and Tweedie trim and fill procedure was used to adjust for the publication bias.27 An influence and outlier study sensitivity analysis was undertaken to estimate the association of each study with the overall pooled estimate.28 The metaprop, escalc, and rma functions from the R packages meta and metafor were used for the analysis.29 All statistical analyses were performed with R software, version 3.6.2 (R Foundation). The significance level was set at P < .05, and all P values were 2-tailed.

Results

The initial literature search yielded 1322 articles (eFigure 1 in the Supplement); of these, we excluded 223 duplicates. After a review of titles and abstracts, we excluded 942 articles if they (1) were conducted in animals; (2) were case series, case-controls, or reviews; (3) were long-term outcomes or sequelae studies; or (4) solely compared the sensitivity of cCMV testing methods. We fully examined a total of 157 full-text articles and excluded 80 articles because (1) the study focused on a specific subpopulation (targeted screening), such as neonates with clinical signs of cCMV or a nonrepresentative demographic cohort; (2) there were overlapping study populations; and (3) the article was a systematic review. A total of 77 articles were included in this meta-analysis. The final studies were from 36 countries (eFigure 3 in the Supplement) on 5 continents and are categorized by World Health Organization regions as follows: Africa, 6 countries (6 studies)30,31,32,33,34,35; Americas–Latin, 5 countries (9 studies)36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44; Americas–US and Canada, 2 countries (18 studies)17,18,45,46,47,48,49,50,51,52,53,54,55,56,57,58,59,60; Eastern Mediterranean, 1 country (3 studies)61,62,63; Europe, 16 countries (24 studies)8,64,65,66,67,68,69,70,71,72,73,74,75,76,77,78,79,80,81,82,83,84,85,86; Southeast Asia, 2 countries (3 studies)87,88,89; and Western Pacific, 4 countries (14 studies).90,91,92,93,94,95,96,97,98,99,100,101,102,103 The present analysis included a total sample of 515 646 infants. The number of neonates included in individual studies ranged widely (minimum 117 to maximum 73 239), with a median of 2032 infants (interquartile range, 741-10 328). Details of each study included in the meta-analysis are provided in eTable 1 in the Supplement.

Consistent with the expected publication bias, source articles from HICs (54 [70%]) were encountered more frequently than those from LMICs (23 [30%]). The median methodologic quality of studies in HICs was similar to that of LMICs. The estimated pooled overall prevalence of cCMV was 0.67% (95% CI, 0.54%-0.83%). Using the random-effects model, the prevalence of cCMV was significantly higher in LMICs (1.42%; 95% CI, 0.97%-2.08%) compared with HICs (0.48%; 95% CI, 0.40%-0.59%; P < .001 for subgroup differences) (Figure 1). Each subgroup's heterogeneity was high, as evidenced by the I2 value (>90% in each group). The definition of symptomatic cCMV varied by study. The most common cCMV clinical signs, laboratory test results, and imaging findings reported were sensorineural hearing loss, jaundice, hepatosplenomegaly, thrombocytopenia, and central nervous system involvement (microcephaly, intracranial calcifications, enlarged ventricles) (eTable 2 in the Supplement). Sixty studies reported the proportion of symptomatic cCMV. The pooled estimate was 10.85% (95% CI, 7.40%-15.65%). No significant differences were noted in the rates of symptomatic cCMV between LMICs (10.42%; 95% CI, 4.71%-21.49%) and HICs (11.0%; 95% CI, 7.10%-16.67%). Heterogeneity by income level was 60% (P < .001 for heterogeneity; 18 studies) for LMICs and 74% (P < .001 for heterogeneity; 42 studies) for HICs (P = .90 for subgroup differences) (Figure 2).

Figure 1. Congenital Cytomegalovirus (CMV) Prevalence by World Bank Income Level in High-Income Countries (HICs) and Low- to Middle-Income Countries.

Figure 1.

Open in a new tab

Effect size values represent congenital CMV cases expressed as a percentage and their corresponding 95% CIs. Blue squares and their corresponding lines are the point estimates and 95% CIs. Diamonds represent the pooled estimate of each subgroup's prevalence (width denotes 95% CI). Heterogeneity by income level: low- to middle-income countries, I2 = 96 (23 studies); high-income countries, I2 = 92% (54 studies). Differences between subgroups were all significant at P < .001.

Figure 2. Symptomatic Congenital Cytomegalovirus (CMV) Prevalence by World Bank Income Level in High-Income Countries and Low- to Middle-Income Countries.

Figure 2.

Open in a new tab

Effect size values represent congenital CMV cases expressed as a percentage and their corresponding 95% CIs. Blue squares and their corresponding lines are the point estimates and 95% CIs. Diamonds represent the pooled estimate of each subgroup's prevalence (width denotes 95% CI). Heterogeneity by income level: low- to middle-income countries (I2 = 60%; heterogeneity P < .001; 18 studies); high-income countries (I2 = 74%; heterogeneity P < .001; 42 studies); test for subgroup differences P = .90.

Detection of CMV DNA in blood and the sensitivity of CMV polymerase chain reaction in dried blood spot samples is highly variable, ranging from 30% to 90% depending on the technique used.17 Therefore, screening studies based on CMV polymerase chain reaction of dried blood spots will probably underestimate cCMV prevalence, but with improved methods, this form of testing may become more useful.49,104 To assess possible differences in the estimates due to the biological specimens used for screening for cCMV, we conducted subgroup analysis comparing studies that carried out screening using urine and/or saliva samples with those that used only blood or serum. There was a significant difference in the cCMV prevalence rates between the biological specimens used for screening: 0.79% (95% CI, 0.63%-1.00%) for urine or saliva vs 0.31% (95% CI, 0.22%- 0.46%) for blood or serum only (P < .001 for subgroup differences) (eFigure 3 in the Supplement).

A univariable random-effects metaregression model revealed LMICs (odds ratio [OR], 3.03; 95% CI, 2.05-4.47), higher maternal seroprevalence (OR, 1.19; 95% CI, 1.11-1.28) (Figure 3A), higher population-level HIV prevalence (OR, 1.22; 95% CI, 1.05-1.40), and younger maternal age (OR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.78-0.92, older age was associated with lower cCMV rates) were significant factors associated with higher cCMV prevalence (Table). Screening methods with blood samples demonstrated lower rates of cCMV than urine or saliva samples (odds ratio [OR], 0.38; 95% CI, 0.23-0.66). When the analysis was restricted to studies conducted in the US and Canada, there was an association of Black individuals with a higher risk of cCMV prevalence compared with other races (OR, 1.13; 95% CI, 1.10-1.17; P < .01). Temporal trend analysis indicated that cCMV prevalence rate has remained constant for the past 60 years (R2 = 0.007; P = .48 for temporal trend) (Figure 3B).

Figure 3. Determinants and Temporal Trends of Congenital Cytomegalovirus (cCMV).

Figure 3.

Open in a new tab

A, Maternal CMV seroprevalence is a significant determinant of congenital CMV. B, The prevalence of congenital CMV has remained consistent for the past 6 decades. Linear fit from linear regression model. Circles represent countries and are labeled by their International Organization for Standardization (ISO) code. The size of the circle is proportional to the sample size of each study and the colors represent the World Health Organization region. The ISO codes are defined in eTable 1 in the Supplement.

Table. Metaregression Analysisa.

Population characteristics No. of studies OR (95% CI) P value R2, %b
Income level
High 54 1 [Reference] 33
Low-middle 23 3.03 (2.05-4.47) <.001c
Maternal seroprevalence (per 5–percentage point increase) 37 1.19 (1.11-1.28) <.001c 43
Biologic specimen tested 77
Saliva and/or urine 63 1 [Reference] <.001c 13
Blood 14 0.38 (0.23-0.66)
Black (per 5–percentage point increase) (US and Canada studies) 7 1.13 (1.10-1.17) <.001c 91
Maternal mean age (per 1-y increase from mean age of 28 y) 28 0.85 (0.78-0.92) <.001c 37
Proportion male (per 5–percentage point increase) 21 1.14 (0.82-1.58) .45 0
Study quality (per unit increase) 77 0.93 (0.78-11.00) .39 0
Proportion premature (per 5–percentage point increase) 15 1.16 (0.98-1.37) .08 12
Population HIV rate (per 2% increase) 23 1.22 (1.05-1.40) .009c 21
Year of study (per 5-y increase) 77 0.98 (0.92-1.05) .63 0
Open in a new tab

Abbreviation: OR, odds ratio.

a

Univariate metaregression using a random-effects model. The ORs and their 95% CIs are the effect sizes of the association between the contributing factors and the prevalence of congenital cytomegalovirus.

b

Coefficient of determination represents the amount of variation in the prevalence of congenital cytomegalovirus explained by the covariate.

c

Findings significant at P < .05.

Influence and outlier sensitivity analyses were performed for the birth prevalence of cCMV.105 In this analysis, 1 study was omitted and replaced 1 study at a time (leave-1-out method) from the meta-analysis, and we calculated the pooled data for the remaining studies. The pooled estimate remained close to the observed overall pooled estimate, indicating that no individual study had a large influence on the pooled estimate. The pooled point estimate ranged from 0.65 to 0.69 (eFigure 4 in the Supplement).

A symmetrical inverted funnel plot suggested the absence of publication bias (eFigure 5 in the Supplement). Similarly, neither the Begg rank correlation test (z = 0.83; P = .41) nor the Egger linear regression test (t = 0.05; df=75; P = .96) indicated publication bias. Nevertheless, the Duval and Tweedie trim and fill analysis was conducted to adjust for the potential small-study publication bias.27 Analyses suggested that the adjusted effect estimates would fall in the range of 0.57% to 0.87%, and no additional studies were added to the funnel plots (eFigure 6 in the Supplement). The median study quality score was 7 of 9 (range, 4-9).

Discussion

We report a comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis of cCMV epidemiologic factors. More than 1300 titles were examined to identify 77 relevant peer-reviewed publications representing more than 500 000 neonates across 36 countries. The estimated birth prevalence of cCMV was 3-fold higher in LMICs than HICs. The higher maternal CMV seroprevalence, higher population-level HIV prevalence, and young maternal age were associated with cCMV rates. Screening methods for cCMV with urine and saliva samples provided higher prevalence rates than screening methods with blood or serum samples.17

Others have attempted to estimate the prevalence of cCMV via systematic literature review, but these studies had limitations.9,106 The first systematic review of the global prevalence of cCMV was published in 2007.9 In this review, only 2 African countries and 1 country in the Southeast Asian region were included (Gambia and Ivory Coast from Africa and Thailand from Southeast Asia) and the risk factors were not systematically evaluated. In 2014, a systematic review of cCMV focusing on developing countries was published.106 Only 2 countries from Africa (Gambia and Ivory Coast) and 1 from Southeast Asia (India) were represented. This review did not evaluate the association of sociodemographic characteristics, maternal seroprevalence, fetal HIV exposure, maternal age, and race/ethnicity with the prevalence of cCMV. Since then, Africa and other LMICs have frequently published on congenital CMV (Figure 3B). Thus, an updated systematic review and meta-analysis is needed to accurately quantify the burden of cCMV to inform prevention, control, and mitigation strategies.

The large numbers of cCMV are a significant public health concern. Congenital CMV is the leading cause of nongenetic hearing loss, adding substantially to disability-adjusted life years.1 In addition, CMV is associated with neonatal sepsis,7,88 a common cause of neonatal death in the developing world, and a disorder associated with significant sequelae, such as postinfectious hydrocephalus and other complications.107 The current guidelines for the treatment of moderate to severe symptomatic cCMV recommends 6 months of valganciclovir.20 However, the safety and cost of valganciclovir limit its use in LMICs. Therefore, children most likely to have cCMV also have the least access to treatment. In addition, children in LMICs are less likely to undergo routine developmental and hearing screening and to have access to interventions should they be found deficient in either of these domains.108 Therefore, cCMV in the LMICs remains an important unmet public health need.

Metaregression analysis revealed that a higher prevalence of HIV infection explained a significant variation in the heterogeneity of the prevalence estimates. HIV and CMV coinfection has been shown to have a synergistic interaction contributing to the higher morbidity and mortality rates in the first year of life of those infected, compared with infants without HIV exposure.109 It is postulated that interaction of HIV-1 and CMV at the maternal-fetal placental interface and exposure to in utero antiretroviral therapy may cause phenotypical and functional immunologic changes in fetuses exposed to HIV, enabling increased cCMV susceptibility and burden in this population.110 The increased rate of cCMV in neonates exposed to HIV may be due to more-frequent CMV reinfection or reactivation in their mothers, the waning of protective immunity, or a reduced transplacental transfer of protective antibodies.32

Current mitigation strategies in LMICs are limited to hygienic precautions and behavioral modification among pregnant women to prevent primary infection or reinfection with a new CMV strain during pregnancy.111 These measures would not be expected to have substantial influences on congenital infections associated with reactivation of maternal CMV during pregnancy. We found that higher maternal seroprevalence is associated with an increased prevalence of cCMV, suggesting that nonprimary infection plays an important role in contributing to the burden of cCMV.112,113 Our results underscore the need for an effective vaccine and treatment strategies that can be administered in LMICs without undue risks of adverse events.114 Measures to facilitate universal neonatal screening to allow for early detection of sensorineural hearing loss and developmental delay are needed.115,116,117,118,119 A long-term neurodevelopmental delay study to assess the true impact of untreated cCMV in LMICs is needed.

Limitations

Several limitations of the study require consideration. Africa and Southeast Asia regions were represented by relatively fewer countries (n = 8). Therefore, interpolating these few countries' estimates to the entire region introduces the potential for substantial selection and detection biases. Within- and between-country disparities in cCMV in sub-Saharan Africa have been observed. However, we used a random-effects model to represent unmodeled errors that could not be accounted for with the regression models used in this report. The very small sample sizes in some countries are another limitation that introduce selection bias and uncertainty. Furthermore, inclusions of limited populations within individual countries introduce a potential bias reflected in substantial differences in cCMV-reported prevalence. Also, symptomatic prevalence ranged widely across studies that could be linked to selection bias, and symptomatic cCMV can vary based on genetic variation of the virus that was not factored into this analysis.120 In addition, CMV detection methods provide varying sensitivity and specificity that could bias the pooled estimates. These limitations should serve as a road map for future studies to better estimate the global health and economic burden of cCMV and maximize capacity building for resource allocation in regions of greatest need.

Conclusions

Congenital CMV is a major public health concern with the burden of infection estimated to be 3-fold greater in LMICs than HICs. It is necessary to better understand the economic burden of cCMV and provide more robust evaluations of health care interventions designed to reduce its incidence and impact. Nationally representative population-based studies, particularly in LMICs, are needed to assess the burden of cCMV in those regions. Region-specific prevention, diagnosis, and treatment options, and community-based education programs are needed to mitigate the incidence of cCMV and its sequelae, particularly in resource-poor settings.

Supplement.

eMethods. Search Terms

eTable 1. Study Level Characteristics

eTable 2. Clinical Signs and Symptoms of cCMV

eFigure 1. PRISMA Diagram

eFigure 2. Maps of WHO Regions and Income Group

eFigure 3. Country-Specific Rates of cCMV in Countries Represented in the Current Meta-analysis

eFigure 4. Screening Methods (Blood vs. Urine or Saliva) for cCMV

eFigure 5. Influence and Outlier (Leave-1-Out Meta-analysis) Analysis for the Birth Prevalence of cCMV

eFigure 6. Funnel Plots to Assess Potential for Small-Study Publication Bias

eFigure 7. Funnel Plots From Trim and Fill Analysis

eReferences

Click here for additional data file. (1.3MB, pdf)

References

  • 1.Buca D, Di Mascio D, Rizzo G, et al. Outcome of fetuses with congenital cytomegalovirus infection and normal ultrasound at diagnosis: systematic review and meta-analysis. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2021;57(4):551-559. doi: 10.1002/uog.23143 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Korndewal MJ, Oudesluys-Murphy AM, Kroes ACM, van der Sande MAB, de Melker HE, Vossen ACTM. Long-term impairment attributable to congenital cytomegalovirus infection: a retrospective cohort study. Dev Med Child Neurol. 2017;59(12):1261-1268. doi: 10.1111/dmcn.13556 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Dollard SC, Grosse SD, Ross DS. New estimates of the prevalence of neurological and sensory sequelae and mortality associated with congenital cytomegalovirus infection. Rev Med Virol. 2007;17(5):355-363. doi: 10.1002/rmv.544 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Goderis J, De Leenheer E, Smets K, Van Hoecke H, Keymeulen A, Dhooge I. Hearing loss and congenital CMV infection: a systematic review. Pediatrics. 2014;134(5):972-982. doi: 10.1542/peds.2014-1173 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Manicklal S, Emery VC, Lazzarotto T, Boppana SB, Gupta RK. The “silent” global burden of congenital cytomegalovirus. Clin Microbiol Rev. 2013;26(1):86-102. doi: 10.1128/CMR.00062-12 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Lantos PM, Maradiaga-Panayotti G, Barber X, et al. Geographic and racial disparities in infant hearing loss. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2018;194599818803305. doi: 10.1177/0194599818803305 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Mwaanza N, Chilukutu L, Tembo J, et al. High rates of congenital cytomegalovirus infection linked with maternal HIV infection among neonatal admissions at a large referral center in sub-Saharan Africa. Clin Infect Dis. 2014;58(5):728-735. doi: 10.1093/cid/cit766 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Puhakka L, Lappalainen M, Lönnqvist T, et al. The burden of congenital cytomegalovirus infection: a prospective cohort study of 20 000 infants in Finland. J Pediatric Infect Dis Soc. 2019;8(3):205-212. doi: 10.1093/jpids/piy027 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Kenneson A, Cannon MJ. Review and meta-analysis of the epidemiology of congenital cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection. Rev Med Virol. 2007;17(4):253-276. doi: 10.1002/rmv.535 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Griffiths PD. Natural history studies bring universal screening for congenital CMV infection closer. Rev Med Virol. 2019;29(4):e2072. doi: 10.1002/rmv.2072 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Lüsebrink N, Kieslich M, Rabenau HF, Schlößer RL, Buxmann H. Retrospectively diagnosing congenital cytomegalovirus infections in symptomatic infants is challenging. Acta Paediatr. 2021;110(1):197-202. doi: 10.1111/apa.15305 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Nagel A, Dimitrakopoulou E, Teig N, et al. Characterization of a universal screening approach for congenital CMV infection based on a highly-sensitive, quantitative, multiplex real-time PCR assay. PLoS One. 2020;15(1):e0227143. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0227143 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Hotez PJ. Neglected infections of poverty in the United States of America. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2008;2(6):e256. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0000256 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.The World Bank . World Bank Country and Lending Groups. World Bank; 2019. [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Stroup DF, Berlin JA, Morton SC, et al. Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology: a proposal for reporting: Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) group. JAMA. 2000;283(15):2008-2012. doi: 10.1001/jama.283.15.2008 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG; PRISMA Group . Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med. 2009;6(7):e1000097. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Boppana SB, Ross SA, Novak Z, et al. ; National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders CMV and Hearing Multicenter Screening (CHIMES) Study . Dried blood spot real-time polymerase chain reaction assays to screen newborns for congenital cytomegalovirus infection. JAMA. 2010;303(14):1375-1382. doi: 10.1001/jama.2010.423 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Pinninti SG, Ross SA, Shimamura M, et al. ; National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders CMV and Hearing Multicenter Screening (CHIMES) Study . Comparison of saliva PCR assay versus rapid culture for detection of congenital cytomegalovirus infection. Pediatr Infect Dis J. 2015;34(5):536-537. doi: 10.1097/INF.0000000000000609 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Kimberlin DW, Jester PM, Sánchez PJ, et al. ; National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Collaborative Antiviral Study Group . Valganciclovir for symptomatic congenital cytomegalovirus disease. N Engl J Med. 2015;372(10):933-943. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1404599 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Rawlinson WD, Boppana SB, Fowler KB, et al. Congenital cytomegalovirus infection in pregnancy and the neonate: consensus recommendations for prevention, diagnosis, and therapy. Lancet Infect Dis. 2017;17(6):e177-e188. doi: 10.1016/S1473-3099(17)30143-3 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Peterson J, Welch V, Losos M, Tugwell P.. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for Assessing the Quality of Nonrandomised Studies in Meta-analyses. Ottawa Hospital Research Institute; 2011. [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Schwarzer G, Chemaitelly H, Abu-Raddad LJ, Rücker G. Seriously misleading results using inverse of Freeman-Tukey double arcsine transformation in meta-analysis of single proportions. Res Synth Methods. 2019;10(3):476-483. doi: 10.1002/jrsm.1348 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Lin L, Chu H. Meta-analysis of proportions using generalized linear mixed models. Epidemiology. 2020;31(5):713-717. doi: 10.1097/EDE.0000000000001232 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Higgins JP, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ, Altman DG. Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ. 2003;327(7414):557-560. doi: 10.1136/bmj.327.7414.557 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Egger M, Davey Smith G, Schneider M, Minder C. Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. BMJ. 1997;315(7109):629-634. doi: 10.1136/bmj.315.7109.629 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Begg CB, Mazumdar M. Operating characteristics of a rank correlation test for publication bias. Biometrics. 1994;50(4):1088-1101. doi: 10.2307/2533446 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Duval S, Tweedie R. Trim and fill: a simple funnel-plot–based method of testing and adjusting for publication bias in meta-analysis. Biometrics. 2000;56(2):455-463. doi: 10.1111/j.0006-341X.2000.00455.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Patsopoulos NA, Evangelou E, Ioannidis JP. Sensitivity of between-study heterogeneity in meta-analysis: proposed metrics and empirical evaluation. Int J Epidemiol. 2008;37(5):1148-1157. doi: 10.1093/ije/dyn065 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Schwarzer G, Carpenter JR, Rücker G. Meta-analysis With R. Springer; 2015. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-21416-0 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.van der Sande MA, Kaye S, Miles DJ, et al. Risk factors for and clinical outcome of congenital cytomegalovirus infection in a peri-urban West-African birth cohort. PLoS One. 2007;2(6):e492. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0000492 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Olusanya BO, Slusher TM, Boppana SB. Prevalence of congenital cytomegalovirus infection in Nigeria: a pilot study. Pediatr Infect Dis J. 2015;34(3):322-324. doi: 10.1097/INF.0000000000000555 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Pathirana J, Groome M, Dorfman J, et al. Prevalence of congenital cytomegalovirus infection and associated risk of in utero human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) acquisition in a high-HIV prevalence setting, South Africa. Clin Infect Dis. 2019;69(10):1789-1796. doi: 10.1093/cid/ciz019 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Madrid L, Varo R, Maculuve S, et al. Congenital cytomegalovirus, parvovirus and enterovirus infection in Mozambican newborns at birth: a cross-sectional survey. PLoS One. 2018;13(3):e0194186. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0194186 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Otieno NA, Nyawanda BO, Otiato F, et al. The impact of maternal HIV and malaria infection on the prevalence of congenital cytomegalovirus infection in Western Kenya. J Clin Virol. 2019;120:33-37. doi: 10.1016/j.jcv.2019.09.007 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Schopfer K, Lauber E, Krech U. Congenital cytomegalovirus infection in newborn infants of mothers infected before pregnancy. Arch Dis Child. 1978;53(7):536-539. doi: 10.1136/adc.53.7.536 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Luchsinger V, Suárez M, Schultz R, et al. Incidence of congenital cytomegalovirus infection in newborn infants of different socioeconomic strata [Spanish]. Rev Med Chil. 1996;124(4):403-408. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Cardoso ES, Jesus BL, Gomes LG, Sousa SM, Gadelha SR, Marin LJ. The use of saliva as a practical and feasible alternative to urine in large-scale screening for congenital cytomegalovirus infection increases inclusion and detection rates. Rev Soc Bras Med Trop. 2015;48(2):206-207. doi: 10.1590/0037-8682-0200-2014 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Yamamoto AY, Mussi-Pinhata MM, Isaac MdeL, et al. Congenital cytomegalovirus infection as a cause of sensorineural hearing loss in a highly immune population. Pediatr Infect Dis J. 2011;30(12):1043-1046. doi: 10.1097/INF.0b013e31822d9640 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Noyola DE, Mejía-Elizondo AR, Canseco-Lima JM, Allende-Carrera R, Hernánsez-Salinas AE, Ramírez-Zacarías JL. Congenital cytomegalovirus infection in San Luis Potosi, Mexico. Pediatr Infect Dis J. 2003;22(1):89-90. doi: 10.1097/00006454-200301000-00022 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Estripeaut D, Moreno Y, Ahumada SR, Martínez A, Racine J, Sáez-Llorens X. Seroprevalence of cytomegalovirus infection in puerperal women and its impact on their newborns. Presented at: Anales de pediatria; Barcelona, Spain; 2007. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Yamamoto AY, Anastasio ART, Massuda ET, et al. Contribution of congenital cytomegalovirus infection to permanent hearing loss in a highly seropositive population: the Brazilian Cytomegalovirus Hearing and Maternal Secondary Infection Study. Clin Infect Dis. 2020;70(7):1379-1384. doi: 10.1093/cid/ciz413 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Yamamoto AY, Mussi-Pinhata MM, Pinto PC, Figueiredo LT, Jorge SM. Usefulness of blood and urine samples collected on filter paper in detecting cytomegalovirus by the polymerase chain reaction technique. J Virol Methods. 2001;97(1-2):159-164. doi: 10.1016/S0166-0934(01)00347-0 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Rico A, Dollard SC, Valencia D, et al. Epidemiology of cytomegalovirus Infection among mothers and infants in Colombia. J Med Virol. Published online January 21, 2021. doi: 10.1002/jmv.26815 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Stagno S, Dworsky ME, Torres J, Mesa T, Hirsh T. Prevalence and importance of congenital cytomegalovirus infection in three different populations. J Pediatr. 1982;101(6):897-900. doi: 10.1016/S0022-3476(82)80006-1 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Fowler KB, Stagno S, Pass RF. Maternal age and congenital cytomegalovirus infection: screening of two diverse newborn populations, 1980-1990. J Infect Dis. 1993;168(3):552-556. doi: 10.1093/infdis/168.3.552 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Boppana SB, Fowler KB, Britt WJ, Stagno S, Pass RF. Symptomatic congenital cytomegalovirus infection in infants born to mothers with preexisting immunity to cytomegalovirus. Pediatrics. 1999;104(1, pt 1):55-60. doi: 10.1542/peds.104.1.55 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Kharrazi M, Hyde T, Young S, Amin MM, Cannon MJ, Dollard SC. Use of screening dried blood spots for estimation of prevalence, risk factors, and birth outcomes of congenital cytomegalovirus infection. J Pediatr. 2010;157(2):191-197. doi: 10.1016/j.jpeds.2010.03.002 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Boppana SB, Ross SA, Shimamura M, et al. ; National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders CHIMES Study . Saliva polymerase-chain-reaction assay for cytomegalovirus screening in newborns. N Engl J Med. 2011;364(22):2111-2118. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1006561 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Dollard SC, Dreon M, Hernandez-Alvarado N, et al. Sensitivity of dried blood spot testing for detection of congenital cytomegalovirus infection. JAMA Pediatr. 2021;175(3):e205441-e205441. doi: 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2020.5441 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Stagno S, Pass RF, Cloud G, et al. Primary cytomegalovirus infection in pregnancy: incidence, transmission to fetus, and clinical outcome. JAMA. 1986;256(14):1904-1908. doi: 10.1001/jama.1986.03380140074025 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Starr JG, Bart RD Jr, Gold E. Inapparent congenital cytomegalovirus infection: clinical and epidemiologic characteristics in early infancy. N Engl J Med. 1970;282(19):1075-1078. doi: 10.1056/NEJM197005072821905 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Birnbaum G, Lynch JI, Maribeth AM, Lonergan WM, Sever JL. Cytomegalovirus infections in newborn infants. J Pediatr. 1969;75(5):789-795. doi: 10.1016/S0022-3476(69)80301-X [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Stagno S, Reynolds DW, Huang E-S, Thames SD, Smith RJ, Alford CA Jr. Congenital cytomegalovirus infection. N Engl J Med. 1977;296(22):1254-1258. doi: 10.1056/NEJM197706022962203 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Melish ME, Hanshaw JB. Congenital cytomegalovirus infection: progress of infants detected by routine screening. AJDC. 1973;126(2):190-194. doi: 10.1001/archpedi.1973.02110190168011 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Larke RP, Wheatley E, Saigal S, Chernesky MA. Congenital cytomegalovirus infection in an urban Canadian community. J Infect Dis. 1980;142(5):647-653. doi: 10.1093/infdis/142.5.647 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Yow MD, Williamson DW, Leeds LJ, et al. Epidemiologic characteristics of cytomegalovirus infection in mothers and their infants. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1988;158(5):1189-1195. doi: 10.1016/0002-9378(88)90252-9 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Embil JA, Macdonald JM, Scott KE. Survey of a neonatal population for the prevalence of cytomegalovirus. Scand J Infect Dis. 1975;7(3):165-167. doi: 10.3109/inf.1975.7.issue-3.02 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Hanshaw JB, Steinfeld HJ, White CJ. Fluorescent-antibody test for cytomegalovirus macroglobulin. N Engl J Med. 1968;279(11):566-570. doi: 10.1056/NEJM196809122791102 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 59.Montgomery JR, Mason EO Jr, Williamson AP, Desmond MM, South MA. Prospective study of congenital cytomegalovirus infection. South Med J. 1980;73(5):590-593, 595. doi: 10.1097/00007611-198005000-00012 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 60.Hildebrandt RJ, Sever JL, Margileth AM, Callagan DA. Cytomegalovirus in the normal pregnant woman. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1967;98(8):1125-1128. doi: 10.1016/0002-9378(67)90038-5 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 61.Karimian P, Yaghini O, Nasr Azadani H, et al. Prevalence, characteristics, and one-year follow-up of congenital cytomegalovirus infection in Isfahan City, Iran. Interdiscip Perspect Infect Dis. 2016;2016:7812106. doi: 10.1155/2016/7812106 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 62.Fahimzad A, Afgeh SA, Eghbali E, Abdinia B, Shiva F, Rahbar M. Screening of congenital CMV infection in saliva of neonates by PCR: report of a pilot screening study in Iran. Clin Lab. 2013;59(9-10):1171-1174. doi: 10.7754/Clin.Lab.2013.120910 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 63.Noorbakhsh S, Farhadi M, Haghighi F, Minaeian S, Hasanabad MH. Neonatal screening for congenital cytomegalovirus infection in Tehran, Iran, using Guthrie cards. Iran J Microbiol. 2020;12(3):198-203. doi: 10.18502/ijm.v12i3.3236 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 64.Schlesinger Y, Halle D, Eidelman AI, et al. Urine polymerase chain reaction as a screening tool for the detection of congenital cytomegalovirus infection. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed. 2003;88(5):F371-F374. doi: 10.1136/fn.88.5.F371 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 65.Barlinn R, Dudman SG, Trogstad L, et al. Maternal and congenital cytomegalovirus infections in a population-based pregnancy cohort study. APMIS. 2018;126(12):899-906. doi: 10.1111/apm.12899 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 66.Sahiner F, Cekmez F, Cetinkaya M, et al. Congenital cytomegalovirus infections and glycoprotein B genotypes in live-born infants: a prevalence study in Turkey. Infect Dis (Lond). 2015;47(7):465-471. doi: 10.3109/23744235.2015.1018316 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 67.Barbi M, Binda S, Caroppo S, et al. Multicity Italian study of congenital cytomegalovirus infection. Pediatr Infect Dis J. 2006;25(2):156-159. doi: 10.1097/01.inf.0000199261.98769.29 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 68.Barbi M, Binda S, Primache V, Clerici D; NEOCMV Group . Congenital cytomegalovirus infection in a northern Italian region. Eur J Epidemiol. 1998;14(8):791-796. doi: 10.1023/A:1007554726449 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 69.Barkai G, Ari-Even Roth D, Barzilai A, et al. Universal neonatal cytomegalovirus screening using saliva—report of clinical experience. J Clin Virol. 2014;60(4):361-366. doi: 10.1016/j.jcv.2014.04.024 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 70.de Vries JJ, Korver AM, Verkerk PH, et al. Congenital cytomegalovirus infection in the Netherlands: birth prevalence and risk factors. J Med Virol. 2011;83(10):1777-1782. doi: 10.1002/jmv.22181 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 71.Foulon I, Naessens A, Foulon W, Casteels A, Gordts F. A 10-year prospective study of sensorineural hearing loss in children with congenital cytomegalovirus infection. J Pediatr. 2008;153(1):84-88. doi: 10.1016/j.jpeds.2007.12.049 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 72.Barkai G, Barzilai A, Mendelson E, Tepperberg-Oikawa M, Roth DA, Kuint J. Newborn screening for congenital cytomegalovirus using real-time polymerase chain reaction in umbilical cord blood. Isr Med Assoc J. 2013;15(6):279-283. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 73.Waters A, Jennings K, Fitzpatrick E, et al. Incidence of congenital cytomegalovirus infection in Ireland: implications for screening and diagnosis. J Clin Virol. 2014;59(3):156-160. doi: 10.1016/j.jcv.2013.12.007 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 74.Halwachs-Baumann G, Genser B, Danda M, et al. Screening and diagnosis of congenital cytomegalovirus infection: a 5-y study. Scand J Infect Dis. 2000;32(2):137-142. doi: 10.1080/003655400750045222 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 75.Paradiž KR, Seme K, Puklavec E, Paro-Panjan D, Poljak M. Prevalence of congenital cytomegalovirus infection in Slovenia: a study on 2,841 newborns. J Med Virol. 2012;84(1):109-115. doi: 10.1002/jmv.22230 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 76.Arapović J, Rajič B, Pati S, et al. Cytomegalovirus seroprevalence and birth prevalence of congenital CMV infection in Bosnia and Herzegovina: a single-center experience. Pediatr Infect Dis J. 2020;39(2):140-144. doi: 10.1097/INF.0000000000002510 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 77.Paixão P, Almeida S, Gouveia P, Vilarinho L, Vaz Osório R. Prevalence of human cytomegalovirus congenital infection in Portuguese newborns. Euro Surveill. 2009;14(9):13-15. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 78.Leruez-Ville M, Magny J-F, Couderc S, et al. Risk factors for congenital cytomegalovirus infection following primary and nonprimary maternal infection: a prospective neonatal screening study using polymerase chain reaction in saliva. Clin Infect Dis. 2017;65(3):398-404. doi: 10.1093/cid/cix337 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 79.Gaytant MA, Galama JM, Semmekrot BA, et al. The incidence of congenital cytomegalovirus infections in the Netherlands. J Med Virol. 2005;76(1):71-75. doi: 10.1002/jmv.20325 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 80.Engman M-L, Malm G, Engström L, et al. Congenital CMV infection: prevalence in newborns and the impact on hearing deficit. Scand J Infect Dis. 2008;40(11-12):935-942. doi: 10.1080/00365540802308431 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 81.Griffiths PD, Baboonian C, Rutter D, Peckham C. Congenital and maternal cytomegalovirus infections in a London population. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1991;98(2):135-140. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.1991.tb13358.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 82.Ahlfors K, Ivarsson S-A, Harris S, et al. Congenital cytomegalovirus infection and disease in Sweden and the relative importance of primary and secondary maternal infections: preliminary findings from a prospective study. Scand J Infect Dis. 1984;16(2):129-137. doi: 10.3109/00365548409087131 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 83.Andersen HK, Brostrøm K, Hansen KB, et al. A prospective study on the incidence and significance of congenital cytomegalovirus infection. Acta Paediatr Scand. 1979;68(3):329-336. doi: 10.1111/j.1651-2227.1979.tb05015.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 84.Stern H, Tucker SM. Prospective study of cytomegalovirus infection in pregnancy. BMJ. 1973;2(5861):268-270. doi: 10.1136/bmj.2.5861.268 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 85.Peckham CS, Chin KS, Coleman JC, Henderson K, Hurley R, Preece PM. Cytomegalovirus infection in pregnancy: preliminary findings from a prospective study. Lancet. 1983;1(8338):1352-1355. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(83)92138-4 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 86.Leinikki P, Granström M-L, Santavuori P, Pettay O. Epidemiology of cytomegalovirus infections during pregnancy and infancy: a prospective study. Scand J Infect Dis. 1978;10(3):165-171. doi: 10.3109/inf.1978.10.issue-3.02 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 87.Dar L, Pati SK, Patro ARK, et al. Congenital cytomegalovirus infection in a highly seropositive semi-urban population in India. Pediatr Infect Dis J. 2008;27(9):841-843. doi: 10.1097/INF.0b013e3181723d55 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 88.Viswanathan R, Bafna S, Mergu R, et al. Direct saliva real-time polymerase chain reaction assay shows low birth prevalence of congenital cytomegalovirus infection in urban western India. Pediatr Infect Dis J. 2019;38(4):e65-e68. doi: 10.1097/INF.0000000000002094 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 89.Putri ND, Wiyatno A, Dhenni R, et al. Birth prevalence and characteristics of congenital cytomegalovirus infection in an urban birth cohort, Jakarta, Indonesia. Int J Infect Dis. 2019;86:31-39. doi: 10.1016/j.ijid.2019.06.009 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 90.Moteki H, Isaka Y, Inaba Y, et al. A rational approach to identifying newborns with hearing loss caused by congenital cytomegalovirus infection by dried blood spot screening. Acta Otolaryngol. 2018;138(8):708-712. doi: 10.1080/00016489.2018.1441545 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 91.Zhang X-W, Li F, Yu X-W, Shi X-W, Shi J, Zhang J-P. Physical and intellectual development in children with asymptomatic congenital cytomegalovirus infection: a longitudinal cohort study in Qinba mountain area, China. J Clin Virol. 2007;40(3):180-185. doi: 10.1016/j.jcv.2007.08.018 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 92.Tsai CH, Tsai FJ, Shih YT, Wu SF, Liu SC, Tseng YH. Detection of congenital cytomegalovirus infection in Chinese newborn infants using polymerase chain reaction. Acta Paediatr. 1996;85(10):1241-1243. doi: 10.1111/j.1651-2227.1996.tb18237.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 93.Sohn YM, Park KI, Lee C, Han DG, Lee WY. Congenital cytomegalovirus infection in Korean population with very high prevalence of maternal immunity. J Korean Med Sci. 1992;7(1):47-51. doi: 10.3346/jkms.1992.7.1.47 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 94.Wang S, Wang T, Zhang W, et al. Cohort study on maternal cytomegalovirus seroprevalence and prevalence and clinical manifestations of congenital infection in China. Medicine (Baltimore). 2017;96(5):e6007. doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000006007 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 95.Yamada H, Tanimura K, Fukushima S, et al. A cohort study of the universal neonatal urine screening for congenital cytomegalovirus infection. J Infect Chemother. 2020;26(8):790-794. doi: 10.1016/j.jiac.2020.03.009 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 96.Koyano S, Inoue N, Oka A, et al. ; Japanese Congenital Cytomegalovirus Study Group . Screening for congenital cytomegalovirus infection using newborn urine samples collected on filter paper: feasibility and outcomes from a multicentre study. BMJ Open. 2011;1(1):e000118. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2011-000118 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 97.Numazaki K, Fujikawa T. Chronological changes of incidence and prognosis of children with asymptomatic congenital cytomegalovirus infection in Sapporo, Japan. BMC Infect Dis. 2004;4(1):22. doi: 10.1186/1471-2334-4-22 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 98.Endo T, Goto K, Ito K, et al. Detection of congenital cytomegalovirus infection using umbilical cord blood samples in a screening survey. J Med Virol. 2009;81(10):1773-1776. doi: 10.1002/jmv.21594 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 99.Uchida A, Tanimura K, Morizane M, et al. Clinical factors associated with congenital cytomegalovirus infection: a cohort study of pregnant women and newborns. Clinical Infectious Diseases. 2020;71(11):2833-2839. doi: 10.1093/cid/ciz1156 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 100.Yamaguchi A, Oh-Ishi T, Arai T, et al. Screening for seemingly healthy newborns with congenital cytomegalovirus infection by quantitative real-time polymerase chain reaction using newborn urine: an observational study. BMJ Open. 2017;7(1):e013810. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2016-013810 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 101.Torii Y, Yoshida S, Yanase Y, et al. Serological screening of immunoglobulin M and immunoglobulin G during pregnancy for predicting congenital cytomegalovirus infection. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2019;19(1):205. doi: 10.1186/s12884-019-2360-1 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 102.Yamagishi Y, Miyagawa H, Wada K, et al. CMV DNA detection in dried blood spots for diagnosing congenital CMV infection in Japan. J Med Virol. 2006;78(7):923-925. doi: 10.1002/jmv.20642 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 103.Kamada M, Komori A, Chiba S, Nakao T. A prospective study of congenital cytomegalovirus infection in Japan. Scand J Infect Dis. 1983;15(3):227-232. doi: 10.3109/inf.1983.15.issue-3.01 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 104.Pellegrinelli L, Alberti L, Pariani E, Barbi M, Binda S. Diagnosing congenital cytomegalovirus infection: don’t get rid of dried blood spots. BMC Infect Dis. 2020;20(1):217. doi: 10.1186/s12879-020-4941-z [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 105.Viechtbauer W, Cheung MWL. Outlier and influence diagnostics for meta-analysis. Res Synth Methods. 2010;1(2):112-125. doi: 10.1002/jrsm.11 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 106.Lanzieri TM, Dollard SC, Bialek SR, Grosse SD. Systematic review of the birth prevalence of congenital cytomegalovirus infection in developing countries. Int J Infect Dis. 2014;22:44-48. doi: 10.1016/j.ijid.2013.12.010 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 107.Paulson JN, Williams BL, Hehnly C, et al. Paenibacillus infection with frequent viral coinfection contributes to postinfectious hydrocephalus in Ugandan infants. Sci Transl Med. 2020;12(563):eaba0565. doi: 10.1126/scitranslmed.aba0565 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 108.Olusanya BO, Luxon LM, Wirz SL. Benefits and challenges of newborn hearing screening for developing countries. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 2004;68(3):287-305. doi: 10.1016/j.ijporl.2003.10.015 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 109.Falconer O, Newell M-L, Jones CE. The effect of human immunodeficiency virus and cytomegalovirus infection on infant responses to vaccines: a review. Front Immunol. 2018;9:328. doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2018.00328 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 110.Afran L, Garcia Knight M, Nduati E, Urban BC, Heyderman RS, Rowland-Jones SL. HIV-exposed uninfected children: a growing population with a vulnerable immune system? Clin Exp Immunol. 2014;176(1):11-22. doi: 10.1111/cei.12251 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 111.Barber V, Calvert A, Vandrevala T, et al. Prevention of acquisition of cytomegalovirus infection in pregnancy through hygiene-based behavioral interventions: a systematic review and gap analysis. Pediatr Infect Dis J. 2020;39(10):949-954. doi: 10.1097/INF.0000000000002763 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 112.Mack I, Burckhardt MA, Heininger U, Prüfer F, Schulzke S, Wellmann S. Symptomatic congenital cytomegalovirus infection in children of seropositive women. Front Pediatr. 2017;5:134. doi: 10.3389/fped.2017.00134 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 113.Coppola T, Mangold JF, Cantrell S, Permar SR. Impact of maternal immunity on congenital cytomegalovirus birth prevalence and infant outcomes: a systematic review. Vaccines (Basel). 2019;7(4):E129. doi: 10.3390/vaccines7040129 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 114.Rozhnova G, E Kretzschmar M, van der Klis F, et al. Short- and long-term impact of vaccination against cytomegalovirus: a modeling study. BMC Med. 2020;18(1):174. doi: 10.1186/s12916-020-01629-3 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 115.Adler SP, Finney JW, Manganello AM, Best AM. Prevention of child-to-mother transmission of cytomegalovirus by changing behaviors: a randomized controlled trial. Pediatr Infect Dis J. 1996;15(3):240-246. doi: 10.1097/00006454-199603000-00013 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 116.Revello MG, Tibaldi C, Masuelli G, et al. ; CCPE Study Group . Prevention of primary cytomegalovirus infection in pregnancy. EBioMedicine. 2015;2(9):1205-1210. doi: 10.1016/j.ebiom.2015.08.003 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 117.Vauloup-Fellous C, Picone O, Cordier A-G, et al. Does hygiene counseling have an impact on the rate of CMV primary infection during pregnancy? results of a 3-year prospective study in a French hospital. J Clin Virol. 2009;46(suppl 4):S49-S53. doi: 10.1016/j.jcv.2009.09.003 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 118.Adler SP, Finney JW, Manganello AM, Best AM. Prevention of child-to-mother transmission of cytomegalovirus among pregnant women. J Pediatr. 2004;145(4):485-491. doi: 10.1016/j.jpeds.2004.05.041 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 119.Cannon MJ, Stowell JD, Clark R, et al. Repeated measures study of weekly and daily cytomegalovirus shedding patterns in saliva and urine of healthy cytomegalovirus-seropositive children. BMC Infect Dis. 2014;14(1):569. doi: 10.1186/s12879-014-0569-1 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 120.Dobbins GC, Patki A, Chen D, et al. Association of CMV genomic mutations with symptomatic infection and hearing loss in congenital CMV infection. BMC Infect Dis. 2019;19(1):1046. doi: 10.1186/s12879-019-4681-0 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Supplementary Materials

Supplement.

eMethods. Search Terms

eTable 1. Study Level Characteristics

eTable 2. Clinical Signs and Symptoms of cCMV

eFigure 1. PRISMA Diagram

eFigure 2. Maps of WHO Regions and Income Group

eFigure 3. Country-Specific Rates of cCMV in Countries Represented in the Current Meta-analysis

eFigure 4. Screening Methods (Blood vs. Urine or Saliva) for cCMV

eFigure 5. Influence and Outlier (Leave-1-Out Meta-analysis) Analysis for the Birth Prevalence of cCMV

eFigure 6. Funnel Plots to Assess Potential for Small-Study Publication Bias

eFigure 7. Funnel Plots From Trim and Fill Analysis

eReferences

Click here for additional data file. (1.3MB, pdf)

Articles from JAMA Network Open are provided here courtesy of American Medical Association

RESOURCES