| Literature DB >> 34452535 |
Evangelia Antoniou1, Eirini Orovou1, Paraskevi Eva Andronikidi2, Christos Orovas3, Nikolaos Rigas1, Ermioni Palaska1, Angeliki Sarella1, Georgios Iatrakis1, Chrysa Voyiatzaki4.
Abstract
It was late 2015 when Northeast Brazil noticed a worrying increase in neonates born with microcephaly and other congenital malformations. These abnormalities, characterized by an abnormally small head and often neurological impairment and later termed Congenital Zika Syndrome, describe the severity of neurodevelopmental and nephrological outcomes in early childhood, and the implication of microcephaly at birth. The purpose of the study was to describe the neurodevelopmental outcomes in children exposed to Zika virus during fetal life, with and without microcephaly at birth. The systematic review included research studies about the neurodevelopmental outcomes with and without microcephaly, as well as nephrological outcomes in early childhood. We searched PubMed, Crossref, PsycINFO, Scopus, and Google Scholar publications and selected 19 research articles published from 2018 to 2021. Most studies have linked the severity of microcephaly in childbirth to the neurodevelopmental and urinary outcomes in early childhood. However, most children without microcephaly at birth develop typically, while others may be at risk for language impairment.Entities:
Keywords: Zika virus infection; congenital Zika infection and neurodevelopment outcomes; congenital Zika infection and neurological outcomes; congenital Zika infection and urinary tract disorders; congenital Zika syndrome
Mesh:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34452535 PMCID: PMC8402620 DOI: 10.3390/v13081671
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Viruses ISSN: 1999-4915 Impact factor: 5.048
Figure 1Flow chart-Structure Search Strategy.
Evaluation of surveying methodological quality.
| Author/Year | Selection | Comparability | Result | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1.Wheather (2020) [ | * - * * | * * | * * * | 8 |
| 2. Pereira (2020) [ | * - * * | * * | * * * | 8 |
| 3. Pecanha (2020) [ | * - * * | * * | * * * | 8 |
| 4. Mulkey (2020) [ | * - * * | - * | * * * | 7 |
| 5. Ferreira (2018) [ | * - * * | * * | * * * | 8 |
| 6. Carvalho (2019) [ | * - * * | - * | * * * | 7 |
| 7. Bertolli (2020) [ | * - * * | * * | * * * | 8 |
| 8. Silva (2020) [ | * - * * | - * | * * * | 7 |
| 9. Cranston (2020) [ | * - * * | - * | * * * | 7 |
| 10. Garcia-Boyano (2020) [ | * - * * | * * | * * * | 8 |
| 11. Quilião (2020) [ | * - * * | - * | * * * | 7 |
| 12. Ticona (2021) [ | * - * * | * * | * * * | 8 |
| 13. Hcini (2021) [ | * - * * | - * | * * * | 8 |
| 14. Abtibol-Bernardino (2020) [ | * - * * | * * | * * * | 8 |
| 15. Costa Monteiro (2018) [ | * - * * | - * | * * * | 7 |
| 16. Costa Monteiro (2019) [ | * - * * | - * | * * * | 7 |
| 17. de Medeiros (2021) [ | * - * * | * * | * * * | 8 |
| 18. Villamil-Gómez (2019) [ | - - * - | - * | * * * | 5 |
| 19. Liu (2019) [ | - - ** | - * | * * * | 6 |
Notes: 1. Representative exposure sample; 2. selection of non-exposed; 3. exposure finding; 4. outcome did not precede the study; 5. adaptation for mother’s educational level; 6. adaptation for additional confounding factor; 7. outcome evaluation; 8. adequate monitoring time; 9. non-bias of wear. The symbol (*) means that the study met the specific criterion and the symbol (-) means that the study did not meet it.
Studies included in the review.
| Author/ | Design | Start– | N | Population Characteristics | Data/ | Outcome |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1.Wheather (2020) [ | longitudinal study | January 2018–Still on going | 121 | 2.5–3 years old | Rehabilitation center | Profound delays in all |
| 2. Pereira (2020) [ | Cohort | November 2015–2017 | 75 | 26–40 months of age | Instituto de Pesquisa | Neurological outcomes |
| 3. Pecanha (2020) [ | Cohort | May 2016 and January 2018 | 84 | 2 years old | Instituto Fernandes Figueira | Neurodevelopmental |
| 4. Mulkey (2020) [ | Cohort study | 1August, 2016– | 70 | 18 months of age | National Medical Center | Neurodevelopmental |
| 5. Ferreira (2018) [ | Cross- | September 2017– | 34 | 21 months | Four rehabilitation facilities | Neurodevelopmental |
| 6. Carvalho (2019) [ | Cohort study | July 2015– | 69 | 23–32 months of age | Neurorehabilitation Hospital | Neurological outcomes |
| 7. Bertolli (2020) [ | Cohort study | July 2017– | 120 | 19–26 months of age | The Brazilian Ministry of Health | Neurological outcomes |
| 8. Silva (2020) [ | Cross- | February 2017– | 219 | 10–45 months of age | Two Tertiary Hospitals | Neurological outcomes |
| 9. Cranston (2020) [ | Retrospective cohort study | May 2019– | 219 | 6–42 months of age | Instituto Fernandes Figueira | Neurological outcomes |
| 10. Garcia-Boyano (2020) [ | Cohort | March 2016– | 21 | 23.6 months of age | Pediatric Hospital | Neurological outcomes |
| 11. Quilião (2020) [ | Cohort study | October 2018– | 11 | 36 months median age CZS | University of Mato Grosso do Sul | Neurological outcomes |
| 12. Ticona (2021) [ | Cohort study | January 2015– | 46 | 11–32 months of age | Hospital | Neurodevelopmental |
| 13. Hcini (2021) [ | Cohort study | January 2016– | 129 | 3 years of age | Pediatric clinic | Neurodevelopmental |
| 14. Abtibol-Bernardino (2020) [ | Cohort study | 2006–2008 | 26 | 25–42 months of age | Tropical Medicine Foundation | Neurodevelopmental |
| 15. Costa Monteiro (2018) [ | Cohort study | June 2016– | 22 | 9.8 months mean age | CZS clinics | Urinary track Disorders |
| 16. Costa Monteiro (2019) [ | Cohort study | June 2016–May 2018 | 69 | 13.6 months of age | Referral center | Urinary track Disorders |
| 17. de Medeiros Francilai de Campos (2021) [ | Cross- | January 2019– | 33 | 35–47 months of age | Center for urinary | Urinary track Disorders |
| 18. Villamil-Gómez (2019) [ | Case report | February 2017 | 1 | 16 weeks of gestation | University Hospital | Urinary track Disorders |
| 19. Liu (2019) [ | Clinical study | February 2016 | - | Newborn and adult mice | Sun Yat-sen University | Urinary track Disorders |
Notes: We defined “exposed children” as those whose mothers were infected by Zika virus during the prenatal period. We defined “infected children” as those whose infection during the perinatal period was confirmed by laboratory and anthropometric tests after birth. We defined “microcephaly” as head circumference smaller than 2 SDs, depending on the sex and age and its anthropometric feature of CZS. As an outcome, we analyzed the neurodevelopmental profound delays in all of the domains (motor, visual, language, cognitive), the neurological (epilepsy, celebral palsy, dystonia, persistence of primitive reflexes, dysphagia, spasticity, hyperreflexia, hearing loss), and the urinary (urinary tract infections, neurogenic bladder, multicystic dysplastic kidney disease, kidney stone) profile in all intrauterines exposed to Zika virus children.
Figure 2Neurological, neurodevelopmental, and urinary track outcomes in intrauterine exposed to Zika virus children.