PLoS ONE (Jan 2021)

Vertical transmission of chikungunya virus: A systematic review.

  • Fátima Cristiane Pinho de Almeida Di Maio Ferreira,
  • Anamaria Szrajbman Vaz da Silva,
  • Judith Recht,
  • Lusiele Guaraldo,
  • Maria Elisabeth Lopes Moreira,
  • André Machado de Siqueira,
  • Patrick Gerardin,
  • Patrícia Brasil

DOI
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0249166
Journal volume & issue
Vol. 16, no. 4
p. e0249166

Abstract

Read online

ObjectivesTo describe and estimate the frequency of pregnancy outcomes, clinical and laboratory characteristics of vertical transmission of CHIKV in the neonate.Study designWe performed a systematic review evaluating the clinical presentation of perinatally-acquired CHIKV infection in neonates. The search was performed using Medline (via PubMed), LILACS, Web of Science, Scielo, Google Scholar and Open grey to identify studies assessing vertical transmission of CHIKV up to November 3, 2020. There were no search restrictions regarding the study type, the publication date or language. Studies with no documented evidence of CHIKV infection in neonates (negative RT-PCR or absence of IgM) were excluded.ResultsFrom the 227 studies initially identified, 42 were selected as follows: 28 case reports, 7 case series, 2 cross-sectional studies and 5 cohort studies, for a total of 266 CHIKV infected neonates confirmed by serological and/or molecular tests. The vertical transmission rate was 50% in the Reunion Island outbreak, which was the subject of the majority of the studies; the premature delivery were reported in 19 (45.2%) studies; the rate of fetal distress was 19.6% of infected babies and fetal loss occurred in 2% of the cases. Approximately 68.7% of newborns were diagnosed with encephalopathy or encephalitis after perinatally acquired CHIKV. Most of the infected neonates were born healthy, developing CHIKV sepsis clinical syndrome within the first week of life.ConclusionsWe alert neonatologists to the late manifestations of neonatal CHIKV infection, relevant to the management and reduction of morbidity. A limitation of our review was that it was not possible to carry out meta-analysis due to differences in study design and the small number of participants.