Background We previously reported a 2.2% rate of infants born with sensorineural hearing loss (SNHL) due to congenital cytomegalovirus (cCMV) infection identified by universal neonatal screen for cCMV using saliva.
Objective To evaluate the contribution of targeted saliva screening for cCMV to the detection of infants born with cCMV-related SNHL who failed universal newborn hearing screening (UNHS).
Methods We retrospectively reviewed the audiological and medical records of infants who failed UNHS and were tested for cCMV using saliva sample prior to discharge at Sheba Medical Center between 2014 and 2015. Positive cases were confirmed by urine sample.
Results Two hundred (1%) of the 19 830 infants tested during the study period failed in-hospital hearing screening. A saliva specimen was obtained prior to discharge in 187 infants (93.5% of those who failed UNHS). In 178 infants saliva testing was performed at ≤21 days of chronological age and yielded results. cCMV infection was identified in 4/178 tested infants (2.25%, 95% CI 0.8% to 5.3%), of whom three were diagnosed with SNHL (1.7%, 95% CI 0.5% to 4.4%) and offered antiviral treatment. Two of the tested infants (1.12%, 95% CI 0.2% to 3.6%) were diagnosed with cCMV solely due to failure in UNHS. Occult central nervous system (CNS) symptoms of cCMV infection were detected in 2/4 infants following targeted investigation.
Conclusions Targeted cCMV screening in newborns who failed UNHS contributed to the early detection of infants born with cCMV-related isolated SNHL or with occult CNS symptoms who could potentially benefit from antiviral treatment.
Statistics from Altmetric.com
If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.
Contributors DAER conceptualised and designed the study, including data acquisition and analysis, drafted the initial draft of the manuscript and revised the manuscript. DL made a significant contribution to the conception of the study and revised the manuscript. JK critically revised the draft for important intellectual content and revised the manuscript. MT collected data, participated in the interpretation of the data and revised the manuscript. EM and TS participated in the interpretation of the data and revised the manuscript. GB conceptualised and designed the study, conducted data analysis and revised the manuscript. All authors approved the final submitted manuscript.
Competing interests None declared.
Ethics approval Institutional review board of the Sheba Medical Center.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.