Skip directly to site content Skip directly to page options Skip directly to A-Z link Skip directly to A-Z link Skip directly to A-Z link
Volume 24, Number 1—January 2018
Dispatch

Expected Duration of Adverse Pregnancy Outcomes after Zika Epidemic

Rosalind M. EggoComments to Author  and Adam J. Kucharski
Author affiliations: London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK

Main Article

Figure 1

Relationship between Zika virus infection and expected related APOs per 1,000 pregnancies in Brazil during April 2015–July 2017. A) Percentage of APOs (fetal loss at any gestational age, stillbirth, neonatal abnormality) given symptomatic PCR-confirmed Zika virus infection. Points show weekly proportion with APO (4); red line indicates fit to data with a generalized linear model, and shading indicates 95% CIs; dashed line indicates fixed risk in first trimester only (5). B–J) Blue lines indicate

Figure 1. Relationship between Zika virus infection and expected related APOs per 1,000 pregnancies in Brazil during April 2015–July 2017. A) Percentage of APOs (fetal loss at any gestational age, stillbirth, neonatal abnormality) given symptomatic PCR-confirmed Zika virus infection. Points show weekly proportion with APO (4); red line indicates fit to data with a generalized linear model, and shading indicates 95% CIs; dashed line indicates fixed risk in first trimester only (5). B–J) Blue lines indicate suspected Zika cases in different regions; red lines indicate expected number of births with Zika-associated APO in subsequent weeks based on the 2 risk distributions in panel A. Shaded regions indicate 95% CIs. Model assumes 17% of Zika virus infections are reported (5,6). APO, adverse pregnancy outcome.

Main Article

References
  1. Kleber de Oliveira  W, Cortez-Escalante  J, De Oliveira  WTGH, do Carmo  GMI, Henriques  CMP, Coelho  GE, et al. Increase in reported prevalence of microcephaly in infants born to women living in areas with confirmed Zika virus transmission during the first trimester of pregnancy—Brazil, 2015. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2016;65:242–7. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Johansson  MA, Mier-y-Teran-Romero  L, Reefhuis  J, Gilboa  SM, Hills  SL. Zika and the risk of microcephaly. [Erratum in: N Engl J Med. 2016;375:498]. N Engl J Med. 2016;375:1–4. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. França  GVA, Schuler-Faccini  L, Oliveira  WK, Henriques  CMP, Carmo  EH, Pedi  VD, et al. Congenital Zika virus syndrome in Brazil: a case series of the first 1501 livebirths with complete investigation. Lancet. 2016;388:891–7. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Brasil  P, Pereira  JP Jr, Moreira  ME, Ribeiro Nogueira  RM, Damasceno  L, Wakimoto  M, et al. Zika virus infection in pregnant women in Rio de Janeiro. N Engl J Med. 2016;375:2321–34. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Cauchemez  S, Besnard  M, Bompard  P, Dub  T, Guillemette-Artur  P, Eyrolle-Guignot  D, et al. Association between Zika virus and microcephaly in French Polynesia, 2013-15: a retrospective study. Lancet. 2016;387:2125–32. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Kucharski  AJ, Funk  S, Eggo  RM, Mallet  H-P, Edmunds  WJ, Nilles  EJ. Transmission dynamics of Zika virus in island populations: a modelling analysis of the 2013–14 French Polynesia outbreak. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2016;10:e0004726. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Martinez  ME. Preventing Zika virus infection during pregnancy using a seasonal window of opportunity for conception. PLoS Biol. 2016;14:e1002520. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Duffy  MR, Chen  T-H, Hancock  WT, Powers  AM, Kool  JL, Lanciotti  RS, et al. Zika virus outbreak on Yap Island, Federated States of Micronesia. N Engl J Med. 2009;360:2536–43. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Honein  MA, Dawson  AL, Petersen  EE, Jones  AM, Lee  EH, Yazdy  MM, et al.; US Zika Pregnancy Registry Collaboration. Birth defects among fetuses and infants of US women with evidence of possible Zika virus infection during pregnancy. JAMA. 2017;317:59–68. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. van der Linden  V, Pessoa  A, Dobyns  W, Barkovich  AJ, Júnior  HV, Filho  ELR, et al. Description of 13 infants born during October 2015–January 2016 with congenital Zika virus infection without microcephaly at birth—Brazil. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2016;65:1343–8. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Pacheco  O, Beltrán  M, Nelson  CA, Valencia  D, Tolosa  N, Farr  SL, et al. Zika virus disease in Colombia—preliminary report. N Engl J Med. 2016;NEJMoa1604037. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. de Oliveira  WK, Carmo  EH, Henriques  CM, Coelho  G, Vazquez  E, Cortez-Escalante  J, et al. Zika virus infection and associated neurologic disorders in Brazil. N Engl J Med. 2017;376:1591–3. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Brito  CA, Brito  CC, Oliveira  AC, Rocha  M, Atanásio  C, Asfora  C, et al. Zika in Pernambuco: rewriting the first outbreak. Rev Soc Bras Med Trop. 2016;49:553–8. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Reefhuis  J, Gilboa  SM, Johansson  MA, Valencia  D, Simeone  RM, Hills  SL, et al. Projecting month of birth for at-risk infants after Zika virus disease outbreaks. Emerg Infect Dis. 2016;22:828–32. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Aragao  MFVV, Holanda  AC, Brainer-Lima  AM, Petribu  NCL, Castillo  M, van der Linden  V, et al. Nonmicrocephalic infants with congenital Zika syndrome suspected only after neuroimaging evaluation compared with those with microcephaly at birth and postnatally: how large is the Zika virus “iceberg”? AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2017;38:1427–34. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar

Main Article

Page created: December 19, 2017
Page updated: December 19, 2017
Page reviewed: December 19, 2017
The conclusions, findings, and opinions expressed by authors contributing to this journal do not necessarily reflect the official position of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, the Public Health Service, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, or the authors' affiliated institutions. Use of trade names is for identification only and does not imply endorsement by any of the groups named above.
file_external