Zika Virus Infection Among Pregnant Women and Their Neonates in New York City, January 2016–June 2017

• Published in: Obstetrics and gynecology (New York. 1953) Vol. 132; no. 2; pp. 487 - 495
• Main Authors: Conners, Erin E, Lee, Ellen H, Thompson, Corinne N, McGibbon, Emily, Rakeman, Jennifer L, Iwamoto, Martha, Cooper, Hannah, Vora, Neil M, Limberger, Ronald J, Fine, Anne D, Liu, Dakai, Slavinski, Sally
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: United States by The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved 01.08.2018
• ISSN: 0029-7844; 1873-233X
• DOI: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000002737

OBJECTIVE:To describe and compare differences in the epidemiologic, clinical, and laboratory characteristics of pregnant women with confirmed or probable Zika virus infection and to compare the risk of having a neonate with laboratory evidence of Zika virus infection with that of having a neonate without evidence of Zika virus infection by maternal characteristics. METHODS:We conducted a retrospective cohort study of women with Zika virus infection who completed pregnancy in New York City from January 1, 2016 to June 30, 2017. Confirmed Zika virus infection was defined as 1) nucleic acid amplification test–detected Zika virus, or 2) a nonnegative enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay test result and a plaque-reduction neutralization test result positive for Zika virus but negative for dengue virus, or 3) delivery of a neonate with laboratory evidence of Zika virus infection. Probable infection was defined as a nonnegative enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay test result and a positive plaque-reduction neutralization test result for Zika virus and dengue virus. RESULTS:We identified 390 women with confirmed (28%) or probable (72%) Zika virus infection. Fever, rash, arthralgia, or conjunctivitis was reported by 31% of women and were more common among women with confirmed than with probable infection (43% vs 26%, P=.001). Of 366 neonates born to these women, 295 (81%) were tested for Zika virus and 22 (7%) had laboratory-diagnosed congenital Zika virus infection. The relative risk (RR) for having a neonate with laboratory evidence of Zika virus infection was greater among women with fever (RR 4.8, 95% CI 2.1–10.7), tingling (RR 4.8, CI 1.7–13.7), or numbness (RR 6.9, CI 2.6–18.2) during pregnancy or the periconception period. However, the RR did not differ whether the mother had confirmed or probable Zika virus infection (RR 1.6, CI 0.7–4.1). CONCLUSION:In New York City, a greater proportion of women had probable Zika virus infection than confirmed infection. Women with some symptoms during pregnancy or periconceptionally were more likely to have a neonate with laboratory evidence of Zika virus infection. Neonates born to women with confirmed or probable Zika virus infection should be tested for Zika virus infection.