Estimating the Number of Pregnant Women Infected With Zika Virus and Expected Infants With Microcephaly Following the Zika Virus Outbreak in Puerto Rico, 2016 | Congenital Defects | JAMA Pediatrics | JAMA Network
Our website uses cookies to enhance your experience. By continuing to use our site, or clicking "Continue," you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy | Continue
[Skip to Navigation]
Access to paid content on this site is currently suspended due to excessive activity being detected from your IP address 34.204.186.91. Please contact the publisher to request reinstatement.
JAMA Network Home
JAMA Pediatrics
full text icon
Full Text
 contents icon
Contents
 figure icon
Figures /
Tables
 multimedia icon
Multimedia
 attach icon
Supplemental
Content
 references icon
References
 related icon
Related
 comments icon
Comments
1.
Brasil  P, Pereira  JP  Jr, Raja Gabaglia  C,  et al.  Zika virus infection in pregnant women in Rio de Janeiro: preliminary report [published online March 4, 2016].  N Engl J Med.PubMedGoogle Scholar
2.
Calvet  G, Aguiar  RS, Melo  AS,  et al.  Detection and sequencing of Zika virus from amniotic fluid of fetuses with microcephaly in Brazil: a case study.  Lancet Infect Dis. 2016;16(6):653-660.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
3.
de Paula Freitas  B, de Oliveira Dias  JR, Prazeres  J,  et al.  Ocular findings in infants with microcephaly associated with presumed Zika virus congenital infection in Salvador, Brazil [published online February 9, 2016].  JAMA Ophthalmol. doi:10.1001/jamaophthalmol.2016.0267.PubMedGoogle Scholar
4.
Driggers  RW, Ho  CY, Korhonen  EM,  et al.  Zika virus infection with prolonged maternal viremia and fetal brain abnormalities.  N Engl J Med. 2016;374(22):2142-2151.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
5.
Hazin  AN, Poretti  A, Turchi Martelli  CM,  et al; Microcephaly Epidemic Research Group.  Computed tomographic findings in microcephaly associated with Zika virus.  N Engl J Med. 2016;374(22):2193-2195.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
6.
Mlakar  J, Korva  M, Tul  N,  et al.  Zika virus associated with microcephaly.  N Engl J Med. 2016;374(10):951-958.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
7.
Oliveira Melo  AS, Malinger  G, Ximenes  R, Szejnfeld  PO, Alves Sampaio  S, Bispo de Filippis  AM.  Zika virus intrauterine infection causes fetal brain abnormality and microcephaly: tip of the iceberg?  Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2016;47(1):6-7.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
8.
Sarno  M, Sacramento  GA, Khouri  R,  et al.  Zika virus infection and stillbirths: a case of hydrops fetalis, hydranencephaly and fetal demise.  PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2016;10(2):e0004517.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
9.
Ventura  CV, Maia  M, Bravo-Filho  V, Góis  AL, Belfort  R  Jr.  Zika virus in Brazil and macular atrophy in a child with microcephaly.  Lancet. 2016;387(10015):228.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
10.
Rasmussen  SA, Jamieson  DJ, Honein  MA, Petersen  LR.  Zika virus and birth defects: reviewing the evidence for causality.  N Engl J Med. 2016;374(20):1981-1987.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
11.
 Zika virus outbreaks in the Americas.  Wkly Epidemiol Rec. 2015;90(45):609-610.PubMedGoogle Scholar
12.
Dirlikov  E.  Notes from the field: imported cases of malaria: Puerto Rico, July-October 2015.  MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2016;65(12):326-327. PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
13.
Tepper  NK, Goldberg  HI, Bernal  MI,  et al.  Estimating contraceptive needs and increasing access to contraception in response to the Zika virus disease outbreak: Puerto Rico, 2016.  MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2016;65(12):311-314.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
14.
Estado Libre Asociado De Puerto Rico Departamento de Salud. Informe semanal de enfermedades arbovirales. http://www.salud.gov.pr/Estadisticas-Registros-y-Publicaciones/Pages/Informe-Arboviral.aspx. Published 2016. Accessed August 5, 2016.
15.
Estado libre asociado de Puerto Rico Departamento de Salud. Comunicado de prensa: presentan informe arboviral con actualizacion de datos relacionados al virus del Zika. http://www.salud.gov.pr/Prensa/Comunicados%20de%20Prensa/CP%20Zika%205%2013%202016.pdf. Published May 13, 2016. Accessed May 14, 2016.
16.
Besnard  M, Lastère  S, Teissier  A, Cao-Lormeau  V, Musso  D.  Evidence of perinatal transmission of Zika virus, French Polynesia, December 2013 and February 2014.  Euro Surveill. 2014;19(13):1-5.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
17.
Cauchemez  S, Besnard  M, Bompard  P,  et al.  Association between Zika virus and microcephaly in French Polynesia, 2013-15: a retrospective study.  Lancet. 2016;387(10033):2125-2132.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
18.
Johansson  MA, Mier-y-Teran-Romero  L, Reefhuis  J, Gilboa  SM, Hills  SL.  Zika and the risk of microcephaly.  N Engl J Med. 2016;375(1):1-4.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
19.
National Center for Health Statistics. Birth data files. http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data_access/vitalstatsonline.htm. Accessed May 10, 2016.
20.
Mai  CT, Kucik  JE, Isenburg  J,  et al; National Birth Defects Prevention Network.  Selected birth defects data from population-based birth defects surveillance programs in the United States, 2006 to 2010: featuring trisomy conditions.  Birth Defects Res A Clin Mol Teratol. 2013;97(11):709-725.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
21.
Reefhuis  J, Gilboa  SM, Johansson  MA,  et al.  Projecting month of birth for at-risk infants after Zika virus disease outbreaks.  Emerg Infect Dis. 2016;22(5):828-832.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
22.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.  CDC Health Advisory: Recognizing Managing and Reporting Zika Virus Infections in Travelers Returning From Central America, South America, the Caribbean and Mexico. Atlanta, GA: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; 2016.
23.
Meaney-Delman  D, Rasmussen  SA, Staples  JE,  et al.  Zika virus and pregnancy: what obstetric health care providers need to know.  Obstet Gynecol. 2016;127(4):642-648.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
24.
Harrington  LC, Scott  TW, Lerdthusnee  K,  et al.  Dispersal of the dengue vector Aedes aegypti within and between rural communities.  Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2005;72(2):209-220.PubMedGoogle Scholar
25.
Russell  RC, Webb  CE, Williams  CR, Ritchie  SA.  Mark-release-recapture study to measure dispersal of the mosquito Aedes aegypti in Cairns, Queensland, Australia.  Med Vet Entomol. 2005;19(4):451-457.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
26.
Simmons  G, Brès  V, Lu  K,  et al.  High incidence of chikungunya virus and frequency of viremic blood donations during epidemic, Puerto Rico, USA, 2014.  Emerg Infect Dis. 2016;22(7):1221-1228.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
27.
Lorenzi  OD, Major  C, Acevedo  V,  et al.  Reduced incidence of chikungunya virus infection in communities with ongoing Aedes aegypti mosquito trap intervention studies: Salinas and Guayama, Puerto Rico, November 2015-February 2016.  MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2016;65(18):479-480.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
28.
Likosky  WH, Calisher  CH, Michelson  AL, Correa-Coronas  R, Henderson  BE, Feldman  RA.  An epidermiologic study of dengue type 2 in Puerto Rico, 1969.  Am J Epidemiol. 1973;97(4):264-275.PubMedGoogle Scholar
29.
Waterman  SH, Novak  RJ, Sather  GE, Bailey  RE, Rios  I, Gubler  DJ.  Dengue transmission in two Puerto Rican communities in 1982.  Am J Trop Med Hyg. 1985;34(3):625-632.PubMedGoogle Scholar
30.
Duffy  MR, Chen  TH, Hancock  WT,  et al.  Zika virus outbreak on Yap Island, Federated States of Micronesia.  N Engl J Med. 2009;360(24):2536-2543.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
31.
Dick  GW.  Epidemiological notes on some viruses isolated in Uganda; Yellow fever, Rift Valley fever, Bwamba fever, West Nile, Mengo, Semliki forest, Bunyamwera, Ntaya, Uganda S and Zika viruses.  Trans R Soc Trop Med Hyg. 1953;47(1):13-48.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
32.
Hammon  WM, Schrack  WD  Jr, Sather  GE.  Serological survey for a arthropod-borne virus infections in the Philippines.  Am J Trop Med Hyg. 1958;7(3):323-328.PubMedGoogle Scholar
33.
MacNamara  FN.  Zika virus: a report on three cases of human infection during an epidemic of jaundice in Nigeria.  Trans R Soc Trop Med Hyg. 1954;48(2):139-145.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
34.
Pond  WL.  Arthropod-borne virus antibodies in sera from residents of South-East Asia.  Trans R Soc Trop Med Hyg. 1963;57:364-371.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
35.
Smithburn  KC.  Neutralizing antibodies against certain recently isolated viruses in the sera of human beings residing in East Africa.  J Immunol. 1952;69(2):223-234.PubMedGoogle Scholar
36.
Smithburn  KC.  Neutralizing antibodies against arthropod-borne viruses in the sera of long-time residents of Malaya and Borneo.  Am J Hyg. 1954;59(2):157-163.PubMedGoogle Scholar
37.
Smithburn  KC, Kerr  JA, Gatne  PB.  Neutralizing antibodies against certain viruses in the sera of residents of India.  J Immunol. 1954;72(4):248-257.PubMedGoogle Scholar
38.
Rabe  IB, Staples  JE, Villanueva  J,  et al; MTS.  Interim guidance for interpretation of Zika virus antibody test results.  MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2016;65(21):543-546.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
39.
US Census Bureau. National, state, and Puerto Rico Commonwealth totals datasets: population change and rankings: April 1, 2010 to July 1, 2015. https://www.census.gov/popest/data/national/totals/2015/NST-EST2015-popchg2010-2015.html. Accessed May 15, 2016.
40.
Adams  L, Bello-Pagan  M, Lozier  M,  et al.  Update: ongoing Zika virus transmission: Puerto Rico, November 1, 2015-July 7, 2016.  MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2016;65(30):774-779.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
41.
Meaney-Delman  D, Hills  SL, Williams  C,  et al.  Zika virus infection among US pregnant travelers: August 2015-February 2016.  MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2016;65(8):211-214.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
42.
Petersen  EE, Polen  KN, Meaney-Delman  D,  et al.  Update: interim guidance for health care providers caring for women of reproductive age with possible Zika virus exposure: United States, 2016.  MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2016;65(12):315-322.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
43.
Grosse  SD, Berry  RJ, Mick Tilford  J, Kucik  JE, Waitzman  NJ.  Retrospective assessment of cost savings from prevention: folic acid fortification and spina bifida in the US.  Am J Prev Med. 2016;50(5)(suppl 1):S74-S80.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
44.
Yi  Y, Lindemann  M, Colligs  A, Snowball  C.  Economic burden of neural tube defects and impact of prevention with folic acid: a literature review.  Eur J Pediatr. 2011;170(11):1391-1400.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Comment
Limit 200 characters
Limit 25 characters
Conflicts of Interest Disclosure

Identify all potential conflicts of interest that might be relevant to your comment.

Conflicts of interest comprise financial interests, activities, and relationships within the past 3 years including but not limited to employment, affiliation, grants or funding, consultancies, honoraria or payment, speaker's bureaus, stock ownership or options, expert testimony, royalties, donation of medical equipment, or patents planned, pending, or issued.

Err on the side of full disclosure.

If you have no conflicts of interest, check "No potential conflicts of interest" in the box below. The information will be posted with your response.

Not all submitted comments are published. Please see our commenting policy for details.

Limit 140 characters
Limit 3600 characters or approximately 600 words
Submit Please Wait...
    1 Comment for this article
    EXPAND ALL
    August 30, 2016
    Important topic, statistical method needs work though
    Roberto Rivera | University of Puerto Rico, Mayaguez
    The authors tackle an important topic. Although there now exists strong evidence that Zika causes congenital defects, there is a lot of uncertainty on rates of defects caused by the virus. I do find some issues with the paper though:
    - Zika is also sexually transmitted. The paper does not take this into consideration and appears to make no mention of it.
    - IQR is not an interval, it is the difference of two quartiles, one number.
    - There are several Monte Carlo procedures. The supplement provides information about the distributions but not about what Monte Carlo procedure was used, burn-in period chosen, or whether     convergence was attained. Bayesian methods are very flexible but can be sensitive to choice of priors (informative or non-informative).
    - The statistical procedure allows for the construction of credible sets (the Bayesian analog of confidence intervals). These intervals are much more informative than just providing the median, first and third quartile. Assuming the first and third quartile values given (wrongfully called IQR) are the posterior distribution quartiles, then the interval provided is a 50% Bayesian confidence interval, instead of the common 95 or 99% interval used. Thus, the cases of microcephaly due to Zika may potentially be much lower, or much higher than the limits in the paper (i.e. there's a 25% chance that the number of cases is above the third quartile)
    - Microcephaly is just one congenital defect. In the end what is really needed is a credible interval for congenital defects, not just microcephaly. At the very least this should have been mentioned.
    CONFLICT OF INTEREST: None Reported
    READ MORE
    This Issue
    Views 17,103
    Citations 35
    Comments 1
    View Metrics
    Original Investigation
    October 2016

    Estimating the Number of Pregnant Women Infected With Zika Virus and Expected Infants With Microcephaly Following the Zika Virus Outbreak in Puerto Rico, 2016

    Sascha R. Ellington, MSPH1,2; Owen Devine, PhD1,3; Jeanne Bertolli, PhD1; et al Alma Martinez Quiñones, MPH4; Carrie K. Shapiro-Mendoza, PhD1; Janice Perez-Padilla, MPH1; Brenda Rivera-Garcia, DVM4; Regina M. Simeone, MPH1; Denise J. Jamieson, MD1; Miguel Valencia-Prado, MD4; Suzanne M. Gilboa, PhD1; Margaret A. Honein, PhD1; Michael A. Johansson, PhD1
    Author Affiliations Article Information
    • 1Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia
    • 2University of Georgia, Athens
    • 3Carter Consulting Inc, Atlanta, Georgia
    • 4Puerto Rico Department of Health, San Juan, Puerto Rico
    JAMA Pediatr. 2016;170(10):940-945. doi:10.1001/jamapediatrics.2016.2974
    visual abstract icon
    Visual
    Abstract
     editorial comment icon
    Editorial
    Comment
     related articles icon
    Related
    Articles
     author interview icon
    Interviews
     multimedia icon
    Multimedia
    Abstract

    Importance  Zika virus (ZIKV) infection during pregnancy is a cause of congenital microcephaly and severe fetal brain defects, and it has been associated with other adverse pregnancy and birth outcomes.

    Objective  To estimate the number of pregnant women infected with ZIKV in Puerto Rico and the number of associated congenital microcephaly cases.

    Design, Setting, and Participants  We conducted a modeling study from April to July 2016. Using parameters derived from published reports, outcomes were modeled probabilistically using Monte Carlo simulation. We used uncertainty distributions to reflect the limited information available for parameter values. Given the high level of uncertainty in model parameters, interquartile ranges (IQRs) are presented as primary results. Outcomes were modeled for pregnant women in Puerto Rico, which currently has more confirmed ZIKV cases than any other US location.

    Exposure  Zika virus infection in pregnant women.

    Main Outcomes and Measures  Number of pregnant women infected with ZIKV and number of congenital microcephaly cases.

    Results  We estimated an IQR of 5900 to 10 300 pregnant women (median, 7800) might be infected during the initial ZIKV outbreak in Puerto Rico. Of these, an IQR of 100 to 270 infants (median, 180) may be born with microcephaly due to congenital ZIKV infection from mid-2016 to mid-2017. In the absence of a ZIKV outbreak, an IQR of 9 to 16 cases (median, 12) of congenital microcephaly are expected in Puerto Rico per year.

    Conclusions and Relevance  The estimate of 5900 to 10 300 pregnant women that might be infected with ZIKV provides an estimate for the number of infants that could potentially have ZIKV-associated adverse outcomes. Including baseline cases of microcephaly, we estimated that an IQR of 110 to 290 total cases of congenital microcephaly, mostly attributable to ZIKV infection, could occur from mid-2016 to mid-2017 in the absence of effective interventions. The primary limitation in this analysis is uncertainty in model parameters. Multivariate sensitivity analyses indicated that the cumulative incidence of ZIKV infection and risk of microcephaly given maternal infection in the first trimester were the primary drivers of both magnitude and uncertainty in the estimated number of microcephaly cases. Increased information on these parameters would lead to more precise estimates. Nonetheless, the results underscore the need for urgent actions being undertaken in Puerto Rico to prevent congenital ZIKV infection and prepare for affected infants.

    ×