Maternal and Neonatal Screening for Congenital Cytomegalovirus Infection: Proactive Measures and Healthcare Optimization

Background: Congenital cytomegalovirus is the most common viral congenital viral infection, affecting up to 2.4% of live births worldwide. It can lead to long-term disabilities, including sensorineural hearing loss (SNHL), intellectual disabilities and motor impairments. Despite its prevalence, Congenital cytomegalovirus remains under-diagnosed due to the asymptomatic nature of most infections and the absence of standardised screening programmes. Studies show that universal neonatal screening using saliva or urine samples could improve early detection, but implementation remains inconsistent. This study systematically evaluates early congenital cytomegalovirus screening practices, their effectiveness in reducing transmission, and their impact on child health outcomes.
Methods: This study adheres to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines and employs the Population, Intervention, Comparator and Outcome (PICO) framework. The study population includes pregnant women and neonates undergoing routine Congenital cytomegalovirus screening. Data were collected from major medical databases (PubMed, Embase, Web of Science and Scopus), covering research from 2001 to 2024. A structured data extraction tool, based on the Cochrane Handbook was used to analyse the studies for relevant outcomes.
Results: The findings revealed that early detection and intervention for congenital cytomegalovirus reduces mother to child transmissibility of the virus, as well as infant sensorineural hearing loss and developmental delays in children. Evidence from countries with established screening programmes indicates that incorporating congenital cytomegalovirus testing into routine perinatal and neonatal care enhances early detection rates. Besides evidence of a knowledge-gap among healthcare providers regarding standardised screening protocols, the study outcomes indicated that early screening improves health outcomes while generates long-term cost savings. However, disparities in screening practices across regions result in inconsistent implementation and unequal health outcomes.
Conclusions: Between 10% – 15% of infected infants develop long-term cognitive impairment, which has a significant long-term psychosocial impact on society. Therefore, routine perinatal screening improves health outcomes and leads to long-term cost savings. This study addresses knowledge gaps in existing screening protocols, offering evidence-based recommendations to improve maternal and neonatal health outcomes. These outcomes are essential for shaping public health policies and promoting standardised screening measures, thereby reducing the burden of congenital cytomegalovirus infections.

Cytomegalovirus, Congenital CMV, Infection, cCMV, Maternal Screening, Perinatal Screening, Neonatal, Newborn Screening, Public Health.

1. Wang YQ, Zhao XY. Human Cytomegalovirus Primary Infection and Reactivation: Insights from Virion-Carried Molecules. Front Microbiol. 2020 Jul 14;11:1511. doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2020.01511. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Manicklal, S., Emery, V. C., Lazzarotto, T., Boppana, S. B., & Gupta, R. K. (2013). The “silent” global burden of congenital cytomegalovirus. Clinical Microbiology Reviews, 6(1), 86–102. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. https://doi.org/10.1128/CMR.00062-12. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. Centre for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Cytomegalovirus (CMV) and Congenital CMV Infection. Jan. 17, 2025. https://www.cdc.gov/cytomegalovirus/about/index.html. Accessed November 17, 2025. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Buxmann, H., Hamprecht, K., Meyer-Wittkopf, M., & Friese, K. (2017). Primary human cytomegalovirus (HCMV) infection in pregnancy. Deutsches Ärzteblatt International. https://doi.org/10.3238/arztebl.2017.0045. 2017;114(4):45–52 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Fowler, K., Mucha, J., Neumann, M., Lewandowski, W., Kaczanowska, M., Grys, M., ... & Diaz-Decaro, J. (2022). A systematic literature review of the global seroprevalence of cytomegalovirus: Possible implications for treatment, screening, and vaccine development. BMC Public Health, 22(1), 1659. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-022-3971-7. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Marsico C, Kimberlin DW. Congenital Cytomegalovirus infection: advances and challenges in diagnosis, prevention and treatment. Ital J Pediatr. 2017 Apr 17;43(1):38. doi: 10.1186/s13052-017-0358-8. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28416012/ [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Ludwig A, Hengel H. Epidemiological impact and disease burden of congenital cytomegalovirus infection in Europe. EuroSurveillance. 2009; 14(9):26–32. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Greye, H., Wex, T., Taneva, E. et al. Cytomegalovirus seronegativity rate in pregnant women and primary cytomegalovirus infection during pregnancy in rural Germany. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 23, 299 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12884-023-056127 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. Modrow S, Buxmann H, Enders M, Gembruch U, Goelz R, Hamprecht K, et al. Management der kongenitalen Zytomegalievirus-Infektion bei Neugeborenen. Kinder Jugendarzt. 2018; 49:107–17. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. Stephan, A.-J., De Lepper, M., Wölle, R., Luzak, A., Wang, W., Jacob, C., Schneider, K. M., Buxmann, H., Goelz, R., Hamprecht, K., Kummer, P., Modrow, S., Greiner, W., & Reuschenbach, M. (2023). Healthcare costs of congenital cytomegalovirus (cCMV) disease in infants during the first two years of life: A retrospective German claims database analysis. Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation, 21(1), 8. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12962-022-00411-x. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. Diaz-Decaro, J., Myers, E., Mucha, J., Neumann, M., Lewandowski, W., Kaczanowska, M., ... & Buck, P. O. (2023a). A systematic literature review of the economic and healthcare resource burden of cytomegalovirus. Current Medical Research and Opinion, 39(7), 973–986. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. https://doi.org/10.1080/03007995.2023.2222583. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. Diaz-Decaro, J., Myers, E., Mucha, J., Neumann, M., Lewandowski, W., Kaczanowska, M., ... & Buck, P. O. (2023b). A systematic literature review on the humanistic burden of cytomegalovirus. Current Medical Research and Opinion, 39(5), 739–750. https://doi.org/10.1080/03007995.2023.2191477. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. Rubinacci V, Fumagalli M, Meraviglia G, Gianolio L, Sala A, Stracuzzi M, Dighera A, Zuccotti GV, Giacomet V. (2022). Congenital CMV, Lights and Shadows on Its Management: The Experience of a Reference Center in Northern Italy. Children (Basel). 9(5):655. doi: 10.3390/children9050655. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9139751/ [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. Tavakolipoor, P., Kleiner, S., & Sasse, M. (2023). Neonatale Herpesinfektion mit akutem Leberversagen. Monatsschrift Kinderheilkunde. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00112-023-01710-0. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. Aoki, H., Kitano, T., & Kitagawa, D. (2021). Disease burden of congenital cytomegalovirus infection in Japan. Journal of Infection and Chemotherapy, 27(2), 161–164. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jiac.2020.08.018. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

19. Grosse, S. D., Dollard, S. C., & Ortega-Sanchez, I. R. (2021). Economic assessments of the burden of congenital cytomegalovirus infection and the cost-effectiveness of prevention strategies. Seminars in Perinatology, 45(3), 151393. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.semperi.2021.151393 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

20. Pass, R. F., Simpson, T., Corey, L., & Flanigan, C. (2009). Vaccine prevention of maternal cytomegalovirus infection. The New England Journal of Medicine. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

21. Walter, E., Brennig, C., Schöllbauer, V. (2011). How to save money: congenital CMV infection and the economy. In: Halwachs-Baumann, G. (eds) Congenital Cytomegalovirus Infection. Springer, Vienna. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-70910208-4_7 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

22. Ben Shoham, A., Schlesinger, Y., Miskin, I., Kalderon, Z., Michaelson-Cohen, R., & Wiener-Well, Y. (2023). Cytomegalovirus (CMV) seroprevalence among women at childbearing age, maternal and congenital CMV infection: Policy implications of a descriptive, retrospective, community-based study. Israel Journal of Health Policy Research, 12(1), 16. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13584-023-00566-9. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

23. Kalane, S. U., Raste, L., Patwardhan, S., Beasley, D. A., & Devaskar, U. P. (2022). Prevalence of maternal cytomegalovirus antibodies and neonatal congenital cytomegalovirus at less than 34 weeks of gestation: A prospective study. American Journal of Perinatology. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0042-1756641. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

24. Moseley, P., Klenerman, P., & Kadambari, S. (2023). Indirect effects of cytomegalovirus infection: Implications for vaccine development. Reviews in Medical Virology, 33(1), e2405. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

25. https://doi.org/10.1002/rmv.2405. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

26. Wong, A., Tan, K. H., Tee, C. S., & Yeo, G. S. (2000). Seroprevalence of cytomegalovirus, toxoplasma, and parvovirus in pregnancy. Singapore Medical Journal, 41(4), 151–155. PMID: 11063178. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

27. Bialas, K. M., & Permar, S. R. (2016). The march towards a vaccine for congenital CMV: Rationale and models. PLOS Pathogens, 12(2), e1005355. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.ppat.1005355. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

28. Shim, Gyu Hong. Treatment of congenital cytomegalovirus infection. Clinical and Experimental Pediatrics 2023;66(9):384-394. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3345/cep.2022.01032 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

29. Suleimenova, I. E., Bozhbanbaeva, N. C., Atke, M. E., & Urazova, S. N. (2023). On the classification of cytomegalovirus infection in newborn children. Reproductive Medicine, 2(55), 89–98. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

30. https://doi.org/10.37800/RM.2.2023.89-98. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

31. Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, Mulrow C, Gøtzsche PC, et al. 2009. The PRISMA Statement for Reporting Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. Annals of Internal Medicine. 151: 65–94 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

32. O’Connor, Denise. Green, Sally and Higgins, Julian PT. Chapter 5: Defining the review question and developing criteria for including studies. In: Higgins JPT, Green S (editors). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Chichester (UK): John Wiley & Sons, 2008. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

33. Dijkers M. (2013) Introducing GRADE: a systematic approach to rating evidence in systematic reviews and to guideline development. KT Update. Vol. 1, No. 5 http://www.ktdrr.org/products/update/v1n5/ [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

34. Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (CRD). (2009). Guidance to Systematic Review. York, Centre for Reviews and Dissemination Pp 42–3. https://www.york.ac.uk/media/crd/Systematic_Reviews.pdf. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

35. Fleiss JI. Measuring nominal scale agreement among raters. Psychol Bull. 971;76(5):376–82. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

36. Higgins JPT, Green S (editors). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Chichester (UK): John Wiley & Sons, 2008. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

37. Adeyanju GC, Schrage P, Jalo RI, Abreu L, Schaub M (2025) Armed violent conflict and healthcare-seeking behavior for maternal and child health in sub-Saharan Africa: A systematic review. PLoS ONE 20(2): e0317094. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0317094 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

38. Adeyanju, G.C., Engel, E., Koch, L. et al. Determinants of influenza vaccine hesitancy among pregnant women in Europe: a systematic review. European Journal Medical Research, 26, 116 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40001-021-00584-w [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

39. Adeyanju, GC., Augustine, T.M., Volkmann, S. et al. Effectiveness of intervention on behaviour change against use of non-biodegradable plastic bags: a systematic review. Discov Sustain, 2021; 2, 13. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43621-021-00015-0 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

40. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, The PRISMA Group (2009). Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement. PLoS Med 6(7): e1000097. pmid:19621072 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

41. Zeng, Z. C., Chang, Q., Sun, Z. W., Song, M. M., Jin, X. L., Jiang, S. Y., & Yang, X. (2017). Detection of cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection in wheezing infants by urine DNA and serum IgG testing. Medical Science Monitor, 23, 1242–1246. https://doi.org/10.12659/msm.898589. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

42. Foulon, I., Naessens, A., Foulon, W., Casteels, A., & Gordts, F. (2008). 10-year prospective study of sensorineural hearing loss in children with congenital cytomegalovirus infection. Journal of Pediatrics, 153(1), 84–88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpeds.2007.12.049 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

43. Fowler, K. B., McCollister, F. P., Sabo, D. L., Shoup, A. G., Owen, K. E., Woodruff, J. L., … CHIMES Study. (2017). A targeted approach for congenital cytomegalovirus screening within newborn hearing screening. Pediatrics, 139(2). https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2016-2128 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

44. Bergevin, A., Zick, C. D., McVicar, S. B., & Park, A. H. (2015). Cost-benefit analysis of targeted hearing-directed early testing for congenital cytomegalovirus infection. International Journal of Pediatric Otorhinolaryngology, 79(12), 2090–2093. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijporl.2015.09.019. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

45. Krishna, S., Nemerofsky, S. L., Iyare, A., Ramdhanie, M. A., Nassar, M., & Nafday, S. (2020). Early extended neonatal screening for congenital cytomegalovirus infection: A quality improvement initiative. Joint Commission Journal on Quality and Patient Safety, 46(9), 516–523. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcjq.2020.06.002 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

47. Demortier, J., Fourgeaud, J., Abasse, S., Lambrecht, L., Gromand, M., Boumahni, B., ... & Vauloup-Fellous, C. (2021). A prospective study evaluating congenital CMV infection in Mayotte and La Reunion Islands (France). Journal of Clinical Virology, 138, 104793. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcv.2021.104793. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

49. Périllaud-Dubois, C., Hachicha-Maalej, N., Lepers, C., Letamendia, E., Teissier, N., Cousien, A., Sibiude, J., Deuffic-Burban, S., Vauloup-Fellous, C., & Picone, O. (2023). Cost-effectiveness of screening and valacyclovir-based treatment strategies for first-trimester cytomegalovirus primary infection in pregnant women in France. Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology, 62(4), 573–584. https://doi.org/10.1002/uog.26226. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

50. Bodeus M, Zech F, Hubinont C. (2010). Human cytomegalovirus in utero transmission: follow up of 524 maternal seroconversions. J Clin Virol. 47:201–2. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

51. Enders G, Daiminger A, Bäder U, et al. (2010). Intrauterine transmission and clinical outcome of 248 pregnancies with primary cytomegalovirus infection in relation to gestational age. J Clin Virol. 52:244–6. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

52. Leruez-Ville, Marianne., Chatzakis, Christos., Lilleri, Daniele., et al. (2024). Consensus recommendation for prenatal, neonatal and postnatal management of congenital cytomegalovirus infection from the European congenital infection initiative (ECCI). The Lancet Regional Health – Europe. Volume 40. DOI: 10.1016/j.lanepe.2024.100892. Available from [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

53. https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanepe/article/PIIS2666-7762(24)00058-9/fulltext#tbl1 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

54. Jeon J, Victor M, Adler SP, et al. (2006). Knowledge and awareness of congenital cytomegalovirus among women. Infectious Diseases in Obstetrics and Gynecology. 2006: 7 pages. doi: 10.1155/IDOG/2006/80383. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

55. Adler SP. (2011). Screening for cytomegalovirus during pregnancy. Infect Dis Obstet Gynecol. 2011:1-9. doi: 10.1155/2011/942937. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

56. Bartlett, A. W., Hall, B. M., Palasanthiran, P., McMullan, B., Shand, A. W., & Rawlinson, W. D. (2018). Recognition, treatment, and sequelae of congenital cytomegalovirus in Australia: An observational study. Journal of Clinical Virology, 108, 121–125. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcv.2018.09.017. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

58. Alyafei A, Easton-Carr R. (2025). The Health Belief Model of Behavior Change. [Updated 2024 May 19]. In: StatPearls [Internet]. Treasure Island (FL): StatPearls Publishing; 2025 Jan-. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK606120/ [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

59. Lilleri, D., Tassis, B., Pugni, L., Ronchi, A., Pietrasanta, C., Spinillo, A., Arossa, A., Achille, C., Vergani, P., Ornaghi, S., Riboni, S., Cavoretto, P., Candiani, M., Gaeta, G., Prefumo, F., Fratelli, N., Fichera, A., Vignali, M., Barbasetti Di Prun, A., … Primache, V. (2023). Prevalence, outcome, and prevention of congenital cytomegalovirus infection in neonates born to women with preconception immunity (CHILd study). Clinical Infectious Diseases, 76(3), 513–520. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

60. https://doi.org/10.1093/cid/ciac482 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

• The Management of Chronic Kidney Disease Through Smart Wearables