Antiviral May Improve Hearing Loss in Congenital CMV

Jim Kling

June 02, 2021

Infants with isolated sensorineural hearing loss as a result of congenital cytomegalovirus (cCMV) infection may benefit from treatment with valganciclovir, according to results from the CONCERT nonrandomized trial.

Subjects were found through the Newborn Hearing Screening program, using dried blood spot screening to confirm cCMV Infection. As a result of 6 weeks of therapy, more patients in the treatment group had improvements in hearing at age 20 months, and fewer had deterioration compared with untreated controls.

There is a general consensus that symptomatic cCMV should be treated with valganciclovir for 6 weeks or 6 months, but treatment of patients with only hearing loss is still under debate. The average age of participants was 8 weeks.

The study was presented by Pui Khi Chung, MD, a clinical microbiologist at the Leiden University Medical Center, the Netherlands, at the annual meeting of the European Society for Paediatric Infectious Diseases, held virtually this year.

Out of 1,377 NHS-referred infants, 59 were diagnosed with cCMV (4.3%), and 35 were included in the study. Twenty-five patients received 6 weeks of valganciclovir, while 10 patients received placebo. The control group was expanded to 12 when two additional subjects were identified retrospectively and were successfully followed up at 20 months. Subjects in the treatment group were an average of 8 weeks old when treatment began. Both groups had similar neurodevelopmental outcomes at 20 months, as measured by the Bayley Scales of Infant and Toddler Development (BSID-III) and the Child Development Inventory (CDI). There were no serious adverse events associated with treatment.

To measure efficacy, the researchers used a random intercept, random slope model that accounted for repeated measurements. The differences in slopes for analyses of the best ear were significantly different between the treatment and control groups (estimated difference in slopes, –0.93; P = .0071). Further analyses of total hearing found that improvement was more common in the treatment group, and deterioration/no change was more common in the nontreatment group (P = .044). In another analysis that excluded the most profoundly impaired ears (> 70 db hearing loss), none in the control group experienced improvement and almost half deteriorated. In the treatment group, most were unchanged and a small number improved, with almost none deteriorating (P = .006).

Asked whether the treatment has any effect on the most profoundly impaired ears, Chung said she had not yet completed that analysis, but the hypothesis is that the treatment is unlikely to lead to any improvement. "When you take out the severely impaired ears, you can see a greater [treatment] effect, so it does suggest that it doesn't do anything for those ears," Chung said during the Q&A session following her talk.

She was also asked why the treatment period was 6 weeks, rather than 6 months – a period of treatment that has shown a better effect on long-term hearing and developmental outcomes than 6 weeks of treatment in symptomatic patients. Chung replied that she wasn't involved in the study design, but said that at her center, the 6-month regimen is not standard.

There were two key weaknesses in the study. One was the small sample size, and the other was its nonrandomized nature, which could have led to bias in the treated versus untreated group. "Although we don't see any baseline differences between the groups, we have to be wary in analyses. Unfortunately, an RCT proved impossible in our setting. The CONCERT Trial started as randomized but this was amended to nonrandomized, as both parents and pediatricians had a clear preference for treatment," said Chung.

The study could provide useful information about the timing of oral antiviral medication, according to Vana Spoulou, MD, who moderated the session where the research was presented. "The earliest you can give it is best, but sometimes it's not easy to get them diagnosed immediately after birth. What they showed us is that even giving it so late, there was some improvement," Spoulou said in an interview.

Spoulou isn't ready to change practice based on the results, because she noted that some other studies have shown no benefit of treatment at 3 months. "But this was a hint that maybe even in these later diagnosed cases there could be some benefit," she said.

Chung and Spoulou have no relevant financial disclosures.

This article originally appeared on, part of the Medscape Professional Network.


Comments on Medscape are moderated and should be professional in tone and on topic. You must declare any conflicts of interest related to your comments and responses. Please see our Commenting Guide for further information. We reserve the right to remove posts at our sole discretion.