Background: Cytomegalovirus and Rubella virus are the most common causes of congenital infections, which increase morbidity and mortality at birth and one of the common causes of abortion in developing countries.

Methodology: plasma samples obtained from 87 pregnant women’s, the samples were obtained from Omdurman Friendship Hospital 53(61%), AL-Saudi Specialized Hospital 21(25%) and Ultra lab Diagnostic Centre 13(14%). all samples were examined for presence of CMV and Rubella virus IgG antibodies by using an ELISA test.

Results: The result showed that out of 87 blood samples investigated, 64(73.6%) were positive for CMV, while the result 23(26.4%) were negative and 85(97.7%) were positive for rubella, while the result 2(2.3%) were negative, where was 62(71.2%) samples had both CMV and Rubella virus IgG antibodies, 25(28.8%) had either CMV or Rubella virus IgG antibodies and there was no sample negative for both CMV and Rubella virus IgG antibodies.

Conclusion: the present study observed the high prevalence rate of CMV and rubella virus IgG antibodies among pregnant women in Khartoum State. The level of infections is higher in pregnant women without history of miscarriage than those aborted women.

Congenital CMV infection is one of the TORCH infections (toxoplasmosis, rubella, CMV, and HSV), which carry a risk of significant symptomatic disease and developmental defects in newborns Ljungman et al.¹ Human cytomegalovirus (HCMV) belongs to the β-herpesvirus subfamily, and although most healthy individuals remain asymptomatic subsequent to infection, the pathogen is a major contributor to birth defects and to life-threatening disease in immunocompromized patients Dollar et al.² Ross et al.³ Gerna et al.⁴ As with all viruses, HCMV depends on the host cell to provide macromolecular building blocks for vision production, and throughout the course of its evolution, HCMV has adapted to manipulate numerous fundamental cellular processes, including RNA accumulation Yurochko.⁵ translation McKinney.⁶ metabolism Yu Y et al.⁷ secretary pathways Lee and Bowden.⁸ and the cell cycleFrey.⁹ Cytomegalovirus infection during pregnancy is a major cause of congenital infection worldwide with an incidence of 0.2 – 2.2% of live births. Up to 15% of such children have newborns following intrauterine CMV infection Adler.¹⁰ Infection in the newborn can be acquired through close contact (via contaminated blood, urine, and secretions), vertically through Trans placental transmission, and postnatal through breast milk Bhide.¹¹

Rubella virus (RuV) is a small enveloped single-stranded RNA virus and the sole member of the Rubivirus genus. Rub virus and alpha viruses together comprise the Togaviridae Hobman.¹² While alpha viruses are generally transmitted by mosquito vectors, RuV spreads by airborne transmission between humans Alzeidan et al.¹³ The only known hostLee et al.⁸ RuV causes a mild childhood disease commonly referred to as German measles.^8,9,12 Rubella (initially known as German measles) is associated with an 80% risk of usually multiple congenital abnormalities if acquired in the first 12 weeks of pregnancy Best.¹⁴ especially the first 8-10 weeks, and leads to fetal growth problems or still birth WHO.¹⁵ The virus initially replicates in the nasopharyngeal mucosa and local lymph nodes, and in pregnancy infects the placenta and developing fetus WHO.¹⁵

Study design and duration

A descriptive Cross-sectional study was conducted to detect Human Cytomegalovirus and Rubella virus IgG Antibodies among pregnant women attending Omdurman Friendship Hospital, Al-Saudi Maternity Hospital and Ultra Lab Diagnostic Centre, Khartoum, Sudan. During the period from May to June 2016.

Collection and preparation of samples

A peripheral blood specimen was collected from each pregnant woman into EDTA-containing vacutainer tubes, centrifuged at 3000 RPM for 5 minutes and the obtained plasma was stored at -20°Cuntil used.

Immunoassay for HCMV and Rubella virus IgG antibodies detection

Plasma samples were examined for anti HCMV and Rubella virus IgG antibodies by an indirect Enzyme-linked Immunosorbent Assay (ELISA) kit (foresight, Acon laboratories, Inc., 10125 Mesa Rim Road, San Diego, CA92121, and USA).

Data Analysis

 Statistical analysis was done by using Statistical Package for Social Science program (SPSS- version 16).

A total of eighty seven blood samples (n=87) were collected from pregnant women in Khartoum State. All specimens were examined for the presence of CMV and Rubellavirus IgG antibodies using an ELISA kits. Out of 87 blood samples investigated, 85(97.7%) and 64(73.6%) were reactive for anti-CMV and anti-Rubella IgG antibodies, respectively. Of particular interest, 62(71.2%) samples were reactive for both anti-CMV and anti-Rubella IgG antibodies, whereas there was no sample showed non reactive result for neither anti-CMV nor anti-Rubella virus IgG antibodies (Table 1). Out of 38 women with history of abortion 31(81.6%) and 37(97.4%) were reactive for anti-CMV and anti-Rubella virus IgG antibodies, respectively, with P-value (0.882). Moreover out of 49 women without history of abortion 32(65.3%) and 47(95.9%) were reactive for anti-CMV and anti-Rubella virus IgG antibodies, respectively, with P-value (0.106) (Table 2).

Human cytomegalovirusand Rubellavirus are two of the vertically transmitted infections that lead to congenital abnormalities and pregnancy problems. Studies showed that women who are exposed to cytomegalovirus and/or Rubella virus for the first time during pregnancy may have a higher risk of miscarriage. These infections can lead to important complications on pregnancy for maternal and fetal health Best et al.¹⁶ Griffiths.¹⁷ The present study aimed for detection of anti-CMV and anti-Rubella virus IgG antibodies among pregnant women in Khartoum State. A total of 87 blood samples investigated, 67(73.6%) and 85(97.7%) were positive for anti-CMV and anti-Rubella virus IgG antibodies, respectively. Our CMV result (73.6%) was similar to that obtained in western Sudan Hamdan et al. ¹⁸ Who reported that 72.2% of pregnant women were anti-CMV-IgG antibodies reactive, but higher than result obtained in Mexico, (65.6%) by Alvarado-Esquivel C et al. ¹⁹ and less than those obtained in Nigeria (91.1%) by Hamid et al.²⁰ in Palestine (96.6%) by Tahani et al.²¹ and in China (98.7%) by Lingqing et al.²²

These differences might be attributed to endemic variations of these countries with CMV infections and different health policies enrolled in these countries. Of particular interest, the highest frequencies of reactive anti-CMV IgG antibodies were observed among the first trimester of pregnancy and those without history of miscarriage. However, no significant difference (P > 0.05) was observed among the three trimesters of pregnancy. While Rubella virus results (97.7%) were higher than that obtained in Nigeria and Sudan 70% and 65.3%, respectively Hamdan et al.¹⁸ Onyenekwe et al.²³ and in line with the result obtained in Mozambique is almost 100% Barreto et al.²⁴ Lawn et al.²⁵ A number of studies reveal variable results of the Seroprevalence of rubella over different continents; 54.1% in Nigerian Bukbuk et al.²⁶ 76% in Sri Lanka Palihawadana et al.²⁷ 77.5% in Russian Odland et al.²⁸ and 93% in Eritrea Tolfvenstam et al.²⁹ These differences may be due to endemicity variations of these countries with rubella infections and recent introduction of Rubella vaccine alone or in combination as MMR vaccines in national immunization schedule. In the present study, the higher (54%) incidence of seropositivity for rubella virus IgG antibody was observed in pregnant women without history of miscarriage than that of the normal pregnancy (43.8%) outcomes group, suggested that rubella could be a cause of repeated pregnancy wastage in those women. Similar evidence was seen in Punjab, India that higher (73.2%) incidence was seen in the adverse pregnancy outcome group than the normal (69.5%) obstetric outcome group Singla et al.³⁰ Our finding detected that the highest seropositivity of rubella virus was reported in those pregnant women within the third trimester (55.2%) of gestation than others. However.³¹ no significant difference (P >0.05) was observed among the three pregnancy trimesters.

None.

None.

1. Ljungman P, Griffiths P, Paya C Definitions of cytomegalovirus infection and disease in transplant recipients. Clin Infect Dis. 2002;34(8):1094‒1097.
2. Dollard SC, Grosse SD, Ross DS New estimates of the prevalence of neurological and sensory sequelae and mortality associated with congenital cytomegalovirus infection. Rev Med Virol. 2007;17(5):355‒363.
3. Boppana SB, Ross SA Congenital cytomegalovirus infection: Outcome and diagnosis. Semin Pediatr Infect Dis. 2005;16(1):44‒49.
4. Gerna G, Baldanti F, Revello MG Pathogenesis of human cytomegalovirus infection and cellular targets. Hum Immunol. 2004;65(5):381‒386.
5. Yurochko AD Human cytomegalovirus modulation of signal transduction. Curr Top Microbiol Immunol. 2008;325:205‒220.
6. McKinney C, Zavadil J, Bianco C et al. Global reprogramming of the cellular translational landscape facilitates cytomegalovirus replication. Cell Reports. 2014;6(1):9‒17.
7. Yu Y, Clippinger AJ, Alwine JC Viral effects on metabolism: Changes in glucose and glutamine utilization during human cytomegalovirus infection. Trends Microbiol. 2011;19(7):360‒367.
8. Lee JY, Bowden DS Rubella virus replication and links to teratogenicity.Clin Microbiol Rev. 2000;13(14):571‒587.
9. Frey TKMolecular biology of rubella virus. Adv Virus Res. 1994;44:69‒160.
10. Adler SP Screening for Cytomegalovirus during Pregnancy. Infect Dis Obstet Gynecol. 2011;9:100‒115.
11. Bhide A, Papageorghiou AT Managing primary CMV infection in pregnancy. BJOG. 2008;115(7):805‒807.
12. Hobman TCRubella virus In: Knipe DM (Eds.), Fields virology. (6th edn), Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, USA, pp. 2013;687‒711.
13. Alzeidan RA, Wahabi HA, Fayed AA, Esmaeil SA, Amer YS Postpartum rubella vaccination for sero‒negative women (Protocol). Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2013;9 1‒9.
14. Best JM Rubella Seminars in Fetal & Neonatal Medicine. 2007;12:182‒92.
15. World Health Organization Rubella vaccines: WHO position Weekly Epidemiological Record No. 2011;29(86):301‒316.
16. Best JM, Banatvala JE Rubella In: Zuckerman AJ (Eds.), Principles and Practice of Clinical Virology. (5th edn), John Wiley and Sons, Ltd., England, pp. 2004;427‒457.
17. Grifiths PD Cytomegalovirus In: Zuckerman AJ (Eds.), Principles and Practice of Clinical Virology. (5th edn), John Wiley and Sons, Ltd., England, pp. 2004;85‒122.
18. Hamdan Z, Ismail E, Nasser M and Ishag A Seroprevalence of cytomegalovirus and rubella among pregnant women in western Sudan. Virol J. 2011;8:217‒223.
19. Alvarado‒Esquivel C, Hernández‒Tinoco J, Sánchez‒Anguiano LF, Ramos‒Nevárez A, Cerrillo‒Soto SM, et al. Seroepidemiology of cytomegalovirus infection in pregnant women in Durango City, Mexico. BMC Infect Dis. 2014;14(484):1471‒2334.
20. Hamid KM, Onoja AB, Tofa UA, Garba KN Seroprevalence of cytomegalovirus among pregnant women attending Murtala Mohammed Specialist Hospital Kano, Nigeria. Afr Health Sci. 2014;14(1):125‒130.
21. Neirukh T, Qaisi A, Saleh N et al. Seroprevalence of Cytomegalovirus among pregnant women and hospitalized children in Palestine. BMC Infect Dis. 2013;13:528‒534.
22. Zhang S, Hu L, Chen J et al. CytomegalovirusSeroprevalence in Pregnant Women and Association with Adverse Pregnancy/Neonatal Outcomes in Jiangsu Province, China. PLoS One. 2014;9(9):e107645.
23. Onyenekwe CC, Kehinde‒Agbeyangi TA, Ofor US, Arinola OG Prevalence of rubella‒IgG antibody in women of childbearing age in Lagos, Nigeria. West Afr J Med. 2000;19(1):23‒26.
24. Barreto J, Sacramento I, Robertson SE et al. Antenatal rubella serosurvey in Maputo, Mozambique. Trop Med Int Health. 2006;11(4):559‒64.
25. Lawn JE, Reef S, Baffoe‒Bonnie B et al. Unseen blindness, unheard deafness, and unrecorded death and disability: congenital rubella in Kumasi, Ghana. Am J Public Health. 2000;90(10):1555‒1561.
26. Bukbuk DN, el Nafty AU, Obed JY Prevalence of rubella‒specific IgG antibody in non‒immunized pregnant women in Maiduguri, North Eastern Nigeria. Cent Eur J Public Health. 2002;10(1‒2):21‒23.
27. Palhawadan AP, Wickremasingha AR, Perera J Seroprevalence of rubella antibodies among pregnant females in Sri Lanka. Southeast Asian J TropMed Public Health. 2003;34(2):398‒404.
28. Odland JØ, Sergejeva IV, Ivaneev MD et al. Seropositivity of cytomegalovirus, parvovirus and rubella in pregnant women and recurrent aborters in Leningrad County, Russia. Acta Obstet GynecolScand. 2001;80(11):1025‒1029.
29. Tolfvenstam T, Enbom M, Ghebrekidan H et al. Seroprevalence of viral childhood infections in Eritrea. J Clin Virol. 2000;16 (1):49‒54.
30. Singla N, Jindal N, Aggarwal A The seroepidemiology of rubella in Amritsar (Punjab). Indian Journal of Medical Microbiology.2004;22(1):61‒63.
31. Hodson EM, Jones CA, Webster AC et al. Antiviral medications to prevent cytomegalovirus disease and early death in recipients of solid‒ organ transplants: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials.Lancet. 2005;365(9477):2105‒2115.