Randomized trial compares MRI findings in valacyclovir-treated fetuses with congenital cytomegalovirus, suggesting treatment benefits.
Objectives To compare serial prenatal MRI findings in valacyclovir-treated vs untreated fetuses with confirmed congenital cytomegalovirus (cCMV) infection, focusing on the occurrence and timing of minor brain lesions. Materials and methods In this retrospective single-center cohort study, fetuses with confirmed cCMV infection and at least two prenatal brain MRI examinations were included. Fetuses with major brain malformations at baseline were excluded. Treated fetuses received oral valacyclovir (8 g/day) from diagnosis to delivery. Two senior neuroradiologists assessed MRI examinations in consensus, focusing on minor lesions (temporal pole T2 hyperintensity, focal temporal horn dilation, small cysts). Lesion timing was categorized as absent, late-onset, or early-onset. Statistical analyses included Fisher’s exact test, χ²-test, and odds ratios. Results Seventy-seven fetuses were included (62 untreated, 15 treated). Persistently negative MRI findings were observed in 73.3% of treated fetuses vs 37.1% of untreated fetuses ( p = 0.018; OR 4.67, 95% CI: 1.29–16.9). Early-onset minor lesions were observed only in untreated fetuses (11.3%). A significant difference between groups was confirmed when analysis was restricted to temporal pole lesions ( p = 0.02). Conclusion Maternal valacyclovir therapy was associated with a significantly higher likelihood of persistently normal prenatal MRI findings and absence of early minor brain lesions, suggesting a protective effect on fetal brain involvement in cCMV. Key Points Question Minor temporal pole lesions are common early MRI findings in cCMV . Findings Valacyclovir-treated fetuses showed fewer and later-onset minor lesions . Clinical relevance Serial fetal MRI may serve as an imaging surrogate marker of treatment response .
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Tortora et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: