A comparative analysis of dengue, chikungunya, and Zika in a pediatric cohort over 18 years

Evidence before this study Dengue, chikungunya, and Zika co-occur in tropical and subtropical settings and cause fever, rash, and other clinical features. We reviewed international case definitions for the three diseases; the Pan American Health Organization’s (PAHO) 2022 report on their differential diagnosis; and the 80 studies underlying PAHO’s recommendations. On March 15, 2025, we queried PubMed without restrictions for “pediatric cohort” AND “dengue” AND “chikungunya” AND “Zika,” revealing that no other pediatric cohort study simultaneously reported clinical differences between the three diseases. The literature suggests that the broad and overlapping clinical features of the three diseases hamper differential diagnosis, particularly for mild forms of the diseases during acute illness, absent definitive laboratory testing. Most studies on the diseases’ clinical manifestations are in adults, and these studies constitute the main evidence base for existing case definitions. Disease presentation is more non-specific in children and adolescents than in adults, further impeding differential diagnoses in pediatric populations. Current guidelines suggest that the presence of thrombocytopenia, progressive increases in hematocrit, and leukopenia tend to distinguish dengue from chikungunya and Zika; that arthralgia is more common in chikungunya; and that pruritis is more common in Zika. All dengue case definitions in widespread use require that patients exhibit fever.

Added value of this study This study follows a cohort of Nicaraguan children through multiple dengue epidemics, two large chikungunya epidemics, and one explosive Zika epidemic. Synthesizing 18 years’ worth of primary care medical records, we find clinically meaningful differences in the prevalence of many clinical features, including by day of illness and across age. In addition to verifying the clinical features PAHO identified as key distinguishing features, we also identified others, including papular rash, nausea, hemorrhagic manifestations, abdominal pain, and basophilia, that could aid differential diagnoses. As the PAHO report is based on a multitude of studies with varied age ranges, health care accessibility, overall research quality, and patient populations, this study is a complementary and important counterpart that draws from a single, well-characterized source population. Further, we identified 62 laboratory-confirmed cases of afebrile dengue (7·1% of all dengue cases since we started testing any suspected case exhibiting afebrile rash). The disease manifestations of afebrile dengue cases were generally clinically indistinguishable from afebrile Zika, although several displayed warning signs of severity. Machine learning models best distinguished chikungunya from dengue and Zika based on clinical features. Our dengue model performed well, especially in classifying febrile dengue cases. However, our Zika model struggled to properly distinguish afebrile dengue cases from afebrile Zika cases, likely due to their very similar and minimal disease presentation.

Implications of all the available evidence We identify meaningful differences in the pediatric presentation and laboratory markers of dengue, chikungunya, and Zika cases that can be leveraged to improve diagnoses in the absence of laboratory testing. The distinguishing characteristics we identify could be used by future studies to build, optimize, and validate clinical prediction models. Afebrile dengue should be studied more and incorporated into future guidance, as not accounting for its existence can impede surveillance, laboratory testing strategies, clinical management, and research efforts.