1. All neonates in the case series [1] were of gestation between 36 to 38 weeks. The definition of neonatal encephalopathy (mentioned in Table I of our article) in our series matched that given by American Academy of Pediatrics [2].

2. The cut-offs of biochemical tests were not arbitrary but taken from Avery’s textbook of Neonatology 7th edition (also indicated in Table I of our article). National Neonatology Forum (NNF) criteria would have led to underdiagnosis and missing out of seven cases. Also, NNF definition states that "there is no safe cut-off at which one can recommend do not treat. Clinical judgment would have to be used." This highlights the limitations in deciding on any set cut-off values to diagnose hypoglycorrhachia, pleocytosis and increased protein.

3. We thank the authors for pointing out an important observation. We had in fact mentioned a comparison of Chikungunya virus with Zika virus while writing this paper but the details had to be edited out due to word limit. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) case definition of congenital Zika virus disease prominently includes microcephaly as its first clinical criterion apart from others [3]. There is a strong association of microcephaly at birth with Zika virus infection in utero, especially if contacted in first trimester of pregnancy [4]. None of the babies in our study had microcephaly at birth. Our cases presented during a Chikungunya outbreak in the city. No transmission of Zika virus was reported during the same period as per government reports [5]. We agree to the proposition that provision for a panel of tests for arboviral infections, including Zika virus and Chikungunya virus, should be in place for neonates suspected to be having co-infection.