Preemie births may be prevented, but only a little

For all the miracle stories of tiny preemies who survive, the sad reality is that scientists know far too little about what triggers premature birth and how to prevent it. And despite some recent progress, the U.S. has a far higher rate of preterm births than other similar nations.

On Thursday, an international coalition said there are a handful of proven protections — and if the U.S. and other developed countries do a better job of using them, together they could keep 58,000 babies a year from being born too soon.

That's a blip in the global epidemic of prematurity: About 15 million preterm babies are born every year, most of them in Africa and parts of Asia where the priority is to improve care of these fragile newborns. More than 1 million premature infants die, mostly in developing countries, and survivors can suffer lifelong disabilities.

But in wealthier countries, where sophisticated medical care already keeps most preemies alive, the focus is shifting to how to prevent these births in the first place. Nearly 1 in 10 births across the developed world are preterm, and about 1 in 8 in the U.S. Only recently have rates begun leveling off or dropping in many of these countries after years of steady increases.

Thursday's report makes clear just how hard additional progress on that front will be — projecting an average 5 percent drop in preterm birth rates across the highest-income countries by 2015, if they follow the new advice.

"Shockingly, very little reduction is currently possible," specialists with the World Health Organization, Save the Children, U.S. National Institutes of Health, March of Dimes and other groups reported in The Lancet.

But even that improvement would translate into about $3 billion in annual savings from medical bills and lost productivity, the group calculated. Nearly half that savings would be in the U.S.

The bigger message: It's time for a major scientific push to figure out the causes of preterm birth and find some better ways to intervene.

"I don't think it's hopeless at all," said report co-author Dr. Catherine Spong, a maternal-fetal medicine specialist at NIH who points to clues that infections and inflammation affecting the mother play a yet-to-be-understood role.

Because healthier babies grow into healthier adults, "if you could improve pregnancy outcomes, you could improve the health of the nation, quite honestly," she added.

Over half a million U.S. babies are born premature, before completion of the 37th week of pregnancy. That's 11.7 percent of the babies born in 2011, the lowest rate of preterm birth in a decade and down from a peak of 12.8 percent in 2006, the March of Dimes reported earlier this week.

Contrast that with Japan and Sweden, where fewer than 6 percent of births are premature, or Canada and Britain where fewer than 8 percent are.

Last spring, this same international coalition provided the first country-by-country estimates of preterm births and recommended some inexpensive steps that developing countries could take to improve preemie survival. Thursday's follow-up analyzed trends in developed countries, to come up with advice on preventing prematurity.

The report recommends:

  • Nearly eliminating the practice of inducing labor and C-sections scheduled much ahead of mom's due date unless they're medically necessary. Much of the recent U.S. improvement comes from reducing elective early deliveries, leading to a drop in "late preemies," babies born a few weeks early. 
  • Helping women to quit smoking. Smoking at some point during pregnancy varies widely, from 10 percent in Canada to 23 percent in the U.S. and 30 percent in Spain, the report found. 
  • Providing regular injections of the hormone progesterone to certain women at high risk, largely because of a prior preterm birth. A recent NIH survey of obstetricians found just 21 percent of eligible patients received the shots. 
  • Putting a stitch into the cervix of certain high-risk women, those who have what's called a short cervix. 
  • Using just one embryo, not multiples, when in vitro fertilization is used. 

The impact would vary. The U.S. could see an 8 percent drop in its preterm birth rate by 2015 if it fully implemented these steps, the report estimated, while countries such as Sweden that already have far fewer preemies would see their rates inch down only slightly more, by about 2 percent.

Having one preemie greatly increases the risk for another. Other risk factors include pregnancy before age 17 or over 40, and the mother's own health conditions, such as being underweight or overweight, or having diabetes or high blood pressure. That's why it's so important for women to have good care, not only early in pregnancy, but before they conceive, said the March of Dimes' Christopher Howson.

But all those factors explain only a portion of preterm birth. NIH's Spong pointed to efforts to understand how vaginal infections and inflammation may help trigger preterm labor.

Another mystery: Why African-American women are at higher risk, with a preterm birth rate of about 17 percent compared to under 11 percent among white women, Howson said.

Still, many women don't know that there are some protections, said Nikki Fleming of suburban Charlotte, N.C., who benefited from two of the steps recommended in Thursday's report and tries to spread the word.

Fleming's first baby, Lauren, was born at 26 weeks, weighing just over 2 pounds and spending her first five months in the hospital. Fortunately Lauren, now a healthy 8-year-old, fared well. But Fleming's next pregnancy ended in a miscarriage.

Her doctor determined that she would benefit from that cervical stitch as well as the progesterone shots. The result: two healthy full-term babies.

"I appreciate that they didn't treat it like an isolated incident," Fleming said. 

More from NBCNews.com health: 

Therapy can help scared moms avoid C-section

9 kinds of salmonella found in recalled peanut butter

Fungal meningitis outbreak could happen again, FDA warns

Discuss this post

Nearly eliminating the practice of inducing labor and C-sections scheduled much ahead of mom's due date unless they're medically necessary.

Are there really "moms" who would elect to have their child up to three weeks early just so because they are impatient? They would really endanger the health of their child for such a reason? Selfish and disgusting.

  • 4 votes
Reply#1 - Fri Nov 16, 2012 2:23 PM EST

There are docs that schedule such so they dont have to come in on weekends and late at night... its not just mom's that choose it.

  • 5 votes
#1.1 - Fri Nov 16, 2012 3:02 PM EST

I don't care if it's less than 1% affective by following these guidelines, I'll make sure that they are followed. I you choose to have a baby, don't play any chance game.

  • 3 votes
#1.2 - Fri Nov 16, 2012 3:08 PM EST

Uh, yeah, there are moms who make all kinds of choices that endanger their babies' health, both born and unborn. Like using drugs, drinking too much alcohol . . . drinking and driving . . . and don't forget the husbands/boyfriends who beat them up knowing that they're pregnant. If being overweight or diabetic is a risk factor, you could pick on a huge portion of the female population in the U.S. and tell them to lose weight for the sake of their yet-to-be conceived children, I suppose. And what about those awful parents who spend money on the occasional latte instead of extra tutoring for Junior? How far do you want to take this?

I'm a little more sympathetic to a mom who tries to schedule her delivery so that she can spend as much time as possible with her newborn before going back to work. And please don't bother to diss working moms here--most are doing what they must to feed their families or keep their kids in a neighborhood where they won't get beaten up on the way home from school. Not all of us have the luxury of just waiting until the baby is ready to come on its own. I did and will forever be grateful, but I won't judge a mom who doesn't.

  • 1 vote
#1.3 - Fri Nov 16, 2012 4:05 PM EST

I begged my OB to deliver the baby at 36 weeks--I had gestational diabetes and he was large. The OB gave me steroids to speed up his lung development but told me "my hands are tied----hospital policy is elective induction at 38 weeks". At my 36 week checkup , during which I asked for early induction, I had a nonstress test and was told baby is fine so no need to induce before 38 weeks. Went in for my 37 week checkup and baby had no heartbeat. The cord had wrapped and compressed.

I would much rather have had a 36 week "preemie" than a dead baby. If I conceive again, I will demand that the baby is induced early and will not be going to a hospital that sets restrictions.

  • 2 votes
#1.4 - Fri Nov 16, 2012 4:10 PM EST

This article should mention one risk of inducing labor with medications like pitocin: fetal distress resulting in the need for a C-section. Medication-induced contractions that don't trigger proper labor can cause the baby's heart rate to fall. And once the baby is in distress, there's no going back; a C-section is required.

And I am not going to judge other women and their doctors on the reason for inducing labor a little early. Many reasons exists, some more necessary than others. But women should be told that it can reduce their chance of having a normal vaginal delivery.

  • 2 votes
#1.5 - Fri Nov 16, 2012 4:11 PM EST

karen-545203, I'm sorry for your loss. However, that possibility is a known complication of pregnancy, whether the mother is healthy or not. It had nothing to do with your diabetes.

  • 3 votes
#1.6 - Fri Nov 16, 2012 8:31 PM EST

I am so sorry to hear that Karen, but that was a valid medical reason. I do not believe in relinquishing control from women to decide about such an event for themselves.

However, I want society to look down on the choice of having a child a few weeks early just because a mom is not patient enough.

YesImaMommaToo, that is absolutely no excuse. Nature intends every day of pregnancy to have a vital importance. A baby at 38 weeks is not the same thing as a baby at 40 weeks. If a baby could be born at 38 weeks and eventually gain every physical development a 40 week old baby has, then nature would have babies born at 38 weeks. This one or two week difference is going to last for a lifetime in that new human beings life.

  • 1 vote
#1.7 - Fri Nov 16, 2012 10:49 PM EST
Reply

As far as I see it, do your best, and be glad if you're both alive in the end. After surviving two life threatening pregnancies and a medically necessary induction for the second one, I'm just grateful that my husband is not a childless widower. I think I'd rather the money and research efforts go to developing countries to save babies and mothers who are dying from life threatening conditions that are, like mine, survivable with treatment.

  • 1 vote
Reply#2 - Fri Nov 16, 2012 5:56 PM EST

How about research to prevent life-threatening complications like yours? Women in 3rd world countries mostly need better nutrition, prenatal care, and midwives.

  • 2 votes
#2.1 - Fri Nov 16, 2012 6:02 PM EST
Reply

One reason that the U.S. is behind is that so many women don't get prenatal care. Like it or not, Obamacare will be good for babies. Obesity also increases the risk for complications. A dollar of prevention is worth thousands of dollars of cure.

  • 2 votes
Reply#3 - Fri Nov 16, 2012 5:58 PM EST

Both my sons were born a little early (4/5 wks & 2 wks). Didn't know until some time later that as a DES daughter, I was at risk for premature birth, among other fertility/pregnancy problems.

DES (Diethylstilbestrol) is a synthetic estrogen, an endocrine disruptor, that was believed safe, and given to pregnant women thought to be at risk for miscarriage, as well as added to animal feed. Can't help but wonder what other hormones we are in our food supply that might be effecting such things.

And also get a bit queasy, as a daughter effected by treatment during my mother's pregnancy, when progesterone shots are recommended.

    Reply#4 - Fri Nov 16, 2012 6:21 PM EST

    I agree with your general distrust of any medication given to pregnant women, since Big Pharma seems much more interested in profits than in safe and appropriate use of its concoctions. But I am a big proponent of women having their progesterone levels monitored and supplemented when necessary. My own experience (anecdoctal, yes) was that I couldn't get pregnant and certainly couldn't hold onto a fetus until my endocrinologist agreed (after four years of failure) to start progesterone shots the same day that we tried to concieve. Nine months later, I had my perfect baby girl. Do I feed her hormone-free, organic food? You betcha.

      #4.1 - Fri Nov 16, 2012 8:47 PM EST
      Reply

      AKA, countries with real health care systems have lower rates of premature births (and probably also of maternal deaths) than does the US with it's health non-care system. This is yet another argument for single-payer universal health insurance.

      • 1 vote
      Reply#5 - Fri Nov 16, 2012 8:12 PM EST

      I agree, we really can't compare ourselves to developed nations. The condition of our healthcare system is closer to that of a 3rd world country. Where else can you work 40 hours a week and still not be able to afford the most basic health care.

      • 1 vote
      #5.1 - Mon Nov 19, 2012 1:33 AM EST
      Reply

      Could it be diet and vitamin D deficiency .

        Reply#6 - Sun Nov 18, 2012 10:51 AM EST

        With my third child, I had two of the recommendations (progesterone shots and cervical stitch) based on a history of preterm labor with a previous pregnancy. The treatment let me have a healthy baby at 38 1/2 weeks, but was a long, arduous ordeal that I wouldn't wish on anybody.

        I am thankful that my doctors gave my pregnancy a chance at succeeding since the alternative would have been much worse. I had already had the worst result possible (preterm labor resulting in baby's death followed by complications) and would have done anything to not have a repeat result.

        As for my child not being born at 40 weeks, he arrived all by himself without any outside assistance. I also was monitored more than most women so I received updates on baby's weight, size, and condition often. I am not saddened that I didn't go to 40 weeks because in my mind a baby born at 38 1/2 weeks is a good result in someone with my history.

          Reply#7 - Mon Nov 19, 2012 12:09 PM EST
          You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead.
          As a new user, you may notice a few temporary content restrictions. Click here for more info.