Racial Differences in the Influence of Interpregnancy Interval on Fetal Growth

Birth spacing and risk of adverse pregnancy and birth outcomes: A systematic review and dose-response meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

The association between extreme birth spacing and adverse outcomes is controversial, and available evidence is fragmented into different classifications of birth spacing.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

We conducted a systematic review of observational studies to evaluate the association between birth spacing (i.e., interpregnancy interval and interoutcome interval) and adverse outcomes (i.e., pregnancy complications, adverse birth outcomes). Pooled odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated using a random-effects model, and the dose-response relationships were evaluated using generalized least squares trend estimation.

RESULTS

A total of 129 studies involving 46 874 843 pregnancies were included. In the general population, compared with an interpregnancy interval of 18-23 months, extreme intervals (<6 months and ≥ 60 months) were associated with an increased risk of adverse outcomes, including preterm birth, small for gestational age, low birthweight, fetal death, birth defects, early neonatal death, and premature rupture of fetal membranes (pooled OR range: 1.08-1.56; p < 0.05). The dose-response analyses further confirmed these J-shaped relationships (pnon-linear  < 0.001-0.009). Long interpregnancy interval was only associated with an increased risk of preeclampsia and gestational diabetes (pnon-linear  < 0.005 and pnon-linear  < 0.001, respectively). Similar associations were observed between interoutcome interval and risk of low birthweight and preterm birth (pnon-linear  < 0.001). Moreover, interoutcome interval of ≥60 months was associated with an increased risk of cesarean delivery (pooled OR 1.72, 95% CI 1.04-2.83). For pregnancies following preterm births, an interpregnancy interval of 9 months was not associated with an increased risk of preterm birth, according to dose-response analyses (pnon-linear  = 0.008). Based on limited evidence, we did not observe significant associations between interpregnancy interval or interoutcome interval after pregnancy losses and risk of small for gestational age, fetal death, miscarriage, or preeclampsia (pooled OR range: 0.76-1.21; p > 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Extreme birth spacing has extensive adverse effects on maternal and infant health. In the general population, interpregnancy interval of 18-23 months may be associated with potential benefits for both mothers and infants. For women with previous preterm birth, the optimal birth spacing may be 9 months.

Association of Interpregnancy Interval With Adverse Birth Outcomes

IMPORTANCE

Many studies have reported an association of interpregnancy interval (IPI) between 2 consecutive births with adverse birth outcomes in low- and middle-income countries. However, most of these studies ignore the implications of some unmeasured confounders.

OBJECTIVE

To explore the association of IPI with adverse perinatal outcomes.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This large-scale cohort study used the Guangdong Provincial Women and Children Health Information System in Guangdong Province, China, to obtain birth data recorded between January 1, 2014, and December 31, 2020. Matched-sibling design was used. The final cohort included first-born and second-born sibling pairs delivered by mothers who were permanent residents of Guangdong Province.

EXPOSURES

The exposure variable was IPI, which was categorized as follows: less than 6, 6 to 11, 12 to 17, 18 to 23, 24 to 29, 30 to 35, and 36 or more months.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The outcome variables were adverse birth outcomes: preterm birth (PTB, gestational age <37 weeks), low birth weight (LBW, <2500 g), and small for gestational age (SGA). Adjusted odds ratio (OR) and interaction odds ratio (IOR) associated with IPI were calculated.

RESULTS

The study consisted of 725 392 sibling pairs of multiparous mothers. Among these mothers, 718 111 (99.0%) were aged 20 to 34 years, and 715 583 (98.7%) were of Han Chinese ethnicity. Unmatched analysis showed that a short IPI of less than 6 months was associated with higher risks of PTB (adjusted OR, 1.96; 95% CI, 1.87-2.06), LBW (adjusted OR, 1.88; 95% CI, 1.79-1.98), and SGA (adjusted OR, 1.34; 95% CI, 1.30-1.38) compared with an IPI of 18 to 23 months. These associations were attenuated in the matched-sibling analysis. An association of short IPI (<6 months) with PTB (adjusted IOR, 1.40; 95% CI, 1.30-1.51), LBW (adjusted IOR, 1.30; 95% CI, 1.21-1.40), and SGA (adjusted IOR, 1.16; 95% CI, 1.11-1.22) remained in the matched analysis. For IPI of 36 months or more, the odds of PTB (adjusted OR, 1.08; 95% CI, 1.03-1.14) and LBW (adjusted OR, 1.13; 95% CI, 1.07-1.19) in the unmatched analysis were also greater than the reference interval (18-23 months), but not for SGA (adjusted OR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.93-0.99). Associations between a long IPI (≥36 months) and PTB (adjusted IOR, 1.10; 95% CI, 1.02-1.19) and LBW (adjusted IOR, 1.16; 95% CI, 1.07-1.26) remained through the sibling comparisons.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Results of this study indicated that mothers with a short (<6 months) or long (≥36 months) IPI had greater odds of adverse birth outcomes. The findings may inform family planning policies and guide individuals and families who are planning for another pregnancy in China.

Explaining the Black-White Disparity in Preterm Birth: A Consensus Statement From a Multi-Disciplinary Scientific Work Group Convened by the March of Dimes

In 2017-2019, the March of Dimes convened a workgroup with biomedical, clinical, and epidemiologic expertise to review knowledge of the causes of the persistent Black-White disparity in preterm birth (PTB). Multiple databases were searched to identify hypothesized causes examined in peer-reviewed literature, 33 hypothesized causes were reviewed for whether they plausibly affect PTB and either occur more/less frequently and/or have a larger/smaller effect size among Black women vs. White women. While definitive proof is lacking for most potential causes, most are biologically plausible. No single downstream or midstream factor explains the disparity or its social patterning, however, many likely play limited roles, e.g., while genetic factors likely contribute to PTB, they explain at most a small fraction of the disparity. Research links most hypothesized midstream causes, including socioeconomic factors and stress, with the disparity through their influence on the hypothesized downstream factors. Socioeconomic factors alone cannot explain the disparity's social patterning. Chronic stress could affect PTB through neuroendocrine and immune mechanisms leading to inflammation and immune dysfunction, stress could alter a woman's microbiota, immune response to infection, chronic disease risks, and behaviors, and trigger epigenetic changes influencing PTB risk. As an upstream factor, racism in multiple forms has repeatedly been linked with the plausible midstream/downstream factors, including socioeconomic disadvantage, stress, and toxic exposures. Racism is the only factor identified that directly or indirectly could explain the racial disparities in the plausible midstream/downstream causes and the observed social patterning. Historical and contemporary systemic racism can explain the racial disparities in socioeconomic opportunities that differentially expose African Americans to lifelong financial stress and associated health-harming conditions. Segregation places Black women in stressful surroundings and exposes them to environmental hazards. Race-based discriminatory treatment is a pervasive stressor for Black women of all socioeconomic levels, considering both incidents and the constant vigilance needed to prepare oneself for potential incidents. Racism is a highly plausible, major upstream contributor to the Black-White disparity in PTB through multiple pathways and biological mechanisms. While much is unknown, existing knowledge and core values (equity, justice) support addressing racism in efforts to eliminate the racial disparity in PTB.

Short interpregnancy interval as a risk factor for preterm birth in non-Hispanic Black and White women in California

OBJECTIVE

Short interpregnancy interval (IPI) is associated with adverse pregnancy outcomes, including preterm birth (PTB < 37 weeks GA). We investigated whether short IPI (< 6 months) contributes to the higher PTB frequency among non-Hispanic Blacks (NHB).

STUDY DESIGN

Using a linked birth cohort > 1.5 million California live births, we examined frequencies of short IPI between racial/ethnic groups and estimated risks by multivariable logistic regression for spontaneous PTB. We expanded the study to births 1991-2012 and utilized a "within-mother" approach to permit methodologic inquiry about residual confounding.

RESULTS

NHB women had higher frequency (7.6%) of short IPI than non-Hispanic White (NHW) women (4.4%). Adjusted odds ratios for PTB and short IPI were 1.64 (95% CI 1.54, 1.76) for NHW and 1.49 (1.34, 1.65) for NHB. Using within-mother analysis did not produce substantially different results.

CONCLUSIONS

Short IPI is associated with PTB but does not explain risk disparity between NHWs and NHBs.

A Population-Based Matched-Sibling Analysis Estimating the Associations Between First Interpregnancy Interval and Birth Outcomes

The association between a single interpregnancy interval (IPI) and birth outcomes has not yet been explored using matched methods. We modeled the odds of preterm birth, being small for gestational age, and having low birth weight in a second, live-born infant in a cohort of 192,041 sibling pairs born in Western Australia between 1980 and 2010. The association between IPI and birth outcomes was estimated from the interaction between birth order and IPI (with 18-23 months as the reference category), using conditional logistic regression. Matched analysis showed the odds of preterm birth were higher for siblings born following an IPI of <6 months (adjusted interaction odds ratio = 1.22, 95% confidence interval: 1.06, 1.38) compared with those born after an IPI of 18-23 months. There were no significant differences for IPIs of <6 months for other outcomes (small for gestational age or low birth weight). This is the first study to use matched analyses to investigate the association between a single IPI on birth outcomes. IPIs of <6 months were associated with increased odds of preterm birth in second-born infants, although the association is likely smaller than previously estimated by unmatched studies.

Short interpregnancy intervals and adverse perinatal outcomes in high-resource settings: An updated systematic review

BACKGROUND

This systematic review summarises association between short interpregnancy intervals and adverse perinatal health outcomes in high-resource settings to inform recommendations for healthy birth spacing for the United States.

METHODS

Five databases and a previous systematic review were searched for relevant articles published between 1966 and 1 May 2017. We included studies meeting the following criteria: (a) reporting of perinatal health outcomes after a short interpregnancy interval since last livebirth; (b) conducted within a high-resource setting; and (c) estimates were adjusted for maternal age and at least one socio-economic factor.

RESULTS

Nine good-quality and 18 fair-quality studies were identified. Interpregnancy intervals <6 months were associated with a clinically and statistically significant increased risk of adverse outcomes in studies of preterm birth (eg, aOR ≥ 1.20 in 10 of 14 studies); spontaneous preterm birth (eg, aOR ≥ 1.20 in one of two studies); small-for-gestational age (eg, aOR ≥ 1.20 in 5 of 11 studies); and infant mortality (eg, aOR ≥ 1.20 in four of four studies), while four studies of perinatal death showed no association. Interpregnancy intervals of 6-11 and 12-17 months generally had smaller point estimates and confidence intervals that included the null. Most studies were population-based and few included adjustment for detailed measures of key confounders.

CONCLUSIONS

In high-resource settings, there is some evidence showing interpregnancy intervals <6 months since last livebirth are associated with increased risks for preterm birth, small-for-gestational age and infant death; however, results were inconsistent. Additional research controlling for confounding would further inform recommendations for healthy birth spacing for the United States.

The influence of interpregnancy interval on infant mortality

BACKGROUND

In Ohio, the infant mortality rate is above the national average and the black infant mortality rate is more than twice the white infant mortality rate. Having a short interpregnancy interval has been shown to correlate with preterm birth and low birthweight, but the effect of short interpregnancy interval on infant mortality is less well established.

OBJECTIVE

We sought to quantify the population impact of interpregnancy interval on the risk of infant mortality.

STUDY DESIGN

This was a statewide population-based retrospective cohort study of all births (n = 1,131,070) and infant mortalities (n = 8152) using linked Ohio birth and infant death records from January 2007 through September 2014. For this study we analyzed 5 interpregnancy interval categories: 0-<6, 6-<12, 12-<24, 24-<60, and ≥60 months. The primary outcome for this study was infant mortality. During the study period, 3701 infant mortalities were linked to a live birth certificate with an interpregnancy interval available. We calculated the frequency and relative risk of infant mortality for each interval compared to a referent interval of 12-<24 months. Stratified analyses by maternal race were also performed. Adjusted risks were estimated after accounting for statistically significant and biologically plausible confounding variables. Adjusted relative risk was utilized to calculate the attributable risk percent of short interpregnancy intervals on infant mortality.

RESULTS

Short interpregnancy intervals were common in Ohio during the study period. Of all multiparous births, 20.5% followed an interval of <12 months. The overall infant mortality rate during this time was 7.2 per 1000 live births (6.0 for white mothers and 13.1 for black mothers). Infant mortalities occurred more frequently for births following short intervals of 0-<6 months (9.2 per 1000) and 6-<12 months (7.1 per 1000) compared to 12-<24 months (5.6 per 1000) (P < .001 and <.001). The highest risk for infant mortality followed interpregnancy intervals of 0-<6 months (adjusted relative risk, 1.32; 95% confidence interval, 1.17-1.49) followed by interpregnancy intervals of 6-<12 months (adjusted relative risk, 1.16; 95% confidence interval, 1.04-1.30). Analysis stratified by maternal race revealed similar findings. Attributable risk calculation showed that 24.2% of infant mortalities following intervals of 0-<6 months and 14.1% with intervals of 6-<12 months are attributable to the short interpregnancy interval. By avoiding short interpregnancy intervals of ≤12 months we estimate that in the state of Ohio 31 infant mortalities (20 white and 8 black) per year could have been prevented and the infant mortality rate could have been reduced from 7.2-7.0 during this time frame.

CONCLUSION

An interpregnancy interval of 12-60 months (1-5 years) between birth and conception of next pregnancy is associated with lowest risk of infant mortality. Public health initiatives and provider counseling to optimize birth spacing has the potential to significantly reduce infant mortality for both white and black mothers.