Zika Appears to Cause Birth Defects in 1 in 10 Pregnancies

New findings provide the clearest picture yet of the risk to fetuses

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

By Julie Steenhuysen

CHICAGO (Reuters) - About one in 10 pregnant women with confirmed Zika infections had a fetus or baby with birth defects, offering the clearest picture yet of the risk of Zika infection during pregnancy, U.S. researchers said on Tuesday.

The report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is the first to analyze a group of U.S. women with clear, confirmed test results of Zika infection during pregnancy.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


Once considered a mild disease, a large outbreak of the virus that began in Brazil in 2015 and quickly spread through the Americas revealed that the mosquito-borne virus can cause severe brain damage and microcephaly, or small head size, when women are exposed during pregnancy.

"Zika continues to be a threat to pregnant women across the U.S.," Dr. Anne Schuchat, acting director of the CDC, said in a statement. "With warm weather and a new mosquito season approaching, prevention is crucial to protect the health of mothers and babies."

Babies affected by Zika can develop congenital Zika syndrome, which includes brain abnormalities, vision problems, hearing loss, and problems moving limbs.

The study comes from the CDC's Zika pregnancy registry, which includes data from the continental United States and all U.S. territories except Puerto Rico.

The researchers analyzed data on nearly 1,000 completed pregnancies in 2016 among women who had some evidence of Zika infection. Most were infected through travel to a region where the virus was actively spreading.

Of the 1,000, 51 or about 5 percent had babies or a fetus with one or more Zika-related birth defect. Because of limitations of testing, only tests done within the first few weeks of Zika can test specifically for the Zika virus.

The team also analyzed 250 women with definitive test results for Zika. Among these, about one in 10 had a fetus or baby with birth defects. The risk was even higher among women infected in the first trimester of pregnancy, where 15 percent of pregnancies resulted in a fetus or baby with birth defects.

The study also showed that three out of four babies exposed to Zika had not received brain imaging after birth to diagnose birth defects.

"We know that some babies have underlying brain defects that are otherwise not evident at birth. Because we do not have brain imaging reports for most of the infants, our current data might significantly underestimate the impact of Zika," CDC's Peggy Honein told a news briefing.

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe