Moms' Infection Helps Kids' Skin

The children of women with untreated worm infections while pregnant had fewer cases of eczema, lending further credence to the "hygiene hypothesis" that says some immune challenges may have long-term benefits. Cynthia Graber comments

Illustration of a Bohr atom model spinning around the words Science Quickly with various science and medicine related icons around the text

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

Can we be too clean? According to what’s called the hygiene hypothesis, yes. Without being challenged as kids, our immune systems don’t flourish. Scientists think it could be part of the rise of allergies and asthma.

Now a new study supports the hygiene hypothesis: infants in Uganda had a lower chance of developing the skin allergy condition eczema if their moms had helminth worm infections while pregnant. The research is in the journal Pediatric Allergy and Immunology. [Harriet Mpairwe et al., "Anthelminthic treatment during pregnancy is associated with increased risk of infantile eczema: randomised-controlled trial results"]

A 2005 study showed that the kids of women treated for worm infections had more eczema. Twenty-five hundred pregnant women took part in this follow-up research. Some got one worm-killing drug. Others took a different drug. And a third group received a placebo. One drug nearly doubled the kids’ risk of eczema. The other more than doubled the odds.


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.


Helminth worm infections can give the mothers symptoms such as mild anemia or stomach pain and vomiting. Although many people have no symptoms at all. The scientists say more research is needed before they would recommend not treating worm infections. But the work lends additional support to the idea that hygiene may be a balancing act rather than a goal.

—Cynthia Graber

[The above text is an exact transcript of this podcast.]

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