Jump to content
This site uses cookies. Continued use is acceptance of our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. More Info... ×
  • Welcome to Celiac.com!

    You have found your celiac tribe! Join us and ask questions in our forum, share your story, and connect with others.




  • Celiac.com Sponsor (A1):



    Celiac.com Sponsor (A1-M):


  • Get Celiac.com Updates:
    Support Our Content
    eNewsletter
    Donate

How Many Of You/your Children Were Preemies?


skipper30

Recommended Posts

Gcbec Newbie

My first child was born 27 weeks weighed 1 lb 8 oz, due to me having pre-eclampsia turning eclampsia. I also have other autoimune problems which was found to be the cause of all the problems in my pregnancy. Now, what came first I dont know, but as far as I know my 9 year old doesnt have celiac. Although she has never been tested, I have not seen any symptoms. (forgot had sever hypremisis as well saw someone else with that it was horrible)

My second was born at 33 weeks, 6 lbs. I started pre term contractions at 16 weeks, had 2nd pulmonary embolism at 26 weeks, and gestational diabetes. Finally induced again because of pre eclampsia. This is the one I have 1 positive test and know he has celiac. (hypremisis again)

Now whether or not it is from being premature, I dont think so, but I think if the mom has celiac that would effect premature birth. Just because of the autoimune response, malobsorption, and diet. Had I had diagnosis of celiac, it might have prevented my children from premature births who knows. Very interseting I never thought of it.


Celiac.com Sponsor (A8):
Celiac.com Sponsor (A8):



Celiac.com Sponsor (A8-M):



Guest ~jules~

Both of my boys were exactly 2 weeks early to the day. Michael was only 6 lbs, and Sean was 6lb 9oz. I had normal pregnancies, except constant nausea the whole time, not just in the first trimester. I don't remember anything happening until after I had my second child, I had post-pardum pretty bad though. Myself I was a day late 7 lbs. I think my trigger was stress.

LL04 Newbie

I find this all very interesting. I, myelf as a baby was a whole month late and was very sickly. I know now that I had celiac disease but it went undiagnosed my whole life.

I have 4 children and had terrible hyperemisis (severe vomiting) for the full nine months of pregnancy with the first 3 of them. I was hospitalized with each one and each time I weighed exactly the same or less when I gave birth than I did before I got pregnant. I had not yet been diagnosed with celiac disease with any of them. Suprisingly my kids didn't seem any worse for the wear because of the nasty pregnancies. The first two came right on their due dates, the third 6 days late and the last 3 days early. There were no complications, the labours were wonderfully quick and they were all healthy 7 or so pounders (except the first at 6lbs 6ozs, but still healthy). However, my first got croup so many times in the first year that he became allergic to amoxicillin, but that's it. No other grief at all. All of them have been tested for celiac disease and are negative (and yes, what does that really mean??!!), but my middle two, a girl 9 and a boy 5, both display symptoms of celiac disease, especially the boy. I breastfed all of them for at least a year or more.

I have northern european ancestery as does my husband so we are prime candidates for celiac disease, which I do have and he hasn't yet been tested for. I am positive my brother has it but he refuses to get tested and other than that we can't trace our family history to know if anyone else has had it. Sooooo.....our children are PRIME candidates. You would think that after being sick so much and having so many antibiotics that it would have been a catalyst for our first boy to get it but he is now healthier than most kids I know and he never gets sick now, not even really any colds!

It would really be interesting if we could see what would have happened if any of them had been premature? Would that have made a difference with the first?

This is such a great question but one I'm afraid will probably not be answered in our lifetime. Research into Celiac's is just finally gaining momentum so I believe it will be a long way off before anyone even begins to probe the possibility of premature births and celiac's having some sort of connection.

Maybe I'm wrong....maybe someone is already looking into this.....???

kevsmom Contributor

My teenage son was born 3 weeks early. He weighed 8 lbs. 1 oz. I hate to think about what he would have weighed if he waited until his due date! I am diabetic, and it is not unusual for diabetics to have large babies. He had constant ear infections from the time he was 3 weeks old he was 15 months old and had tubes put in. He just had a negative endoscopy (yeah!)

Cindy

Becky6 Enthusiast

I was late.

My dd was born at 33 weeks weighing 2 lbs 12 oz and 15". I had severe preeclampsia and HELLP syndrome.

abc Rookie

My last baby - now almost 9mos - was born 6 weeks premature. He had all the normal preemie probs, but came home from NICU after 8 days (just in time for Christmas!) He is now a whopping 21.5 pounds, so no eating issues there.

I also had trouble getting pregnant with my first child, and am curious about infertility and celiac. I am still awaiting test results as to whether I am gluten intolerant...but it could explain the "unexplained" infertility and the "unexplained" prematurity?

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


  • Celiac.com Sponsor (A19):



  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      128,015
    • Most Online (within 30 mins)
      7,748

    Carrie-S
    Newest Member
    Carrie-S
    Joined

  • Celiac.com Sponsor (A20):


  • Forum Statistics

    • Total Topics
      121k
    • Total Posts
      70.6k

  • Celiac.com Sponsor (A22):





  • Celiac.com Sponsor (A21):



  • Upcoming Events

  • Posts

    • trents
      The NIH article you link actually supports what I have been trying to explain to you: "Celiac disease (celiac disease) is an autoimmune-mediated enteropathy triggered by dietary gluten in genetically prone individuals. The current treatment for celiac disease is a strict lifelong gluten-free diet. However, in some celiac disease patients following a strict gluten-free diet, the symptoms do not remit. These cases may be refractory celiac disease or due to gluten contamination; however, the lack of response could be related to other dietary ingredients, such as maize, which is one of the most common alternatives to wheat used in the gluten-free diet. In some celiac disease patients, as a rare event, peptides from maize prolamins could induce a celiac-like immune response by similar or alternative pathogenic mechanisms to those used by wheat gluten peptides. This is supported by several shared features between wheat and maize prolamins and by some experimental results. Given that gluten peptides induce an immune response of the intestinal mucosa both in vivo and in vitro, peptides from maize prolamins could also be tested to determine whether they also induce a cellular immune response. Hypothetically, maize prolamins could be harmful for a very limited subgroup of celiac disease patients, especially those that are non-responsive, and if it is confirmed, they should follow, in addition to a gluten-free, a maize-free diet." Notice that those for whom it is suggested to follow a maize-free diet are a "very limited subgroup of celiac disease patients". Please don't try to make your own experience normative for the entire celiac community.  Notice also that the last part of the concluding sentence in the paragraph does not equate a gluten-free diet with a maize-free diet, it actually puts them in juxtaposition to one another. In other words, they are different but for a "limited subgroup of celiac disease patients" they produce the same or a similar reaction. You refer to celiac reactions to cereal grain prolamins as "allergic" reactions and "food sensitivity". For instance, you say, "NIH sees all these grains as in opposition to celiacs, of which I am one and that is science, not any MD with a good memory who overprescribes medications that contain known food allergens in them, of which they have zero knowledge if the patient is in fact allergic to or not, since they failed to do simple 'food sensitivity' testing" and "IF a person wants to get well, they should be the one to determine what grains they are allergic to and what grains they want to leave out, not you. I need to remind you that celiac disease is not an allergy, it is an autoimmune disorder. Neither allergy testing nor food sensitivity testing can be used to diagnose celiac disease. Allergy testing and food sensitivity testing cannot detect the antibodies produced by celiac disease in reaction to gluten ingestion.  You say of me, "You must be one of those who are only gluten intolerant . . ." Gluten intolerance is synonymous with celiac disease. You must be referring to gluten sensitivity or NCGS (Non Celiac Gluten Sensitivity). Actually, I have been officially diagnosed with celiac disease both by blood antibody testing and by endoscopy/positive biopsy. Reacting to all cereal grain prolamins does not define celiac disease. If you are intent on teaching the truth, please get it straight first.
    • Bebygirl01
      Perhaps you would still like to answer the questions I posed on this topic, because that is all I asked. I am curious to know the answers to those questions, I do not care about the background of Dr. Osborne as I am more aware of the situation than you are, and he is also one of the best known authors out there on Celiac disease. But did you even bother to read the three Research Papers I posted by NIH? You must be one of those who are only gluten intolerant and not yet reacting to all glutens aka grains, but I AM one of those who react to ALL the glutens, and again, that is one of the two questions I originally posted on this matter. NIH sees all these grains as in opposition to celiacs, of which I am one and that is science, not any MD with a good memory who overprescribes medications that contain known food allergens in them, of which they have zero knowledge if the patient is in fact allergic to or not, since they failed to do simple 'food sensitivity' testing. I started with the failed FDA explanation of what Gluten Free is and I stayed sick and got even sicker. It wasn't until I came across NIH's papers and went off all grains that I realized that in fact, I am Celiac and reacting to all the glutens. IF a person wants to get well, they should be the one to determine what grains they are allergic to and what grains they want to leave out, not you. Those who are just getting started with learning about grains etc., can take it easy by just being "grain free' and eating a lot of meat, vegetables, etc. or whole foods as God has intended, without buying so called gluten free garbage out there that is making them sick and the whole reason they are not better. I tried the stupid gluten free garbage and it didn't work, and that will make anyone want to give up, it is better to teach the entire truth and let the patient decide, rather than give them misinformation and lies.
    • Nicola McGuire
      Thank you so much I will speak to the doctor for dietician apt . Thank you for your advice Beth much appreciated 
    • Scott Adams
      Oh no, I'm sorry to hear about the accidental gluten! This article, and the comments below it, may be helpful:    
    • Karmmacalling
      I was born with celiac disease im 20 years old. And I've been gluten free my whole life. Yes my diet is 100 percent gluten free and no i don't eat at restaurants at all. I got glutened by a chips that was marked as gluten free but it wasn't the company said the packaging was old and the recipe was new. 
×
×
  • Create New...