Steady Growth in Early Infancy Is Associated with Greater Anthropometry in Indian Children Born Low Birth Weight at Term.
DIVIDS
SITAR
childhood bone density
childhood size
infant growth
low birth weight
Journal
The Journal of nutrition
ISSN: 1541-6100
Titre abrégé: J Nutr
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 0404243
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 09 2019
01 09 2019
Historique:
received:
08
01
2019
revised:
06
02
2019
accepted:
01
05
2019
pubmed:
9
6
2019
medline:
20
6
2020
entrez:
9
6
2019
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Patterns of early growth are associated with later body composition and risk of adult noncommunicable disease but information from low-income countries is limited. The aim of this study was to investigate early growth trajectories and later anthropometric and bone density outcomes among children born term low birth weight (LBW: 1.8-2.5 kg). We used data from 902 children from the Delhi Infant Vitamin D Supplementation study of LBW term infants (which collected monthly anthropometry from birth to 6 mo) and who had height, weight, midupper arm circumference (MUAC), midupper arm muscle circumference (MUAMC), subscapular and triceps skinfold thicknesses, tibia and radius bone density measured at age 4-6 y. We investigated how growth in the first 6 mo of life, modeled using the SuperImposition by Translation and Rotation (SITAR) growth curve model, was related to these outcomes. SITAR summarizes each infant's weight and length trajectory in terms of a population mean curve and child-specific growth parameters: size, timing, and intensity. These were included as explanatory variables in linear regression models for the childhood outcomes. Considering the infant weight and length SITAR parameters jointly, childhood weight was strongly associated with infant length timing [estimated regression coefficient β = 0.25 (95% CI: 0.10, 0.39)] and with weight size, timing, and intensity [β = 9.01 (6.75, 11.27), β = -0.25 (-0.43, -0.07), β = 5.03 (3.22, 6.84), respectively]. Childhood height was associated only with the length parameters [β = 0.97 (0.71, 1.23), β = -0.43 (-0.77, -0.09), β = 11.68 (8.60, 14.75), respectively]; childhood MUAC, MUAMC, and skinfolds with all parameters; and bone density with none. Overall, delayed and sustained growth in infant weight and length resulted in higher values of all outcomes except bone density, with the period up to 15 wk of age appearing critical for setting childhood anthropometry in this population. The explanation for the effects of delayed growth and length of the period in which trajectories are set is unclear; however, sustained and delayed growth in early infancy appears to be beneficial for these LBW children at least in the short-term. The trial was registered at clinicaltrials.gov as BT/PR7489/PID/20/285/2006.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Patterns of early growth are associated with later body composition and risk of adult noncommunicable disease but information from low-income countries is limited.
OBJECTIVES
The aim of this study was to investigate early growth trajectories and later anthropometric and bone density outcomes among children born term low birth weight (LBW: 1.8-2.5 kg).
METHODS
We used data from 902 children from the Delhi Infant Vitamin D Supplementation study of LBW term infants (which collected monthly anthropometry from birth to 6 mo) and who had height, weight, midupper arm circumference (MUAC), midupper arm muscle circumference (MUAMC), subscapular and triceps skinfold thicknesses, tibia and radius bone density measured at age 4-6 y. We investigated how growth in the first 6 mo of life, modeled using the SuperImposition by Translation and Rotation (SITAR) growth curve model, was related to these outcomes. SITAR summarizes each infant's weight and length trajectory in terms of a population mean curve and child-specific growth parameters: size, timing, and intensity. These were included as explanatory variables in linear regression models for the childhood outcomes.
RESULTS
Considering the infant weight and length SITAR parameters jointly, childhood weight was strongly associated with infant length timing [estimated regression coefficient β = 0.25 (95% CI: 0.10, 0.39)] and with weight size, timing, and intensity [β = 9.01 (6.75, 11.27), β = -0.25 (-0.43, -0.07), β = 5.03 (3.22, 6.84), respectively]. Childhood height was associated only with the length parameters [β = 0.97 (0.71, 1.23), β = -0.43 (-0.77, -0.09), β = 11.68 (8.60, 14.75), respectively]; childhood MUAC, MUAMC, and skinfolds with all parameters; and bone density with none. Overall, delayed and sustained growth in infant weight and length resulted in higher values of all outcomes except bone density, with the period up to 15 wk of age appearing critical for setting childhood anthropometry in this population.
CONCLUSIONS
The explanation for the effects of delayed growth and length of the period in which trajectories are set is unclear; however, sustained and delayed growth in early infancy appears to be beneficial for these LBW children at least in the short-term. The trial was registered at clinicaltrials.gov as BT/PR7489/PID/20/285/2006.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31175812
pii: S0022-3166(22)16728-3
doi: 10.1093/jn/nxz113
pmc: PMC6736435
doi:
Substances chimiques
Vitamin D
1406-16-2
Types de publication
Journal Article
Randomized Controlled Trial
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1633-1641Subventions
Organisme : Medical Research Council
ID : MR/R010692/1
Pays : United Kingdom
Informations de copyright
Copyright © American Society for Nutrition 2019.
Références
J Nutr. 2004 Jan;134(1):205-10
pubmed: 14704320
J Nutr. 2005 Nov;135(11):2728S-34S
pubmed: 16251639
Bone. 2007 Sep;41(3):400-5
pubmed: 17599849
Pediatr Res. 2008 Mar;63(3):220-8
pubmed: 18287958
Am J Clin Nutr. 2008 Jun;87(6):1769-75
pubmed: 18541567
Proc Nutr Soc. 2009 May;68(2):179-88
pubmed: 19245738
J Assoc Physicians India. 2009 Feb;57:163-70
pubmed: 19582986
Int J Epidemiol. 2010 Dec;39(6):1558-66
pubmed: 20647267
Stat Methods Med Res. 2012 Jun;21(3):243-56
pubmed: 21389091
BMJ. 2011 May 31;342:d2975
pubmed: 21628364
Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol. 2012 Jan;26(1):19-26
pubmed: 22150704
Osteoporos Int. 2012 Oct;23(10):2447-59
pubmed: 22237812
Eur J Clin Nutr. 2012 Jun;66(6):746-50
pubmed: 22510791
Am J Clin Nutr. 2012 Sep;96(3):567-73
pubmed: 22836033
Osteoporos Int. 2013 Jan;24(1):7-18
pubmed: 22930242
Lancet. 2013 Aug 10;382(9891):525-34
pubmed: 23541370
J Bone Miner Res. 2014 Jan;29(1):123-33
pubmed: 23761289
Am J Clin Nutr. 2013 Oct;98(4):885-94
pubmed: 23985805
Am J Clin Nutr. 2014 Jun;99(6):1450-9
pubmed: 24695898
Int J Epidemiol. 2015 Jun;44(3):894-905
pubmed: 26130740
PLoS One. 2015 Nov 17;10(11):e0143231
pubmed: 26575994
Ann Hum Biol. 2016 Sep;43(5):492
pubmed: 26652936
Eur J Clin Nutr. 2017 Aug;71(8):919-930
pubmed: 28247860
BMJ. 2017 Aug 16;358:j3683
pubmed: 28814563
Am J Hum Biol. 2018 Jan;30(1):
pubmed: 28833849
J Nutr. 2018 Apr 1;148(4):607-615
pubmed: 29659955
Adv Nutr. 2019 Jan 1;10(1):104-111
pubmed: 30649167