Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-94fs2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-14T19:18:33.921Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Birth size and adult size in same-sex siblings discordant for fetal growth in the Early Determinants of Adult Health study

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 November 2011

L. H. Lumey ,
E. Susser ,
H. Andrews  and
M. W. Gillman
L. H. Lumey*
Affiliation:
Department of Epidemiology, Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA The Imprints Center for Genetic and Environmental Lifecourse Studies, Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA
E. Susser
Affiliation:
Department of Epidemiology, Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA The Imprints Center for Genetic and Environmental Lifecourse Studies, Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA Department of Psychiatry, College of Physicians and Surgeons, New York State Psychiatric Institute, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA
H. Andrews
Affiliation:
Data Coordinating Center, New York State Psychiatric Institute, Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons, New York, NY, USA
M. W. Gillman
Affiliation:
Department of Population Medicine, Harvard Medical School, Harvard Pilgrim Health Care Institute, Harvard University, Boston, MA, USA
*
*Address for correspondence: Dr L. H. Lumey, Department of Epidemiology, Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University, 722 West 168th Street, New York, NY 10032, USA. (Email [email protected])
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Many studies have reported on relations between birth size and adult size but the findings to date are hard to compare due to the lack of uniform measures across studies. Interpretation of findings is also hampered by potential confounding by ethnic, socioeconomic and family factors. The purpose of this study is to explore these relationships in a comprehensive fashion, with multiple measures of birth size and adult size, using same-sex sibling controls discordant in birth weight to address potential confounding at the family level. Study subjects include pregnant women enrolled during 1959–1966 in the Child Health and Development Study in Oakland, CA and the Boston, MA, and providence, RI, sites of the Collaborative Perinatal Project in New England, currently combined into the New England Family Study. We assessed 392 offspring (mean age 43 years), the great majority as sibships as available. Our analyses confirm the positive association between birth weight and adult length reported in other studies, with a change in adult height of 1.25 cm (95% CI: 0.79 to 1.70 cm) for each quintile change in standardized birth weight. No associations were seen between birth weight and adult fatness for which findings in other studies are highly variable. As adult weight is likely to reflect recent variations in the adult nutritional environment rather than the early environment, it may be more useful for studies of birth size and adult size to focus on adult length rather than weight measures in evaluating the role of early influences on adult health.

Keywords

adult height and weightbirth sizebirth weight and lengthprenatal factorssibling control study
Type
Original Articles
Information
Journal of Developmental Origins of Health and Disease , Volume 2 , Special Issue 6: The Early Determinants of Adult Health Study , December 2011 , pp. 330 - 339
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press and the International Society for Developmental Origins of Health and Disease 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Sorensen, HT, Sabroe, S, Rothman, KJ, et al. Birth weight and length as predictors for adult height. Am J Epidemiol. 1999; 149, 726–729.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
2. Sorensen, HT, Sabroe, S, Rothman, KJ, et al. Relation between weight and length at birth and body mass index in young adulthood: cohort study. BMJ. 1997; 315, 1137.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
3. Gunnarsdottir, I, Birgisdottir, BE, Benediktsson, R, Gudnason, V, Thorsdottir, I. Association between size at birth, truncal fat and obesity in adult life and its contribution to blood pressure and coronary heart disease; study in a high birth weight population. Eur J Clin Nutr. 2004; 58, 812–818.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4. Eide, MG, Oyen, N, Skjaerven, R, et al. Size at birth and gestational age as predictors of adult height and weight. Epidemiology. 2005; 16, 175–181.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
5. Parsons, TJ, Power, C, Manor, O. Fetal and early life growth and body mass index from birth to early adulthood in 1958 British cohort: longitudinal study. BMJ. 2001; 323, 1331–1335.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
6. Karlberg, J, Luo, ZC. Foetal size to final height. Acta Paediatr. 2000; 89, 632–636.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
7. Seidman, DS, Gale, R, Stevenson, DK, et al. Is the association between birthweight and height attainment independent of the confounding effect of ethnic and socioeconomic factors? Isr J Med Sci. 1993; 29, 772–776.Google ScholarPubMed
8. Seidman, DS, Laor, A, Gale, R, Stevenson, DK, Danon, YL. A longitudinal study of birth weight and being overweight in late adolescence. Am J Dis Child. 1991; 145, 782–785.Google ScholarPubMed
9. Rasmussen, F, Johansson, M. The relation of weight, length and ponderal index at birth to body mass index and overweight among 18-year-old males in Sweden. Eur J Epidemiol. 1998; 14, 373–380.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
10. Rohrer, R. Der Index der Korperfulle als Mass der Ernahrungszustandes. Munch Med Wochensch. 1921; 68, 580–588.Google Scholar
11. Donovan, SJ, Susser, E. Commentary: advent of sibling designs. Int J Epidemiol. 2011; 40, 345–349.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
12. Bakketeig, LS, Hoffman, HJ, Harley, EE. The tendency to repeat gestational age and birth weight in successive births. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1979; 135, 1086–1103.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
13. Romundstad, LB, Romundstad, PR, Sunde, A, et al. Effects of technology or maternal factors on perinatal outcome after assisted fertilisation: a population-based cohort study. Lancet. 2008; 372, 737–743.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
14. Lubchenco, LO, Hansman, C, Dressler, M, Boyd, E. Intrauterine growth as estimated from liveborn birth-weight data at 24 to 42 weeks of gestation. Pediatrics. 1963; 32, 793–800.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
15. Oken, E, Kleinman, KP, Rich-Edwards, J, Gillman, MW. A nearly continuous measure of birth weight for gestational age using a United States national reference. BMC Pediatr. 2003; 3, 6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
16. Tilling, K, Lawlor, DA, Davey Smith, G, Chambless, L, Szklo, M. The relation between components of adult height and intimal-medial thickness in middle age: the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities Study. Am J Epidemiol. 2006; 164, 136–142.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
17. Lawlor, DA, Ebrahim, S, Davey Smith, G. The association between components of adult height and Type II diabetes and insulin resistance: British Women's Heart and Health Study. Diabetologia. 2002; 45, 1097–1106.Google ScholarPubMed
18. Lawlor, DA, Taylor, M, Davey Smith, G, Gunnell, D, Ebrahim, S. Associations of components of adult height with coronary heart disease in postmenopausal women: the British Women's Heart and Health Study. Heart. 2004; 90, 745–749.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
19. Ferrie, JE, Langenberg, C, Shipley, MJ, Marmot, MG. Birth weight, components of height and coronary heart disease: evidence from the Whitehall II study. Int J Epidemiol. 2006; 35, 1532–1542.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
20. Davey Smith, G, Greenwood, R, Gunnell, D, et al. Leg length, insulin resistance, and coronary heart disease risk: the Caerphilly Study. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2001; 55, 867–872.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
21. Wadsworth, ME, Hardy, RJ, Paul, AA, Marshall, SF, Cole, TJ. Leg and trunk length at 43 years in relation to childhood health, diet and family circumstances; evidence from the 1946 national birth cohort. Int J Epidemiol. 2002; 31, 383–390.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
22. Lohman, TG, Roche, AF, Martorell, R. Anthropometric Standardization Reference Manual, Abridged edition, 1988. Human Kinetics Books, Champaign, IL.Google Scholar
23. Brozek, J, Grande, F, Anderson, JT, Keys, A. Densitometric analysis of body composition: revision of some quantitative assumptions. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 1963; 110, 113–140.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
24. Durnin, JV, Womersley, J. Body fat assessed from total body density and its estimation from skinfold thickness: measurements on 481 men and women aged from 16 to 72 years. Br J Nutr. 1974; 32, 77–97.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
25. Ketel, IJ, Volman, MN, Seidell, JC, et al. Superiority of skinfold measurements and waist over waist-to-hip ratio for determination of body fat distribution in a population-based cohort of Caucasian Dutch adults. Eur J Endocrinol. 2007; 156, 655–661.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
26. Skrondal, A, Rabe-Hesketh, S. Generalized Latent Variable Modeling. Multilevel, Longitudinal and Structural Equation Models, 2004. Chapman & Hall/CRC, Boca Raton.Google Scholar
27. Hutcheon, JA, Platt, RW. The missing data problem in birth weight percentiles and thresholds for “small-for-gestational-age”. Am J Epidemiol. 2008; 167, 786–792.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
28. Begg, MD, Parides, MK. Separation of individual-level and cluster-level covariate effects in regression analysis of correlated data. Stat Med. 2003; 22, 2591–2602.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed