Sinéad M O'Neill1, Geraldine Hannon2, Ali S Khashan1,3, J O'B Hourihane2, Louise C Kenny1,4, Mairead Kiely1,5, Deirdre M Murray1,2. 1. Irish Centre for Fetal and Neonatal Translational Research, Cork University Maternity Hospital, University College Cork, Cork, Ireland. 2. Paediatrics & Child Health, University College Cork, Cork, Ireland. 3. Department of Epidemiology and Public Health, Western Gateway Building, University College Cork, Cork, Ireland. 4. Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Cork University Maternity Hospital, Cork, Ireland. 5. Cork Centre for Vitamin D and Nutrition Research, School of Food and Nutritional Sciences, University College, Cork, Ireland.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Infants born small-for-gestational age (SGA) are at increased risk of developmental difficulties. Identifying those most at risk is challenging. We examined the effect of neonatal body composition and customised birthweight centiles on neurocognitive and behavioural outcomes at age 2. STUDY DESIGN: Prospective cohort study of term infants from the Cork BASELINE Birth Cohort Study classified into the following exposure groups: a birth weight <10th customised centile (SGA, n=51); body fat percentage at birth <10th centile (thin-for-gestational age (TGA, n=51)) or both SGA and TGA infants (small- and thin-for-gestational age (STGA), n=13). The SGA, TGA and STGA groups were compared with a reference (unexposed) group of appropriate-for-gestational age (AGA, n=189) infants. Outcome was assessed at 24 months using the Bayley Scales of Infant Development Version III and the Child Behaviour Checklist. RESULTS: Outcomes in the SGA infants did not differ significantly from the AGA group. TGA infants had significantly lower scores across all three domains, with a 0.35, 0.38 and 0.41 SD reduction in language, cognitive and motor scale scores, respectively. STGA infants had poorer cognitive outcome with a median cognitive scale score of 90 (IQR 85-95) compared with 95 (IQR 90-100) in the AGA reference group, p=0.005. The adjusted OR of developmental delay at 2 years was 5.00 (95% CI 1.46 to 17.13, p=0.010) in the STGA group. CONCLUSION: TGA infants, in particular those born STGA, are at increased risk of developmental delay at 2 years compared with the AGA infants. Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/.
BACKGROUND:Infants born small-for-gestational age (SGA) are at increased risk of developmental difficulties. Identifying those most at risk is challenging. We examined the effect of neonatal body composition and customised birthweight centiles on neurocognitive and behavioural outcomes at age 2. STUDY DESIGN: Prospective cohort study of term infants from the Cork BASELINE Birth Cohort Study classified into the following exposure groups: a birth weight <10th customised centile (SGA, n=51); body fat percentage at birth <10th centile (thin-for-gestational age (TGA, n=51)) or both SGA and TGA infants (small- and thin-for-gestational age (STGA), n=13). The SGA, TGA and STGA groups were compared with a reference (unexposed) group of appropriate-for-gestational age (AGA, n=189) infants. Outcome was assessed at 24 months using the Bayley Scales of Infant Development Version III and the Child Behaviour Checklist. RESULTS: Outcomes in the SGA infants did not differ significantly from the AGA group. TGA infants had significantly lower scores across all three domains, with a 0.35, 0.38 and 0.41 SD reduction in language, cognitive and motor scale scores, respectively. STGA infants had poorer cognitive outcome with a median cognitive scale score of 90 (IQR 85-95) compared with 95 (IQR 90-100) in the AGA reference group, p=0.005. The adjusted OR of developmental delay at 2 years was 5.00 (95% CI 1.46 to 17.13, p=0.010) in the STGA group. CONCLUSION: TGA infants, in particular those born STGA, are at increased risk of developmental delay at 2 years compared with the AGA infants. Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/.
Authors: Noemi Vieira de Freitas Rios; Luciene da Cruz Fernandes; Caio Leônidas Oliveira de Andrade; Luan Paulo Franco Magalhães; Ana Cecília Santiago; Crésio de Aragão Dantas Alves Journal: Rev Paul Pediatr Date: 2022-05-11
Authors: Gwinyai Masukume; Fergus P McCarthy; Philip N Baker; Louise C Kenny; Susan Mb Morton; Deirdre M Murray; Jonathan O'B Hourihane; Ali S Khashan Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2019-03-15 Impact factor: 2.692