| Literature DB >> 30323348 |
Alva Tang1, Natalie Slopen2, Charles A Nelson3, Charles H Zeanah4, Michael K Georgieff5, Nathan A Fox6.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Reduced prenatal growth followed by rapid postnatal weight gain are risk factors for developing metabolic and cardiovascular disease. Children reared in institutions experience a similar pattern of growth restriction followed by catch-up growth after removal. We explored whether patterns of catch-up growth affect metabolic and cardiovascular outcomes in previously institutionalized adolescents.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2018 PMID: 30323348 PMCID: PMC6330119 DOI: 10.1038/s41390-018-0196-4
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Pediatr Res ISSN: 0031-3998 Impact factor: 3.756
Figure 1.CONSORT Diagram for the Bucharest Early Intervention Project
Note. Participant eligibility, enrollment, randomization, and follow-up of children in this randomized controlled trial. The typically developing children (NIG) were not part of the randomization, but were recruited as a comparison group
Figure 2.Estimated variable-centered BMI trajectories (A) and estimated person-centered BMI trajectories (B) from baseline to age 16.
Parameter estimates of variable-centered BMI trajectories.
| Parameters | FCG vs CAUG | NIG vs CAUG | FCG vs NIG |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intercept (baseline) | −.06 (.18) | .42 (.18) | −.48 (.18) |
| Intercept (age 16) | .34 (.21) | .23 (.21) | .10 (.21) |
| Linear slope | .12 (.05) | .07 (.05) | .05 (.05) |
| Quadratic slope | −.006 (.003) | −.006 (.003) | −.001 (.003) |
Note.
Note. p <.01.
p< .03.
p=.05.
Parameter estimates (A) and characteristics (B) of the four trajectories.
| Average-stable | Low-stable | Elevated | Accelerated | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Intercept (baseline) | .120 (.142) | − 1.399 (.262) | .916 (.241) | −.767 (.229) | |
| Linear slope | − .026 (.025) | .013 (.040) | .161 (.044) | .356 (.072) | |
| Quadratic slope | .000 (.002) | .001 (.002) | − .010 (.003) | − .016 (.005) | |
| FCG (n=66) | 29 (21.3%) | 11 (26.8%) | 12 (21.4%) | 14 (50%) | χ2(6)= 23.03 |
| CAUG (n=68) | 38 (27.9%) | 15 (36.6%) | 7 (12.5%) | 8 (28.6%) | |
| NIG (n=127) | 69 (50.7 %) | 15 (36.6%) | 37 (66.1%) | 6 (21.4%) | |
| Female (n= 131) | 64 (47.1%) | 21 (51.2%) | 29 (51.8%) | 17 (60.7%) | χ2(3)= .60 |
| Male (n=130) | 72 (52.9%) | 20 (48.8%) | 27 (48.2%) | 11 (39.3%) | |
| 3071.80 | F(3,208)=5.20 | ||||
| Birth weight (g, SE) | 3072.15 (55.85) | 2647.29 (96.31) | (93.81) | 2969.23 (114.89) | = .07. |
| F(3,172)=3.48 | |||||
| Gestation age (weeks, SE) | 37.77 (.20) | 36.63 (.34) | 37.50 (.32) | 36.86 (.41) | = .06. |
Notes. N= 261.
p<.001,
p<.02. g= grams.
Table displays column percents; row percentages of members within each study group in each trajectory are in Table S3.
Birth weight, n=212.
Gestation age, n=176.
Figure 3.Box plots of metabolic and pro-inflammatory markers across BMI trajectories at age 16.
Note. Medians are shown in box plots. Means (diamonds) and standard errors are also shown. *p< .05. †p <.08. HbA1c, IL-6, IL-8, TNF-α, n=122. CRP, n=124.