Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

No abstract

There is no consensus regarding how the growth of preterm infants should be monitored or what constitutes their ideal pattern of growth, especially after term-corrected age. The concept that the growth of preterm infants should match that of healthy fetuses is not substantiated by data and, in practice, is seldom attained, particularly for very preterm infants. Hence, by hospital discharge, many preterm infants are classified as postnatal growth-restricted. In a recent systematic review, 61 longitudinal reference charts were identified, most with considerable limitations in the quality of gestational age estimation, anthropometric measures, feeding regimens, and how morbidities were described. We suggest that the correct comparator for assessing the growth of preterm infants, especially those who are moderately or late preterm, is a cohort of preterm newborns (not fetuses or term infants) with an uncomplicated intrauterine life and low neonatal and infant morbidity. Such growth monitoring should be comprehensive, as recommended for term infants, and should include assessments of postnatal length, head circumference, weight/length ratio, and, if possible, fat and fat-free mass. Preterm postnatal growth standards meeting these criteria are now available and may be used to assess preterm infants until 64 weeks' postmenstrual age (6 months' corrected age), the time at which they overlap, without the need for any adjustment, with the World Health Organization Child Growth Standards for term newborns. Despite remaining nutritional gaps, 90% of preterm newborns (ie, moderate to late preterm infants) can be monitored by using the International Fetal and Newborn Growth Consortium for the 21st Century Preterm Postnatal Growth Standards from birth until life at home.

BackgroundWe aimed to describe newborn body composition and identify which anthropometric ratio (weight/length; BMI; or ponderal index, PI) best predicts fat mass (FM) and fat-free mass (FFM).MethodsAir-displacement plethysmography (PEA POD) was used to estimate FM, FFM, and body fat percentage (BF%). Associations between FFM, FM, and BF% and weight/length, BMI, and PI were evaluated in 1,019 newborns using multivariate regression analysis. Charts for FM, FFM, and BF% were generated using a prescriptive subsample (n=247). Standards for the best-predicting anthropometric ratio were calculated utilizing the same population used for the INTERGROWTH-21st Newborn Size Standards (n=20,479).ResultsFFM and FM increased consistently during late pregnancy. Differential FM, BF%, and FFM patterns were observed for those born preterm (34+0−36+6 weeks’ gestation) and with impaired intrauterine growth. Weight/length by gestational age (GA) was a better predictor of FFM and FM (adjusted R2=0.92 and 0.71, respectively) than BMI or PI, independent of sex, GA, and timing of measurement. Results were almost identical when only preterm newborns were studied. We present sex-specific centiles for weight/length ratio for GA.ConclusionsWeight/length best predicts newborn FFM and FM. There are differential FM, FFM, and BF% patterns by sex, GA, and size at birth.

BackgroundThe World Health Organization recommends that human growth should be monitored with the use of international standards. However, in obstetric practice, we continue to monitor fetal growth using numerous local charts or equations that are based on different populations for each body structure. Consistent with World Health Organization recommendations, the INTERGROWTH-21st Project has produced the first set of international standards to date pregnancies; to monitor fetal growth, estimated fetal weight, Doppler measures, and brain structures; to measure uterine growth, maternal nutrition, newborn infant size, and body composition; and to assess the postnatal growth of preterm babies. All these standards are based on the same healthy pregnancy cohort. Recognizing the importance of demonstrating that, postnatally, this cohort still adhered to the World Health Organization prescriptive approach, we followed their growth and development to the key milestone of 2 years of age.ObjectiveThe purpose of this study was to determine whether the babies in the INTERGROWTH-21st Project maintained optimal growth and development in childhood.Study DesignIn the Infant Follow-up Study of the INTERGROWTH-21st Project, we evaluated postnatal growth, nutrition, morbidity, and motor development up to 2 years of age in the children who contributed data to the construction of the international fetal growth, newborn infant size and body composition at birth, and preterm postnatal growth standards. Clinical care, feeding practices, anthropometric measures, and assessment of morbidity were standardized across study sites and documented at 1 and 2 years of age. Weight, length, and head circumference age- and sex-specific z-scores and percentiles and motor development milestones were estimated with the use of the World Health Organization Child Growth Standards and World Health Organization milestone distributions, respectively. For the preterm infants, corrected age was used. Variance components analysis was used to estimate the percentage variability among individuals within a study site compared with that among study sites.ResultsThere were 3711 eligible singleton live births; 3042 children (82%) were evaluated at 2 years of age. There were no substantive differences between the included group and the lost-to-follow up group. Infant mortality rate was 3 per 1000; neonatal mortality rate was 1.6 per 1000. At the 2-year visit, the children included in the INTERGROWTH-21st Fetal Growth Standards were at the 49th percentile for length, 50th percentile for head circumference, and 58th percentile for weight of the World Health Organization Child Growth Standards. Similar results were seen for the preterm subgroup that was included in the INTERGROWTH-21st Preterm Postnatal Growth Standards. The cohort overlapped between the 3rd and 97th percentiles of the World Health Organization motor development milestones. We estimated that the variance among study sites explains only 5.5% of the total variability in the length of the children between...

It is unclear whether early child development is, like skeletal growth, similar across diverse regions with adequate health and nutrition. We prospectively assessed 1307 healthy, well-nourished 2-year-old children of educated mothers, enrolled in early pregnancy from urban areas without major socioeconomic or environmental constraints, in Brazil, India, Italy, Kenya and UK. We used a specially developed psychometric tool, WHO motor milestones and visual tests. Similarities across sites were measured using variance components analysis and standardised site differences (SSD). In 14 of the 16 domains, the percentage of total variance explained by between-site differences ranged from 1.3% (cognitive score) to 9.2% (behaviour score). Of the 80 SSD comparisons, only six were >±0.50 units of the pooled SD for the corresponding item. The sequence and timing of attainment of neurodevelopmental milestones and associated behaviours in early childhood are, therefore, likely innate and universal, as long as nutritional and health needs are met.

We present a detailed response to the critique of "State of the Science of Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals 2012" (UNEP/WHO, 2013) by financial stakeholders, authored by Lamb et al. (2014). Lamb et al.'s claim that UNEP/WHO (2013) does not provide a balanced perspective on endocrine disruption is based on incomplete and misleading quoting of the report through omission of qualifying statements and inaccurate description of study objectives, results and conclusions. Lamb et al. define extremely narrow standards for synthesizing evidence which are then used to dismiss the UNEP/WHO 2013 report as flawed. We show that Lamb et al. misuse conceptual frameworks for assessing causality, especially the Bradford-Hill criteria, by ignoring the fundamental problems that exist with inferring causality from empirical observations. We conclude that Lamb et al.'s attempt of deconstructing the UNEP/WHO (2013) report is not particularly erudite and that their critique is not intended to be convincing to the scientific community, but to confuse the scientific data. Consequently, it promotes misinterpretation of the UNEP/WHO (2013) report by non-specialists, bureaucrats, politicians and other decision makers not intimately familiar with the topic of endocrine disruption and therefore susceptible to false generalizations of bias and subjectivity.

The etiologic complexities of preterm birth remain inadequately understood, which may impede the development of better preventative and treatment measures. OBJECTIVE To examine the association between specific preterm-birth phenotypes and clinical, growth, and neurodevelopmental differences among preterm newborns compared with term newborns up to age 2 years. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS The INTERBIO-21st study included a cohort of preterm and term newborn singletons enrolled between March 2012 and June 2018 from maternity hospitals in 6 countries worldwide who were followed up from birth to age 2 years. All pregnancies were dated by ultrasonography. Data were analyzed from November 2019 to October 2020. EXPOSURES/INTERVENTIONS Preterm-birth phenotypes. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Infant size, health, nutrition, and World Health Organization motor development milestones assessed at ages 1 and 2 years; neurodevelopment evaluated at age 2 years using the INTERGROWTH-21st Neurodevelopment Assessment (INTER-NDA) tool. RESULTS A total of 6529 infants (3312 boys [50.7%]) were included in the analysis. Of those, 1381 were preterm births (mean [SD] gestational age at birth, 34.4 [0.1] weeks; 5148 were term births (mean [SD] gestational age at birth, 39.4 [0] weeks). Among 1381 preterm newborns, 8 phenotypes were identified: no main maternal, fetal, or placental condition detected (485 infants [35.1%]); infections (289 infants [20.9%]); preeclampsia (162 infants [11.7%]); fetal distress (131 infants [9.5%]); intrauterine growth restriction (110 infants [8.0%]); severe maternal disease (85 infants [6.2%]); bleeding (71 infants [5.1%]); and congenital anomaly (48 infants [3.5%]). For all phenotypes, a previous preterm birth was a risk factor for recurrence. Each phenotype displayed differences in neonatal morbidity and infant outcomes. For example, infants with the no main condition detected phenotype had low neonatal morbidity but increased morbidity and hospitalization incidence at age 1 year (odds ratio [OR], 2.2; 95% CI, 1.8-2.7). Compared with term newborns, the highest risk of scoring lower than the 10th centile of INTER-NDA normative values was observed in the fine motor development domain among newborns with the fetal distress (OR, 10.6; 95% CI, 5.1-22.2) phenotype. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Results of this study suggest that phenotypic classification may provide a better understanding of the etiologic factors and mechanisms associated with preterm birth than continuing to consider it an exclusively time-based entity.