The authors recently
proposed that when tissues in utero are chronically depleted of insulin
and IGFI, but subsequently exposed after normalization of nutrient
supply in postnatal life to increased levels, insulin resistance often
develops. Carrying this thesis forward, they postulate that postnatal
“catch-up” growth might, therefore, be associated with a higher risk of
developing insulin resistance, especially when other risk factors such
as genetic predisposition and/or obesity coexist.
To investigate this possibility, 49 children with IUGR (22 boys) with
birth weight <10th percentile for gestational age were studied.
Children with malformations and/or genetic disorders were excluded.
Stature was corrected for mid-parental height. Children were divided
into two groups according to their corrected height; specifically, those
with corrected height z-score >0 and those <0. Insulin
resistance was evaluated using OGTT, fasting glucose and insulin levels,
and a G/I <6 to interpret insulin resistance. Thirty-nine percent
(19/49) of the children with IUGR had a corrected stature >0 z-score and
61% had not reached their genetic height, as expressed as MPH z-score.
Corrected stature at the age evaluated correlated with birth
weight, whereas actual height was related to birth length, MPH and BMI.
Twenty-two percent or 11 of 49 IUGR children had a G/I <6. The
endocrine variables in children as divided on the basis of G/I <6 and >6
are provided in
Table 1. All the parameters related to insulin resistance
correlated with alanine aminotransferase (ALT) and gamma
glutamyltransferase (-GT) levels. IGF system parameters were in the
normal range and correlated neither with growth nor with insulin
sensitivity.
The first aim of the study was to assess the prevalence of insulin
resistance in children and adolescents with IUGR. The authors
considered that insulin resistance was at a high prevalence since 22% of
the children were so classified, and these data are consistent with
previous studies reporting impairment in insulin sensitivity in children
with IUGR. The second objective was to prove the catch up growth
hypothesis that catch up growth induces insulin sensitivity. The
data in this study suggest that catch up growth is not a risk
factor. They further comment that the finding of high prevalence of
insulin resistance did not show a significant influence over
postnatal growth -is consistent with the intrauterine reprogramming
previously postulated by the authors and is consistent with a genetic
predispositioning determining both low birth
weight and insulin resistance. The authors also postulate that obesity
may be an additional risk factor during childhood. One of the most
important findings was the close relationship observed between insulin
resistant parameters and liver function tests; this suggests that the
liver might be a target organ of the reprogramming process. The authors
did not find any indications that the IGF systems (IGF1, IGFBP-3, etc)
are related to the insulin sensitivity status, at least during
childhood. The latter data are in accord with those of at least two
other authors.
Editorial Comment:
The authors
have provided excellent data on a large number of small for gestational
age infants. I have not used the term intrauterine growth retarded
children as in the title of the article, as I believe that term should
be reserved for children who are <3rd percentile. I remain skeptical
that one out of every 10 children is intrauterine growth retarded, which
would be the case if one uses the 10th percentile as cutoff. The
article as presented does not indicate to me what percentages of the
children born <3rd percentile had insulin resistance. The authors and
others are invited to comment to the Editor concerning which criteria
are appropriate to use for determination of metabolic alterations in
IUGR children, as much confusion now exists among data stated to be that
of IUGR.
Regardless of what I consider this limitation, the data are worthwhile
and provide interpretations to postulated metabolic alterations in
children who are small for gestational age.
Robert M. Blizzard, MD
Print
version (pdf) |
Printer-Friendly