Effect of correcting for gestational age at birth on population prevalence of early childhood undernutrition

Background

Postmenstrual and/or gestational age-corrected age (CA) is required to apply child growth standards to children born preterm (< 37 weeks gestational age). Yet, CA is rarely used in epidemiologic studies in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), which may bias population estimates of childhood undernutrition. To evaluate the effect of accounting for GA in the application of growth standards, we used GA-specific standards at birth (INTERGROWTH-21st newborn size standards) in conjunction with CA for preterm-born children in the application of World Health Organization Child Growth Standards postnatally (referred to as ‘CA’ strategy) versus postnatal age for all children, to estimate mean length-for-age (LAZ) and weight-for-age (WAZ) z scores at 0, 3, 12, 24, and 48-months of age in the 2004 Pelotas (Brazil) Birth Cohort.

Results

At birth (n = 4066), mean LAZ was higher and the prevalence of stunting (LAZ < ?2) was lower using CA versus postnatal age (mean ± SD): ? 0.36 ± 1.19 versus ? 0.67 ± 1.32; and 8.3 versus 11.6%, respectively. Odds ratio (OR) and population attributable risk (PAR) of stunting due to preterm birth were attenuated and changed inferences using CA versus postnatal age at birth [OR, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.32 (95% CI 0.95, 1.82) vs 14.7 (95% CI 11.7, 18.4); PAR 3.1 vs 42.9%]; differences in inferences persisted at 3-months. At 12, 24, and 48-months, preterm birth was associated with stunting, but ORs/PARs remained attenuated using CA compared to postnatal age. Findings were similar for weight-for-age z scores.

Conclusions

Population-based epidemiologic studies in LMICs in which GA is unused or unavailable may overestimate the prevalence of early childhood undernutrition and inflate the fraction of undernutrition attributable to preterm birth.

     

A high frequency missense SULT1B1 allelic variant (L145V) selectively expressed in African descendants exhibits altered kinetic properties

1.?Human cytosolic sulfotransferase 1B1 (SULT1B1) sulfates small phenolic compounds and bioactivates polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. To date, no SULT1B1 allelic variants have been well-characterized.

2.?While cloning SULT1B1 from human endometrial specimens, an allelic variant resulting in valine instead of leucine at the 145th amino acid position (L145V) was detected. NCBI reported this alteration as the highest frequency SULT1B1 allelic variant.

3.?L145V frequency comprised 9% of 37 mixed-population human patients and was specific to African Americans with an allelic frequency of 25%. Structurally, replacement of leucine with valine potentially destabilizes a conserved helix (α8) that forms the “floor” of both the substrate and PAPS binding domains. This destabilization results in altered kinetic properties including a four-fold decrease in affinity for PAP (3′, 5′-diphosphoadenosine). K_ms for 3′-phosphoadenosine- 5′-phosphosulfate (PAPS) are similar; however, maximal turnover rate of the variant isoform (0.86?pmol/(min*μg)) is slower than wild-type (WT) SULT1B1 (1.26?pmol/(min*μg)). The L145V variant also displays altered kinetics toward small phenolic substrates, including a diminished p-nitrophenol K_m and increased susceptibility to 1-naphthol substrate inhibition.

4.?No significant correlation between genotype and prostate or colorectal cancer was observed in patients; however, the variant isoform could underlie specific pathologies in sub-Saharan African carriers.     

I Am Quite Mellow But I Wouldn't Say Everyone Else Is”: How UK Students Compare Their Drinking Behavior to Their Peers'

Background: Excessive drinking is commonplace at UK Universities. Individuals may misperceive how much they drink compared to others and are less likely to think that they will suffer adverse consequences. Young people often distance themselves and their friends from ‘problem drinkers’. Objectives: The aim of the study was to explore how student drinkers compared their own drinking behaviors to the drinking behaviors of others. Methods: An online survey was completed by 416 students aged 18–30 (68.5% female). They were asked ‘how do you think your drinking compares with other people like you?' and ‘how do you think your behavior when you drink compares with other people like you?’ Answers were subjected to thematic analysis. Results: The first main theme was about ‘identification as a ‘good’ drinker’. Participants suggested their own behavior when drinking was similar to their sober behavior. Further, they viewed themselves as more able to maintain a balance between staying in control and having fun while drinking. The second main theme was about ‘distancing from being a ‘bad’ drinker. Participants distanced themselves from negative prototypical drinkers, such compulsive or anti-social drinkers. They also attributed their own drinking behaviors to situational factors, but described other people as intentionally violent or aggressive. Conclusions/Importance: These findings may explain the failure of some health messages to change drinking behaviors. If drinkers perceive that their behavior when they drink is better than other people's then they may discount intervention messages. Targeting these biases could be incorporated into future interventions.