Association between childhood anthropometric indicators and bone mineral density in adulthood

Freitas, Mileny Caroline Menezes de; Costa, Julio Cesar da; Barbosa, Cynthia Correa Lopes; Zambrin, Lidyane Ferreira; Romanzini, Catiana Leila Possamai; Romanzini, Marcelo; Ronque, Enio Ricardo Vaz

doi:10.1590/1984-0462/2024/42/2023026

Acessibilidade / Reportar erro

Brasil

Revista Paulista de Pediatria

Español English

Brasil

Español English

sumário « anterior atual seguinte »

Sumário

Original Article • Rev. paul. pediatr. 42 • 2024 • https://doi.org/10.1590/1984-0462/2024/42/2023026 copy

Association between childhood anthropometric indicators and bone mineral density in adulthood

Associação entre indicadores antropométricos na infância e densidade mineral óssea na idade adulta

Authorship SCIMAGO INSTITUTIONS RANKINGS

ABSTRACT

Objective:

This study aimed to verify the association between childhood anthropometric indicators and areal bone mineral density (aBMD) in adulthood.

Methods:

Repeated measures of 137 subjects (68 females) were obtained in childhood (9.2±1.5 years of age) and adulthood (22.3±1.7 years of age). aBMD (g/cm²2 Heaney RP, Abrams S, Dawson-Hughes B, Looker A, Marcus R, Matkovic V, et al. Peak bone mass. Osteoporos Int. 2000;11:985-1009. https://doi.org/10.1007/s001980070020
https://doi.org/10.1007/s001980070020... ) was assessed for whole body, lumbar spine, upper and lower limbs, and femoral neck in adulthood using dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry. Anthropometric measurements of body weight (BW), height, triceps and subscapular skinfolds were obtained in childhood. The anthropometric indicators used were BW, body mass index (BMI), and sum of skinfolds (ΣSF). Simple linear regression was used to assess the association between childhood anthropometric indicators and aBMD in adulthood, controlled by chronological age and stratified by sex, with 5% statistical significance.

Results:

In females, multiple associations were observed between anthropometric indicators and aBMD, with higher coefficients for BMI (β=0.020; R²2 Heaney RP, Abrams S, Dawson-Hughes B, Looker A, Marcus R, Matkovic V, et al. Peak bone mass. Osteoporos Int. 2000;11:985-1009. https://doi.org/10.1007/s001980070020
https://doi.org/10.1007/s001980070020... =0.20; p<0.01 for right femoral neck to β=0.008; R²2 Heaney RP, Abrams S, Dawson-Hughes B, Looker A, Marcus R, Matkovic V, et al. Peak bone mass. Osteoporos Int. 2000;11:985-1009. https://doi.org/10.1007/s001980070020
https://doi.org/10.1007/s001980070020... =0.16; p<0.01 for upper limbs), followed by BW (β=0.003; R²2 Heaney RP, Abrams S, Dawson-Hughes B, Looker A, Marcus R, Matkovic V, et al. Peak bone mass. Osteoporos Int. 2000;11:985-1009. https://doi.org/10.1007/s001980070020
https://doi.org/10.1007/s001980070020... =0.21; p<0.01 for upper limbs to β=0.008; R²2 Heaney RP, Abrams S, Dawson-Hughes B, Looker A, Marcus R, Matkovic V, et al. Peak bone mass. Osteoporos Int. 2000;11:985-1009. https://doi.org/10.1007/s001980070020
https://doi.org/10.1007/s001980070020... =0.20; p<0.01 for right femoral neck) and ΣSF (β=0.001; R²2 Heaney RP, Abrams S, Dawson-Hughes B, Looker A, Marcus R, Matkovic V, et al. Peak bone mass. Osteoporos Int. 2000;11:985-1009. https://doi.org/10.1007/s001980070020
https://doi.org/10.1007/s001980070020... =0.06; p<0.01 for upper limbs to β=0.005; R²2 Heaney RP, Abrams S, Dawson-Hughes B, Looker A, Marcus R, Matkovic V, et al. Peak bone mass. Osteoporos Int. 2000;11:985-1009. https://doi.org/10.1007/s001980070020
https://doi.org/10.1007/s001980070020... =0.12; p<0.01 for right femoral neck). In males, associations were observed only for the lumbar spine region (β=0.016; R²2 Heaney RP, Abrams S, Dawson-Hughes B, Looker A, Marcus R, Matkovic V, et al. Peak bone mass. Osteoporos Int. 2000;11:985-1009. https://doi.org/10.1007/s001980070020
https://doi.org/10.1007/s001980070020... =0.09 for BMI to β=0.004; R²2 Heaney RP, Abrams S, Dawson-Hughes B, Looker A, Marcus R, Matkovic V, et al. Peak bone mass. Osteoporos Int. 2000;11:985-1009. https://doi.org/10.1007/s001980070020
https://doi.org/10.1007/s001980070020... =0.06; p<0.01 for ΣSF).

Conclusions:

Anthropometric indicators of childhood proved to be sensitive predictors of aBMD in adulthood, especially in females. BMI indicated a greater association with aBMD in both sexes.

Keywords:
Bone density; Body mass index; Body weight; Child; Adult

		Childhood			Adulthood
		Females	Males	p-value	Females	Males	p-value
Descriptive variables
	Chronological age (years)	9.0±1.6	9.3±1.3	0.25	22.2±1.7	22.4±1.7	0.58
	Body weight (kg)	32.1±9.5	33.6±8.2	0.29	60.3±10.7	76.1±10.6	<0.001
	Height (cm)	134.8±11.6	136.0±9.3	0.50	164.6±6.7	176.5±6.0	<0.001
	Body mass index (kg/m²⁾	17.3±2.8	18.0±2.6	0.15	22.2±3.4	24.4±2.9	<0.001
	Σ Skinfolds (mm)	24.2±10.1	22.3±10.2	0.27	33.7±8.5	24.3±9.4	<0.001
aBMD
	Whole body (g/cm²)	–	–		1.167±0.074	1.269±0.091	<0.001
	Lumbar spine (g/cm²)	–	–		1.127±0.115	1.168±0.119	0.021
	Upper limbs (g/cm²)	–	–		0.795±0.049	0.945±0.092	<0.001
	Lower limbs (g/cm²)	–	–		1.203±0.095	1.430±0.122	<0.001
	Right femoral neck (g/cm²)	–	–		1.038±0.124	1.165±0.184	<0.001
	Left femoral neck (g/cm²)	–	–		1.025±0.111	1.178±0.151	<0.001

Childhood Anthropometric indicators	Adulthood aBMD (g/cm²)
Females
	Whole body	Lumbar spine	Upper limbs	Lower limbs	Right femoral neck	Left femoral neck
BMI (kg/m²)	0.45^* * (p<0.01;	0.39^* * (p<0.01;	0.44^* * (p<0.01;	0.45^* * (p<0.01;	0.41^* * (p<0.01;	0.42^* * (p<0.01;
BMI (kg/m²)	(-0.24–0.62)	(0.11–0.53)	(0.22–0.61)	(0.24–0.62)	(0.18–0.59)	(0.20–0.60)
BW (kg)	0.38^* * (p<0.01;	0.31^* * (p<0.01;	0.43^* * (p<0.01;	0.41^* * (p<0.01;	0.29^† † p<0.05).	0.31^† † p<0.05).
BW (kg)	(0.16–0.57)	(0.08–0.51)	(0.22–0.61)	(0.19–0.59)	(0.06–0.50)	(0.08–0.51)
ΣSF (mm)	0.37^* * (p<0.01;	0.31^† † p<0.05).	0.30^† † p<0.05).	0.37^* * (p<0.01;	0.35^* * (p<0.01;	0.37^* * (p<0.01;
ΣSF (mm)	(0.15–0.56)	(0.07–0.51)	(0.07–0.51)	(0.14–0.56)	(0.13–0.55)	(0.14–0.56)

Males
	Whole body	Lumbar spine	Upper limbs	Lower limbs	Right femoral neck	Left femoral neck
BMI (kg/m²)	0.13	0.34^* * (p<0.01;	0.08	-0.04	-0.09	-0.09
BMI (kg/m²)	(-0.11–0.35)	(0.11–0.53)	(-0.16–0.31)	(-0.28–0.19)	(-0.32–0.15)	(-0.33–0.14)
BW (kg)	0.18	0.36^† † p<0.05).	0.16	0.04	0.01	-0.13
BW (kg)	(-0.06–0.40)	(0.13–0.55)	(-0.08–0.38)	(-0.20–0.28)	(-0.23–0.25)	(-0.36–0.09)
ΣSF (mm)	0.09	0.30^† † p<0.05).	0.06	-0.07	-0.09	-0.14
ΣSF (mm)	(-0.15–0.43)	(0.06–0.50)	(-0.18–0.29)	(-0.30–0.17)	(-0.32–0.15)	(-0.37–0.09)

Sociedade de Pediatria de São Paulo R. Maria Figueiredo, 595 - 10o andar, 04002-003 São Paulo - SP - Brasil, Tel./Fax: (11 55) 3284-0308; 3289-9809; 3284-0051 - São Paulo - SP - Brazil
E-mail: rpp@spsp.org.br

Acompanhe os números deste periódico no seu leitor de RSS

[1] Corresponding author. E-mail: milenycf@hotmail.com (M. C. M. Freitas)