You are here

Article Text

Article menu
Download PDFPDF
Letter
Which is the better marker for susceptibility to disease later in life – low birthweight or prematurity?
  1. G Liew,
  2. J J Wang,
  3. P Mitchell
  1. Centre for Vision Research, Department of Ophthalmology, Westmead Millennium Institute, University of Sydney, Australia
  1. Professor Paul Mitchell, Centre for Vision Research, Department of Ophthalmology, University of Sydney, Westmead Hospital, Hawkesbury Rd, Westmead, NSW Australia, 2145; paul_mitchell{at}wmi.usyd.edu.au

https://doi.org/10.1136/adc.2008.138263

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Request Permissions

    If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

    Substantial evidence implicates both premature birth and low birthweight as risk factors for cardiovascular and other adult-onset diseases such as impaired glucose regulation and hypertension. However, a persistent criticism of such studies is the likelihood of confounding by genetic factors. Shared genetic influences may be behind both low birthweights and increased risks of cardiovascular disease into adulthood, an issue that has not been satisfactorily addressed. It is also unclear whether low birthweight or prematurity is the better marker of early life disadvantage and susceptibility for later-life diseases.

    Twin studies are useful in answering the first issue because monozygotic and dizygotic twins provide a genetic “control” …

    View Full Text

    Footnotes

    • Funding: Supported by the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council, Canberra Australia.

    • Competing interests: None.