Abstract

Background

Low birthweight (LBW) has been shown to increase the risk of severe kidney disease. Studies have also shown associations between LBW and lower estimated glomerular filtration rate (GFR) in young adults. In this study we investigated whether LBW associates with measured GFR (mGFR) in middle-aged mainly healthy adults.

Methods

We invited individuals with LBW (1100–2300 g) and individuals with normal BW (NBW; 3500–4000 g) ages 41–52 years. GFR was measured using plasma clearance of iohexol. BW and BW for gestational age (BWGA) were obtained from the Medical Birth Registry of Norway and tested as main predictors. GFR was the main outcome.

Results

We included 105 individuals (57 LBW and 48 NBW). The mean GFR was 95 ± 14 mL/min/1.73 m2 in the LBW group and 100 ± 13 mL/min/1.73 m2 in the NBW group (P = 0.04). There was a significant sex difference: in women the mean GFR was 90 ± 12 versus 101 ± 14 mL/min/1.73 m2 in the LBW and NBW groups, respectively (P = 0.006), whereas corresponding values for men were 101 ± 15 versus 100 ± 11 mL/min/1.73 m2 (P = 0.7). Using linear regression, we found the GFR was 4.5 mL/min/1.73 m2 higher per 1 kg higher BW for women (P = 0.02), with a non-significant 1.2 mL/min/1.73 m2 lower GFR for men (P = 0.6). In analyses of BWGA, there was also a significant association for women, but not for men.

Conclusions

Middle-aged mainly healthy women with LBW had lower mGFR as compared with women with NBW. No such difference was found for men.

KEY LEARNING POINTS

What is already known about this subject?

  1. Low birthweight (BW) increases the risk of albuminuria, chronic kidney disease and end-stage renal disease.

  2. Limited data suggest that there is a sex difference in this association.

  3. Except for one twin study and another study after kidney donation, all studies on kidney function in relation to BW have used estimated kidney function rather than measured glomerular filtration rate (mGFR).

What this study adds?

  1. This is the first low BW study analysing differences in mGFR in mainly healthy middle-aged adults.

  2. Women with low BW had lower mGFR than women with normal BW; there was no difference in men.

  3. Both BW and BW for gestational age (GA) is of importance, while GA or preterm versus term seems of less importance.

What impact may this have on practice and policy?

  1. This will further acknowledge low BW as a risk factor for kidney disease in adults, even in otherwise healthy middle-aged women.

  2. This can guide future research on BW and kidney function, demonstrating the need for using mGFR rather than estimated GFR.

INTRODUCTION

Previous studies have shown that low birthweight (LBW) associates with a reduced number of nephrons [1, 2]. This impaired nephron endowment is thought to link BW to an increased risk of kidney disease [3–5]. Supportive of this are several studies showing an increased risk of albuminuria [6–8], reduced kidney function [9–11] and end-stage renal disease [9, 12, 13] for persons with LBW compared with normal BW (NBW), with an overall 1.7 times increase in the risk of kidney-related outcomes [14]. Although the exact mechanism behind this association is unknown, it is believed that the low number of nephrons causes compensatory nephron hypertrophy and hyperfiltration [3]. This, however, comes at a cost of increased strain on the remaining nephrons, leading to increased nephrosclerosis and a further reduction in functional nephron mass [15]. The result is a reduction in glomerular filtration rate (GFR).

In most studies, both in paediatric and adult populations, the GFR is estimated using creatinine-based formulas [16, 17]. This is prone to error, with differences in body composition between individuals with LBW and NBW. We have found only one study using clearance of an external marker [18] and one using urinary creatinine clearance [19]. The use of recollection for BW data [10], inclusion of only patients with a registered BW and exclusion of patients (especially women) who have changed names since birth [9] are other weaknesses of previous studies. In some studies there appears to be a sex difference in the impact of BW on kidney-related outcomes [10, 17]. It is uncertain whether this reflects real differences in the mechanism and effect size of nephron endowment on kidney function or is reflecting errors in creatinine-based GFR estimation.

In this study we aimed to investigate differences in measured GFR (mGFR) in mainly healthy adults ages 40–50 years. We tested BW and BW for gestational age (BWGA) as the main predictors. We also aimed to study possible sex differences.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Registries

Since 1967, the Medical Birth Registry of Norway (MBRN) has registered data on all births in Norway [20]. This compulsory notification includes information about the mother’s health before and during pregnancy, as well as data concerning the delivery and the newborn child’s health.

Study population

This is a retrospective longitudinal cohort study using BW from the MBRN as the main inclusion source. The MBRN selected 200 participants with LBW and 200 participants with NBW currently residing in one of the five municipalities in the Haugesund area on the west coast of Norway (Haugesund, Karmøy, Bokn, Tysvær and Sveio). The LBW group had a BW of 1100–2300 g and the NBW group had a BW of 3500–4000 g. Participants in both groups were born between 1967 and 1976 and only participants who were the result of a singleton birth were included. Invitations were sent out between May 2018 and April 2019. All non-responders were sent a follow-up letter after ∼1 month, except for the last inclusion group of 60 persons, as enough participants were included. Based on power calculations {90% power, estimated effect size for GFR of 85 versus 95 mL/min/1.73 m2 [standard deviation (SD) 15] and 5% significance level [8, 14, 17]}, we estimated a need for 48 participants in each group.

Exclusion criteria were diabetes mellitus [defined as either using antidiabetic medications or glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) >53 mmol/mol (7%)], estimated GFR (eGFR) ˂50 mL/min/1.73 m2 (using the Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration equation [21]), use of antihypertensive medications, regular use of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) , cancer (either onset ˂5 years ago or treated with chemotherapy), allergy to computed tomography contrast agent or known multiple allergies.

Measurements at participation

Participant height was measured and rounded to the nearest centimetre. body weight was measured in kilograms using the same instrument for all participants and one decimal was recorded. Blood pressure was measured seated, once before injection of iohexol and twice during the 30 min following injection. The mean of the last two measurements was used for analysis.

GFR was measured after injection of 5 mL of iohexol (Omnipaque300 mgI/mL, GE Healthcare, Oslo, Norway) via an indwelling intravenous catheter in the antecubital vein of the dominant arm, followed by flushing with 10 mL of normal saline. The syringe and packaging were weighed before and after injection to a precision of 0.01 g. Blood samples were drawn from the opposite arm 2 and 4 h after the injection of iohexol. Analysis of iohexol concentration was done at Haukeland University Hospital. Calculation of GFR was done using the Jødal–Brøchner-Mortensen formula [22].

Urine albumin:creatinine ratio was measured in the first void urine on 3 consecutive days. The median of all three was used for analysis. Microalbuminuria was defined as a median urine albumin:creatinine ratio ≥3 mg/mmol.

Exposure variables

The MBRN provided BW, GA and a z-score of the BWGA by sex (z-score values given as units of SDs from the mean). For use in the analyses, small for GA (SGA) was defined as a z-score below the 10th percentile, i.e. <−1.28. Maternal age, civil status and information on maternal pre-eclampsia were also obtained from the MBRN. Preterm birth was defined as birth before the 37th week of gestation. Self-reported civil status (living alone or living with spouse/partner), education level (completed higher education or not), household income (above or below 800 000 Norwegian krones (NOK; equivalent to 73 700 euros on 11 March 2020), exercise frequency, smoking status and alcohol consumption were obtained from a questionnaire at examination.

Statistical analyses

All statistics were determined using R version 3.6.0 (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria) [23]. Descriptive methods were used to characterize. Intergroup differences (LBW versus NBW) were tested using independent t-tests for continuous data and chi-squared tests for categorical data, except for maternal pre-eclampsia and maternal civil status, which were analysed with Barnard’s unconditional exact test for binomial models [24]. The sex-stratified mean mGFR and 95% confidence interval (CI) was estimated using four different dichotome variables (BW group, z-score of BWGA, preterm birth and maternal pre-eclampsia). The same variables were fitted together with sex and interaction between sex and the main variable in a linear regression model using mGFR as the dependent variable. From this model, the P-value of the sex interaction was reported. We also fitted a sex-stratified multivariate regression model using mGFR as a dependent variable. In this model the independent variables (BW group, BW/kg, z-score of BWGA/1 unit, GA and maternal pre-eclampsia) were tested both unadjusted and adjusted for age at examination, maternal age and maternal civil status. The same modelling was used for a logistic regression model using mGFR ˂90 mL/min/1.73 m2 as the dependent variable. A significance level of 0.05 was chosen for all tests.

Ethics

Ethical approval was given by the regional ethics committee (REK2017/927). All participants signed an informed consent formula at inclusion in the study. This study adheres to the Declaration of Helsinki.

RESULTS

Among the 400 people invited, 176 (44%) responded (96 LBW and 80 NBW); 29 did not want to participate and 40 individuals were excluded due to antihypertensive treatment, diabetes, use of various medications or other causes. Two other participants were excluded after Day 1, one due to newly diagnosed diabetes and the other due to possible allergic reaction to iohexol. Details are shown in Figure 1. No information was available for the non-responders and excluded participants. A total of 105 participants (57 LBW and 48 NBW; 45% male) were thus included in the analysis. The group with LBW had a median BW of 2000 g (range 1160–2300) and the NBW group had a median BW of 3735 g (range 3520–3980). Preterm birth was recorded in 68% of the LBW group and none in the NBW group. At examination, there was no significant difference in weight, body mass index (BMI) or body surface area; however, participants with the LBW group seemed to be shorter, with a mean height of 169.7 versus 173.2 cm. This difference was statistically significant for women (mean difference 2.9 cm; P = 0.04) but not for men (mean difference 1.8 cm; P = 0.3). Blood pressure was higher in the LBW group. The median urine albumin:creatinine ratio was 0.4 mg/mmol for both LBW and NBW. Only one participant (male LBW) had a median albumin:creatinine ratio >3 mg/mmol. Three of 54 women that had been pregnant reported pre-eclampsia in their obstetric history (2 LBW and 1 NBW). Table 1 shows detailed characteristics of the two BW groups. Differences in characteristics between male and female participants are shown in Supplementary data, Table S1.

Inclusion process. LBW, BW ≤2300 g); NBW, BW 3500–4000 g.
FIGURE 1

Inclusion process. LBW, BW ≤2300 g); NBW, BW 3500–4000 g.

Table 1.

Characteristics of participants at birth and examination

CharacteristicsLBW n = 57NBW n = 48P-value
At birth
 Male participantsa23 (40)24 (50)0.4
 BW (g)b2000 (1160–2300)3740 (3520–3980)
 BWGA (SDc)b−1.2 (−4.7–1.8)0.2 (−0.4–1.5)<0.001
 Prematurea39 (70)0 (0)<0.001
 GAd34.5 ± 3.440.3 ± 1.4<0.001
 Maternal pre-eclampsiae8 (14)1 (2)0.04
 Birth length (cm)b44 (37–49)51 (48–54)<0.001
 Maternal age (years)b26 (17–43)25 (18–44)0.9
 Mother living with partnere51 (89)47 (98)0.1
Characteristics at examination
 Age (years)b48 (41–52)46 (41–51)0.4
 Height (cm)d169.7 ± 8.4173.2 ± 8.00.03
 Weight (kg)d77.7 ± 18.379.0 ± 13.90.7
 BMI (kg/m2)b25.9 (17.9–47.3)25.5 (20.7–41.3)0.5
 Body surface area (m2)d1.88 ± 0.231.93 ± 0.180.3
 Percentage body fatd30.9 ± 8.9928.0 ± 9.370.1
 Systolic blood pressure (mmHg)d126 ± 18119 ± 110.01
 Diastolic blood pressure (mmHg)d76 ± 1270 ± 90.004
GFR (mL/min/1.73 m2)d
  eGFR98 ± 1199 ± 100.8
  mGFR95 ± 14100 ± 130.04
 Urine albumin:creatinine ratio (mg/mmol)b0.4 (0–3.2)0.4 (0–2.6)0.8
 Living with partnera49 (86)38 (79)0.5
 Completed higher educationa29 (51)19 (40)0.3
 Household income >800 000 NOKa,f34 (60)30 (62)0.9
 Regular smokera13 (23)6 (12)0.2
 Drinking alcohol at least weeklya17 (30)13 (27)0.9
 Physical exercise at least once a weeka41 (73)39 (81)0.5
CharacteristicsLBW n = 57NBW n = 48P-value
At birth
 Male participantsa23 (40)24 (50)0.4
 BW (g)b2000 (1160–2300)3740 (3520–3980)
 BWGA (SDc)b−1.2 (−4.7–1.8)0.2 (−0.4–1.5)<0.001
 Prematurea39 (70)0 (0)<0.001
 GAd34.5 ± 3.440.3 ± 1.4<0.001
 Maternal pre-eclampsiae8 (14)1 (2)0.04
 Birth length (cm)b44 (37–49)51 (48–54)<0.001
 Maternal age (years)b26 (17–43)25 (18–44)0.9
 Mother living with partnere51 (89)47 (98)0.1
Characteristics at examination
 Age (years)b48 (41–52)46 (41–51)0.4
 Height (cm)d169.7 ± 8.4173.2 ± 8.00.03
 Weight (kg)d77.7 ± 18.379.0 ± 13.90.7
 BMI (kg/m2)b25.9 (17.9–47.3)25.5 (20.7–41.3)0.5
 Body surface area (m2)d1.88 ± 0.231.93 ± 0.180.3
 Percentage body fatd30.9 ± 8.9928.0 ± 9.370.1
 Systolic blood pressure (mmHg)d126 ± 18119 ± 110.01
 Diastolic blood pressure (mmHg)d76 ± 1270 ± 90.004
GFR (mL/min/1.73 m2)d
  eGFR98 ± 1199 ± 100.8
  mGFR95 ± 14100 ± 130.04
 Urine albumin:creatinine ratio (mg/mmol)b0.4 (0–3.2)0.4 (0–2.6)0.8
 Living with partnera49 (86)38 (79)0.5
 Completed higher educationa29 (51)19 (40)0.3
 Household income >800 000 NOKa,f34 (60)30 (62)0.9
 Regular smokera13 (23)6 (12)0.2
 Drinking alcohol at least weeklya17 (30)13 (27)0.9
 Physical exercise at least once a weeka41 (73)39 (81)0.5
a

n (%), chi-squaredtest.

b

Median (minimum–maximum), t-test.

c

z-score of BWGA, number of SD from mean.

d

Mean ± SD, t-test.

e

n (%), Barnard’s test.

f

Equivalent to 73 700 euros on 11 March 2020.

Table 1.

Characteristics of participants at birth and examination

CharacteristicsLBW n = 57NBW n = 48P-value
At birth
 Male participantsa23 (40)24 (50)0.4
 BW (g)b2000 (1160–2300)3740 (3520–3980)
 BWGA (SDc)b−1.2 (−4.7–1.8)0.2 (−0.4–1.5)<0.001
 Prematurea39 (70)0 (0)<0.001
 GAd34.5 ± 3.440.3 ± 1.4<0.001
 Maternal pre-eclampsiae8 (14)1 (2)0.04
 Birth length (cm)b44 (37–49)51 (48–54)<0.001
 Maternal age (years)b26 (17–43)25 (18–44)0.9
 Mother living with partnere51 (89)47 (98)0.1
Characteristics at examination
 Age (years)b48 (41–52)46 (41–51)0.4
 Height (cm)d169.7 ± 8.4173.2 ± 8.00.03
 Weight (kg)d77.7 ± 18.379.0 ± 13.90.7
 BMI (kg/m2)b25.9 (17.9–47.3)25.5 (20.7–41.3)0.5
 Body surface area (m2)d1.88 ± 0.231.93 ± 0.180.3
 Percentage body fatd30.9 ± 8.9928.0 ± 9.370.1
 Systolic blood pressure (mmHg)d126 ± 18119 ± 110.01
 Diastolic blood pressure (mmHg)d76 ± 1270 ± 90.004
GFR (mL/min/1.73 m2)d
  eGFR98 ± 1199 ± 100.8
  mGFR95 ± 14100 ± 130.04
 Urine albumin:creatinine ratio (mg/mmol)b0.4 (0–3.2)0.4 (0–2.6)0.8
 Living with partnera49 (86)38 (79)0.5
 Completed higher educationa29 (51)19 (40)0.3
 Household income >800 000 NOKa,f34 (60)30 (62)0.9
 Regular smokera13 (23)6 (12)0.2
 Drinking alcohol at least weeklya17 (30)13 (27)0.9
 Physical exercise at least once a weeka41 (73)39 (81)0.5
CharacteristicsLBW n = 57NBW n = 48P-value
At birth
 Male participantsa23 (40)24 (50)0.4
 BW (g)b2000 (1160–2300)3740 (3520–3980)
 BWGA (SDc)b−1.2 (−4.7–1.8)0.2 (−0.4–1.5)<0.001
 Prematurea39 (70)0 (0)<0.001
 GAd34.5 ± 3.440.3 ± 1.4<0.001
 Maternal pre-eclampsiae8 (14)1 (2)0.04
 Birth length (cm)b44 (37–49)51 (48–54)<0.001
 Maternal age (years)b26 (17–43)25 (18–44)0.9
 Mother living with partnere51 (89)47 (98)0.1
Characteristics at examination
 Age (years)b48 (41–52)46 (41–51)0.4
 Height (cm)d169.7 ± 8.4173.2 ± 8.00.03
 Weight (kg)d77.7 ± 18.379.0 ± 13.90.7
 BMI (kg/m2)b25.9 (17.9–47.3)25.5 (20.7–41.3)0.5
 Body surface area (m2)d1.88 ± 0.231.93 ± 0.180.3
 Percentage body fatd30.9 ± 8.9928.0 ± 9.370.1
 Systolic blood pressure (mmHg)d126 ± 18119 ± 110.01
 Diastolic blood pressure (mmHg)d76 ± 1270 ± 90.004
GFR (mL/min/1.73 m2)d
  eGFR98 ± 1199 ± 100.8
  mGFR95 ± 14100 ± 130.04
 Urine albumin:creatinine ratio (mg/mmol)b0.4 (0–3.2)0.4 (0–2.6)0.8
 Living with partnera49 (86)38 (79)0.5
 Completed higher educationa29 (51)19 (40)0.3
 Household income >800 000 NOKa,f34 (60)30 (62)0.9
 Regular smokera13 (23)6 (12)0.2
 Drinking alcohol at least weeklya17 (30)13 (27)0.9
 Physical exercise at least once a weeka41 (73)39 (81)0.5
a

n (%), chi-squaredtest.

b

Median (minimum–maximum), t-test.

c

z-score of BWGA, number of SD from mean.

d

Mean ± SD, t-test.

e

n (%), Barnard’s test.

f

Equivalent to 73 700 euros on 11 March 2020.

The mean mGFR of participants with LBW was 95 ± 14 mL/min/1.73 m2, compared with 100 ± 13 mL/min/1.73 m2 in participants with NBW (P = 0.04). In contrast, the eGFR was not different between the BW groups (P = 0.8; see Table 1 and Supplementary data, Table S1). Comparing the mGFR of participants born SGA compared with appropriate for GA and for participants born preterm versus full term yielded non-significant differences. When analysing men and women separately we found the associations between mGFR and birth-related variables were only seen in women, with no significant differences for men. In Table 2, sex-stratified mGFR differences are shown. For women, both BW groups and BWGA gave significant results. We further tested the effects using regression statistics demonstrating a significant interaction with sex, therefore subsequent analyses were sex stratified. Figure 2 shows the distribution of mGFR for men and women in the two groups.

mGFR by BW group and sex. LBW, BW ≤2300 g; NBW, BW 3500–4000 g.
FIGURE 2

mGFR by BW group and sex. LBW, BW ≤2300 g; NBW, BW 3500–4000 g.

Table 2.

Sex-stratified mGFR in various subgroups

VariablesFemalesMalesInteraction
Mean (95% CI)P-valueMean (95% CI)P-valueP-value
BW
 LBW90.4 (86.3–94.5)0.005101.4 (95.5–107.4)0.70.03
 NBW100.5 (94.9–106.1)100.0 (95.5–104.4)
Zz-score
 SGA87.3 (81.2–93.3)0.01103.6 (95.2–111.9)0.40.02
 Not SGA97.5 (93.2–101.8)99.9 (95.8–104.0)
GA
 Preterm91.8 (86.8–96.9)0.3101.9 (94.8–109.0)0.60.3
 Term96.1 (91.0–101.1)100.0 (95.8–104.2)
Maternal pre-eclampsia
 Yes97.8 (86.5–109.0)0.699.9 (85.3–114.5)0.90.7
 No94.3 (90.6–98.1)100.8 (97.0–104.6)
VariablesFemalesMalesInteraction
Mean (95% CI)P-valueMean (95% CI)P-valueP-value
BW
 LBW90.4 (86.3–94.5)0.005101.4 (95.5–107.4)0.70.03
 NBW100.5 (94.9–106.1)100.0 (95.5–104.4)
Zz-score
 SGA87.3 (81.2–93.3)0.01103.6 (95.2–111.9)0.40.02
 Not SGA97.5 (93.2–101.8)99.9 (95.8–104.0)
GA
 Preterm91.8 (86.8–96.9)0.3101.9 (94.8–109.0)0.60.3
 Term96.1 (91.0–101.1)100.0 (95.8–104.2)
Maternal pre-eclampsia
 Yes97.8 (86.5–109.0)0.699.9 (85.3–114.5)0.90.7
 No94.3 (90.6–98.1)100.8 (97.0–104.6)

For each variable, the sex-stratified means of mGFR (95% CI of the mean) for the two subgroups are shown as mL/min/1.73 m2. The difference of the mean of the two subgroups was tested using a t-test and the P-values are shown. In the total sample, the interaction between the main variables and sex was estimated using a linear regression model and the P-value of the interaction is given.

Table 2.

Sex-stratified mGFR in various subgroups

VariablesFemalesMalesInteraction
Mean (95% CI)P-valueMean (95% CI)P-valueP-value
BW
 LBW90.4 (86.3–94.5)0.005101.4 (95.5–107.4)0.70.03
 NBW100.5 (94.9–106.1)100.0 (95.5–104.4)
Zz-score
 SGA87.3 (81.2–93.3)0.01103.6 (95.2–111.9)0.40.02
 Not SGA97.5 (93.2–101.8)99.9 (95.8–104.0)
GA
 Preterm91.8 (86.8–96.9)0.3101.9 (94.8–109.0)0.60.3
 Term96.1 (91.0–101.1)100.0 (95.8–104.2)
Maternal pre-eclampsia
 Yes97.8 (86.5–109.0)0.699.9 (85.3–114.5)0.90.7
 No94.3 (90.6–98.1)100.8 (97.0–104.6)
VariablesFemalesMalesInteraction
Mean (95% CI)P-valueMean (95% CI)P-valueP-value
BW
 LBW90.4 (86.3–94.5)0.005101.4 (95.5–107.4)0.70.03
 NBW100.5 (94.9–106.1)100.0 (95.5–104.4)
Zz-score
 SGA87.3 (81.2–93.3)0.01103.6 (95.2–111.9)0.40.02
 Not SGA97.5 (93.2–101.8)99.9 (95.8–104.0)
GA
 Preterm91.8 (86.8–96.9)0.3101.9 (94.8–109.0)0.60.3
 Term96.1 (91.0–101.1)100.0 (95.8–104.2)
Maternal pre-eclampsia
 Yes97.8 (86.5–109.0)0.699.9 (85.3–114.5)0.90.7
 No94.3 (90.6–98.1)100.8 (97.0–104.6)

For each variable, the sex-stratified means of mGFR (95% CI of the mean) for the two subgroups are shown as mL/min/1.73 m2. The difference of the mean of the two subgroups was tested using a t-test and the P-values are shown. In the total sample, the interaction between the main variables and sex was estimated using a linear regression model and the P-value of the interaction is given.

Associations were further tested using linear regression statistics with mGFR as the dependent variable. For women, having LBW was associated with 10.1 mL/min/1.73 m2 lower mGFR (P = 0.005; see Table 3). When adjusting for age at examination, maternal age and maternal civil status, the difference was 7.7 mL/min/1.73 m2 (P = 0.03). For men, no significant associations were seen. Similarly, a 1 kg higher BW was associated with a 6.0 mL/min/1.73 m2 higher mGFR for women (P = 0.002) but no significant difference for men. For z-score, a 1 unit higher z-score (defined as 1 SD higher BWGA in the MBRN) associated with an mGFR of 3.5 mL/min/1.73 m2 higher for women. Again, no difference was found for the men. Figure 3 shows these associations graphically for BW and BWGA (z-score).

mGFR by BW and z-score. LBW, BW ≤2300 g; NBW, BW 3500–4000 g.
FIGURE 3

mGFR by BW and z-score. LBW, BW ≤2300 g; NBW, BW 3500–4000 g.

Table 3.

Multivariate regression analysis with GFR as a dependent variable: sex-stratified results

VariablesWomenMen
β (95% CI)P-valueβ (95% CI)P-value
LBW
 Unadjusted−10.1 (−17.1 to −3.2)0.0051.5 (−6.1 to 9.1)0.7
 Adjusted−7.7 (−14.5 to −0.8)0.032.8 (−5.2 to 10.7)0.5
BW per 1 kg
 Unadjusted6.0 (2.4 to 9.6)0.002−0.6 (−4.8 to 3.6)0.8
 Adjusted4.5 (0.8 to 8.1)0.02−1.2 (−5.6 to 3.2)0.6
z-score per 1 Ua
 Unadjusted3.5 (1.0 to 6.0)0.007−0.1 (−3.1 to 3.0)0.9
 Adjusted2.6 (0.1 to 5.1)0.04−0.1 (−3.3 to 3.1)0.9
GA
 Unadjusted0.8 (−0.2 to 1.8)0.10.0 (−1.0 to 0.9)0.9
 Adjusted0.5 (−0.5 to 1.4)0.3−0.2 (−1.2 to 0.8)0.7
Maternal pre-eclampsia
 Unadjusted−3.4 (−17.8 to 11.0)0.60.9 (−11.5 to 13.2)0.9
 Adjusted−3.9 (−17.2 to 9.4)0.61.3 (−11.2 to 13.8)0.8
VariablesWomenMen
β (95% CI)P-valueβ (95% CI)P-value
LBW
 Unadjusted−10.1 (−17.1 to −3.2)0.0051.5 (−6.1 to 9.1)0.7
 Adjusted−7.7 (−14.5 to −0.8)0.032.8 (−5.2 to 10.7)0.5
BW per 1 kg
 Unadjusted6.0 (2.4 to 9.6)0.002−0.6 (−4.8 to 3.6)0.8
 Adjusted4.5 (0.8 to 8.1)0.02−1.2 (−5.6 to 3.2)0.6
z-score per 1 Ua
 Unadjusted3.5 (1.0 to 6.0)0.007−0.1 (−3.1 to 3.0)0.9
 Adjusted2.6 (0.1 to 5.1)0.04−0.1 (−3.3 to 3.1)0.9
GA
 Unadjusted0.8 (−0.2 to 1.8)0.10.0 (−1.0 to 0.9)0.9
 Adjusted0.5 (−0.5 to 1.4)0.3−0.2 (−1.2 to 0.8)0.7
Maternal pre-eclampsia
 Unadjusted−3.4 (−17.8 to 11.0)0.60.9 (−11.5 to 13.2)0.9
 Adjusted−3.9 (−17.2 to 9.4)0.61.3 (−11.2 to 13.8)0.8

Adjustment for possible confounders: age at examination, maternal age and maternal civil status.

a

Sex specific z-score of BWGA, 1 U equals 1 SD.

Table 3.

Multivariate regression analysis with GFR as a dependent variable: sex-stratified results

VariablesWomenMen
β (95% CI)P-valueβ (95% CI)P-value
LBW
 Unadjusted−10.1 (−17.1 to −3.2)0.0051.5 (−6.1 to 9.1)0.7
 Adjusted−7.7 (−14.5 to −0.8)0.032.8 (−5.2 to 10.7)0.5
BW per 1 kg
 Unadjusted6.0 (2.4 to 9.6)0.002−0.6 (−4.8 to 3.6)0.8
 Adjusted4.5 (0.8 to 8.1)0.02−1.2 (−5.6 to 3.2)0.6
z-score per 1 Ua
 Unadjusted3.5 (1.0 to 6.0)0.007−0.1 (−3.1 to 3.0)0.9
 Adjusted2.6 (0.1 to 5.1)0.04−0.1 (−3.3 to 3.1)0.9
GA
 Unadjusted0.8 (−0.2 to 1.8)0.10.0 (−1.0 to 0.9)0.9
 Adjusted0.5 (−0.5 to 1.4)0.3−0.2 (−1.2 to 0.8)0.7
Maternal pre-eclampsia
 Unadjusted−3.4 (−17.8 to 11.0)0.60.9 (−11.5 to 13.2)0.9
 Adjusted−3.9 (−17.2 to 9.4)0.61.3 (−11.2 to 13.8)0.8
VariablesWomenMen
β (95% CI)P-valueβ (95% CI)P-value
LBW
 Unadjusted−10.1 (−17.1 to −3.2)0.0051.5 (−6.1 to 9.1)0.7
 Adjusted−7.7 (−14.5 to −0.8)0.032.8 (−5.2 to 10.7)0.5
BW per 1 kg
 Unadjusted6.0 (2.4 to 9.6)0.002−0.6 (−4.8 to 3.6)0.8
 Adjusted4.5 (0.8 to 8.1)0.02−1.2 (−5.6 to 3.2)0.6
z-score per 1 Ua
 Unadjusted3.5 (1.0 to 6.0)0.007−0.1 (−3.1 to 3.0)0.9
 Adjusted2.6 (0.1 to 5.1)0.04−0.1 (−3.3 to 3.1)0.9
GA
 Unadjusted0.8 (−0.2 to 1.8)0.10.0 (−1.0 to 0.9)0.9
 Adjusted0.5 (−0.5 to 1.4)0.3−0.2 (−1.2 to 0.8)0.7
Maternal pre-eclampsia
 Unadjusted−3.4 (−17.8 to 11.0)0.60.9 (−11.5 to 13.2)0.9
 Adjusted−3.9 (−17.2 to 9.4)0.61.3 (−11.2 to 13.8)0.8

Adjustment for possible confounders: age at examination, maternal age and maternal civil status.

a

Sex specific z-score of BWGA, 1 U equals 1 SD.

We defined normal mGFR as >90 mL/min/1.73 m2 and using logistic regression statistics we analysed the odds ratio (OR) for having mGFR ˂90 mL/min/1.73 m2. This in accordance with the GFR cut-off used in chronic kidney disease (CKD) definitions [25] (no participants had GFR ˂60 mL/min/1.73 m2). In women, LBW was associated with an unadjusted OR of 4.8 (95% CI 1.5–16; P = 0.01) for having a GFR ˂90 mL/min/1.73 m2 (Table 4). In men, the corresponding unadjusted OR was 1.4 (95% CI 0.3–6.0; P = 0.7). Adjusted analyses showed similar results.

Table 4.

Logistic regression model for low GFR

Variables WomenMen
β (95% CI)P-valueβ (95% CI)P-value
LBW
 Unadjusted4.8 ( 1.5–15.9)0.011.4 (0.3–6.0)0.7
 Adjusted3.8 ( 1.1–13.5)0.041.1 (0.2–5.8)0.9
BW (kg)
 Unadjusted0.4 (0.2–0.8)0.0080.9 (0.4–2.0)0.8
 Adjusted0.5 (0.2–0.9)0.031.0 (0.4–2.5)1
z-score
 Unadjusted0.5 (0.3–0.8)0.0070.9 (0.5–1.5)0.6
 Adjusted0.5 (0.3–0.9)0.010.7 (0.3–1.6)0.5
GA
 Unadjusted0.9 (0.8–1.0)0.21.0 (0.8–1.2)0.9
 Adjusted0.9 (0.8–1.1)0.51.0 (0.8–1.3)0.7
Maternal pre-eclampsia
 Unadjusted0.7 (0.1–5.3)0.70.3 (0.0–2.1)0.2
 Adjusted0.8 (0.1–6.5)0.80.3 (0.0–3.8)0.4
Variables WomenMen
β (95% CI)P-valueβ (95% CI)P-value
LBW
 Unadjusted4.8 ( 1.5–15.9)0.011.4 (0.3–6.0)0.7
 Adjusted3.8 ( 1.1–13.5)0.041.1 (0.2–5.8)0.9
BW (kg)
 Unadjusted0.4 (0.2–0.8)0.0080.9 (0.4–2.0)0.8
 Adjusted0.5 (0.2–0.9)0.031.0 (0.4–2.5)1
z-score
 Unadjusted0.5 (0.3–0.8)0.0070.9 (0.5–1.5)0.6
 Adjusted0.5 (0.3–0.9)0.010.7 (0.3–1.6)0.5
GA
 Unadjusted0.9 (0.8–1.0)0.21.0 (0.8–1.2)0.9
 Adjusted0.9 (0.8–1.1)0.51.0 (0.8–1.3)0.7
Maternal pre-eclampsia
 Unadjusted0.7 (0.1–5.3)0.70.3 (0.0–2.1)0.2
 Adjusted0.8 (0.1–6.5)0.80.3 (0.0–3.8)0.4

Sex-stratified analysis showing OR (95% CI) for GFR ˂90 mL/min/1.73 m2.

Table 4.

Logistic regression model for low GFR

Variables WomenMen
β (95% CI)P-valueβ (95% CI)P-value
LBW
 Unadjusted4.8 ( 1.5–15.9)0.011.4 (0.3–6.0)0.7
 Adjusted3.8 ( 1.1–13.5)0.041.1 (0.2–5.8)0.9
BW (kg)
 Unadjusted0.4 (0.2–0.8)0.0080.9 (0.4–2.0)0.8
 Adjusted0.5 (0.2–0.9)0.031.0 (0.4–2.5)1
z-score
 Unadjusted0.5 (0.3–0.8)0.0070.9 (0.5–1.5)0.6
 Adjusted0.5 (0.3–0.9)0.010.7 (0.3–1.6)0.5
GA
 Unadjusted0.9 (0.8–1.0)0.21.0 (0.8–1.2)0.9
 Adjusted0.9 (0.8–1.1)0.51.0 (0.8–1.3)0.7
Maternal pre-eclampsia
 Unadjusted0.7 (0.1–5.3)0.70.3 (0.0–2.1)0.2
 Adjusted0.8 (0.1–6.5)0.80.3 (0.0–3.8)0.4
Variables WomenMen
β (95% CI)P-valueβ (95% CI)P-value
LBW
 Unadjusted4.8 ( 1.5–15.9)0.011.4 (0.3–6.0)0.7
 Adjusted3.8 ( 1.1–13.5)0.041.1 (0.2–5.8)0.9
BW (kg)
 Unadjusted0.4 (0.2–0.8)0.0080.9 (0.4–2.0)0.8
 Adjusted0.5 (0.2–0.9)0.031.0 (0.4–2.5)1
z-score
 Unadjusted0.5 (0.3–0.8)0.0070.9 (0.5–1.5)0.6
 Adjusted0.5 (0.3–0.9)0.010.7 (0.3–1.6)0.5
GA
 Unadjusted0.9 (0.8–1.0)0.21.0 (0.8–1.2)0.9
 Adjusted0.9 (0.8–1.1)0.51.0 (0.8–1.3)0.7
Maternal pre-eclampsia
 Unadjusted0.7 (0.1–5.3)0.70.3 (0.0–2.1)0.2
 Adjusted0.8 (0.1–6.5)0.80.3 (0.0–3.8)0.4

Sex-stratified analysis showing OR (95% CI) for GFR ˂90 mL/min/1.73 m2.

DISCUSSION

This study is, to our knowledge, the first study to investigate whether external marker–based mGFR associates with BW in middle-aged mainly healthy adults. The study shows that mainly healthy women with LBW have lower mGFR than women with NBW and also that these associations are significant for BWGA. Surprisingly, no significant associations were found for men. The study sample comprised a fairly healthy population without diabetes or the use of antihypertensive medication, and the NBW group had lower blood pressure and similar or lower BMI than the age-adjusted general population [26, 27].

The findings of lower mGFR for women with LBW are in accordance with other studies showing associations between BW and kidney function [14, 28]. Two previous studies have used mGFR to study the association between BW and kidney function: Berglund et al. [18] studied previous kidney donors. They found that higher BW reduced the risk of albuminuria, while there was no association between BW and risk of mGFR <60 mL/min/1.73 m2. However, only 15 of 216 participants had a BW <2500 g, and it should be remembered that these participants had undergone nephrectomy, an operation that leads to greater changes in GFR than would be expected for BW. Gielen et al. [19] studied twins using creatinine clearance and found that a 1 kg higher BW was associated with a 6 mL/min higher creatinine clearance. In a meta-analysis by Das et al. [28], the effect on GFR of 1 kg higher BW was found to be 2.09 mL/min/1.73 m2. However, this meta-analysis included studies of all age groups and several studies on children. In our study, the overall effect on GFR per 1 kg higher BW was 3.45 mL/min/1.73 m2. For women, the effect was 4.5 mL/min/1.73 m2 after adjustments for age at examination, maternal age and civil status. The analysis of association between BWGA and mGFR yielded a similar significant association for women, but not for men. In a Swedish registry study, GA was found to be associated with the risk of CKD [29]. However, this effect was attenuated in older age, which could explain why we did not find the same association, as the most diseased people are already excluded.

Most previous studies suggest a stronger effect of BW on kidney disease and eGFR in men than in women [9–11, 17, 30]. We also showed a significant sex difference. However, in our study the association between BW and GFR was only present in women. This could have several explanations. First, in contrast to other studies, we used external marker–based mGFR instead of eGFR or creatinine clearance, giving GFR values not biased by muscle mass etc., better representing the true GFR. Second, we excluded patients with diabetes, treatment for hypertension and/or eGFR <50 mL/min/1.73 m2 and have therefore probably excluded those with the strongest association between BW and low GFR. If LBW associates with kidney function mainly indirectly via increased risk of traditional risk factors such as hypertension, diabetes and metabolic syndrome [31], then the effect of this could be even more important and there could be significant sex differences. Third, there could be sex differences in the mechanisms of kidney adaption and early kidney damage to being born with a small number of nephrons. As global GFR is the sum of the filtration in all nephrons, it is difficult to distinguish normal filtration in a normal number of nephrons from that of hyperfiltration in a reduced number of nephrons. It can be speculated that a sex difference in age-related hyperfiltration and adaption to nephron loss may exist, as suggested by other researchers [15, 32, 33]. More studies are needed to explore the natural course of GFR changes in adult age and whether this is affected by BW. Such studies should probably include a cross section of the total population, both healthy and unhealthy persons, and also including ages >50 years.

The strength of this study is that a compulsory national registry was used for extraction of data on BW and other perinatal variables. The Norwegian population registry allowed for the detection of all eligible participants with the given characteristics living in our local area and we could thus include subjects within a certain age group that were the result of a singleton birth. The use of mGFR rather than eGFR is a novelty in BW-related GFR research, improving the validity of our results. In fact, eGFR would not be sufficient to show the difference between the two BW groups in our material. Compared with general population data, we observed that our study group with NBW seemed to have lower blood pressure and BMI and thus seemed to comprise a very healthy group of subjects. By studying a fairly healthy population, our results reflect the association between BW and kidney function, independent of several other possible confounders. On the other hand, we have probably also excluded patients who had low GFR mainly due to LBW. In addition, the most severe LBW patients who might have severe CKD may die at an early age. The main limitation is the low final participation rate of the individuals includable in the study. In the original power calculation we estimated the need for 48 persons in each group. This was fulfilled in the total sample (57 LBW and 48 NBW). However, with the need for sex-stratified analysis, the groups are smaller. Especially for the men, where the differences were smaller, this study may have been underpowered. The project was time consuming for the participants and this may have caused selection bias. The study only included Norwegians and may not reflect associations in other populations.

In conclusion, our study shows that mGFR in mainly healthy women 40–50 years of age is associated with BW. The association, which was only demonstrated in women, could be explained by underlying sex-specific mechanisms that should be investigated further.

SUPPLEMENTARY DATA

Supplementary data are available at ndt online.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We wish to thank Lillian Skumsnes, Monika Sobota-Curylo and Annelie Röhl for their participation in planning, organizing and conducting the experiments.

FUNDING

The study was funded by the Western Regional Health Board of Norway (Helse Vest) and Helse Fonna.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST STATEMENT

None declared.

REFERENCES

1

Hughson
 
M
,
Farris
 
AB
 3rd
,
Douglas-Denton
 
R
 et al. .
Glomerular number and size in autopsy kidneys: the relationship to birth weight
.
Kidney Int
 
2003
;
63
:
2113
2122

2

Manalich
 
R
,
Reyes
 
L
,
Herrera
 
M
 et al. .
Relationship between weight at birth and the number and size of renal glomeruli in humans: a histomorphometric study
.
Kidney Int
 
2000
;
58
:
770
773

3

Brenner
 
BM
,
Garcia
 
DL
,
Anderson
 
S.
 
Glomeruli and blood pressure: less of one, more the other?
 
Am J Hypertens
 
1988
;
1
:
335
347

4

Luyckx
 
VA
,
Brenner
 
BM.
 
Birth weight, malnutrition and kidney-associated outcomes—a global concern
.
Nat Rev Nephrol
 
2015
;
11
:
135
149

5

Low Birth Weight and Nephron Number Working Group
.
The impact of kidney development on the life course: a consensus document for action
.
Nephron
 
2017
;
136
:
3
49 

6

Nelson
 
RG
,
Morgenstem
 
H
,
Bennett
 
PH.
 
Birth weight and renal disease in Pima Indians with type 2 diabetes mellitus
.
Am J Epidemiol
 
1998
;
148
:
650
656

7

Hoy
 
WE
,
Rees
 
M
,
Kile
 
E
 et al. .
A new dimension to the Barker hypothesis: low birthweight and susceptibility to renal disease
.
Kidney Int
 
1999
;
56
:
1072
1077

8

Keijzer-Veen
 
MG
,
Schrevel
 
M
,
Finken
 
MJ
 et al. .
Microalbuminuria and lower glomerular filtration rate at young adult age in subjects born very premature and after intrauterine growth retardation
.
J Am Soc Nephrol
 
2005
;
16
:
2762
2768

9

Lackland
 
DT
,
Bendall
 
HE
,
Osmond
 
C
 et al. .
Low birth weights contribute to high rates of early-onset chronic renal failure in the southeastern United States
.
Arch Intern Med
 
2000
;
160
:
1472
1476

10

Li
 
S
,
Chen
 
SC
,
Shlipak
 
M
 et al. .
Low birth weight is associated with chronic kidney disease only in men
.
Kidney Int
 
2008
;
73
:
637
642

11

Eriksson
 
JG
,
Salonen
 
MK
,
Kajantie
 
E
 et al. .
Prenatal growth and CKD in older adults: longitudinal findings from the Helsinki birth cohort study, 1924–1944
.
Am J Kidney Dis
 
2018
;
71
:
20
26

12

Vikse
 
BE
,
Irgens
 
LM
,
Leivestad
 
T
 et al. .
Low birth weight increases risk for end-stage renal disease
.
J Am Soc Nephrol
 
2008
;
19
:
151
157

13

Ruggajo
 
P
,
Skrunes
 
R
,
Svarstad
 
E
 et al. .
Familial factors, low birth weight, and development of ESRD: a nationwide registry study
.
Am J Kidney Dis
 
2016
;
67
:
601
608

14

White
 
SL
,
Perkovic
 
V
,
Cass
 
A
 et al. .
Is low birth weight an antecedent of CKD in later life? A systematic review of observational studies
.
Am J Kidney Dis
 
2009
;
54
:
248
261

15

Elsherbiny
 
HE
,
Alexander
 
MP
,
Kremers
 
WK
 et al. .
Nephron hypertrophy and glomerulosclerosis and their association with kidney function and risk factors among living kidney donors
.
Clin J Am Soc Nephrol
 
2014
;
9
:
1892
1902

16

Vollsæter
 
M
,
Halvorsen
 
T
,
Markestad
 
T
 et al. .
Renal function and blood pressure in 11 year old children born extremely preterm or small for gestational age
.
PLoS One
 
2018
;
13
:
e0205558

17

Hallan
 
S
,
Euser
 
AM
,
Irgens
 
LM
 et al. .
Effect of intrauterine growth restriction on kidney function at young adult age: the Nord Trondelag Health (HUNT 2) Study
.
Am J Kidney Dis
 
2008
;
51
:
10
20

18

Berglund
 
D
,
MacDonald
 
D
,
Jackson
 
S
 et al. .
Low birthweight and risk of albuminuria in living kidney donors
.
Clin Transplant
 
2014
;
28
:
361
367

19

Gielen
 
M
,
Pinto-Sietsma
 
SJ
,
Zeegers
 
MP
 et al. .
Birth weight and creatinine clearance in young adult twins: influence of genetic, prenatal, and maternal factors
.
J Am Soc Nephrol
 
2005
;
16
:
2471
2476

20

Norwegian Institute of Public Health
. Medical Birth Registry of Norway. https://fhi.no/en/hn/health-registries/medical-birth-registry-of-norway/ (5 March 2020, date last accessed)

21

Levey
 
AS
,
Stevens
 
LA
,
Schmid
 
CH
, et al.
A new equation to estimate glomerular filtration rate
.
Ann Intern Med
 
2009
;
150
:
604
612

22

Jodal
 
L
,
Brochner-Mortensen
 
J.
 
Reassessment of a classical single injection 51Cr-EDTA clearance method for determination of renal function in children and adults. Part I: analytically correct relationship between total and one-pool clearance
.
Scand J Clin Lab Invest
 
2009
;
69
:
305
313

23

R Core Team
. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing.  https://www.R-project.org/ (5 March 2020, date last accessed)

24

Barnard
 
GA.
 
A new test for 2 × 2 tables
.
Nature
 
1945
;
156
:
388

25

Chapter 1: Definition and classification of CKD
.
Kidney Int Suppl
 2013;
3
:
19
62

26

Holmen
 
J
,
Holmen
 
TL
,
Tverdal
 
A
 et al. .
Blood pressure changes during 22-year of follow-up in large general population – the HUNT Study, Norway
.
BMC Cardiovasc Disord
 
2016
;
16
:
94

27

Naess
 
M
,
Sund
 
ER
,
Holmen
 
TL
 et al. .
Implications of parental lifestyle changes and education level on adolescent offspring weight: a population based cohort study – the HUNT Study, Norway
.
BMJ Open
 
2018
;
8
:
e023406

28

Das
 
SK
,
Mannan
 
M
,
Faruque
 
AS
 et al. .
Effect of birth weight on adulthood renal function: a bias-adjusted meta-analytic approach
.
Nephrology (Carlton)
 
2016
;
21
:
547
565

29

Crump
 
C
,
Sundquist
 
J
,
Winkleby
 
MA
 et al. .
Preterm birth and risk of chronic kidney disease from childhood into mid-adulthood: national cohort study
.
BMJ
 
2019
;
365
:
l1346

30

Dyck
 
R
,
Klomp
 
H
,
Tan
 
L
 et al. .
An association of maternal age and birth weight with end-stage renal disease in Saskatchewan. Sub-analysis of registered Indians and those with diabetes
.
Am J Nephrol
 
2003
;
23
:
395
402

31

Eriksen
 
BO
,
Lochen
 
ML
,
Arntzen
 
KA
 et al. .
Subclinical cardiovascular disease is associated with a high glomerular filtration rate in the nondiabetic general population
.
Kidney Int
 
2014
;
86
:
146
153

32

Skrtic
 
M
,
Lytvyn
 
Y
,
Bjornstad
 
P
 et al. .
Influence of sex on hyperfiltration in patients with uncomplicated type 1 diabetes
.
Am J Physiol Renal Physiol
 
2017
;
312
:
F599
F606

33

Cherney
 
DZ
,
Sochett
 
EB
,
Miller
 
JA.
 
Gender differences in renal responses to hyperglycemia and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibition in diabetes
.
Kidney Int
 
2005
;
68
:
1722
1728

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. For commercial re-use, please contact [email protected]

Supplementary data

Comments

0 Comments
Submit a comment
You have entered an invalid code
Thank you for submitting a comment on this article. Your comment will be reviewed and published at the journal's discretion. Please check for further notifications by email.