Occurrence of mosaic Down syndrome and prevalence of co-occurring conditions in Medicaid enrolled adults, 2016-2019.

BACKGROUND: Mosaic Down syndrome is a triplication of chromosome 21 in some but not all cells. Little is known about the epidemiology of mosaic Down syndrome. We described prevalence of mosaic Down syndrome and the co-occurrence of common chronic conditions in 94,533 Medicaid enrolled adults with any Down syndrome enrolled from 2016 to 2019. METHODS: We identified mosaic Down syndrome using the International Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, tenth edition code for mosaic Down syndrome and compared to those with nonmosaic Down syndrome codes. We identified chronic conditions using established algorithms and compared prevalence by mosaicism. RESULTS: In total, 1966 (2.08%) had claims for mosaic Down syndrome. Mosaicism did not differ by sex or race/ethnicity with similar age distributions. Individuals with mosaicism were more likely to present with autism (13.9% vs. 9.6%) and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (17.7% vs. 14.0%) compared to individuals without mosaicism. In total, 22.3% of those with mosaic Down syndrome and 21.5% of those without mosaicism had claims for Alzheimer's dementia (Prevalence difference: 0.8; 95% Confidence interval: -1.0, 2.8). The mosaic group had 1.19 times the hazard of Alzheimer's dementia compared to the nonmosaic group (95% CI: 1.0, 1.3). DISCUSSION: Mosaicism may be associated with a higher susceptibility to certain neurodevelopmental and neurodegenerative conditions, including Alzheimer's dementia. Our findings challenge previous assumptions about its protective effects in Down syndrome. Further research is necessary to explore these associations in greater depth.

Results of inaugural international Down Syndrome Societal Services and Supports survey.

PURPOSE: We previously designed the Down Syndrome Societal Services and Supports Survey (DS-4S) to measure country-specific supports for people with Down syndrome (DS) across multiple life domains (healthcare, education, policy, independence, and community inclusion). We now report and analyze the results. METHODS: We partnered with international DS consortia, who distributed the DS-4S to 154 cumulative members representing over 100 countries. Organizations were included if they had a holistic focus on the lives of people with DS and if at least 50% of their members either have DS or are family members of people with DS. Factor analysis was used to analyze the results. RESULTS: We received survey responses from 55 different organizations in 50 countries who met inclusion criteria. Each country had complete data for at least 4 of the 5 domains. The lowest 5 scores were from countries in Africa and Asia; the highest 5 scores were in Europe and North America. CONCLUSION: The responses to the DS-4S stratified countries within each surveyed domain. The DS-4S can now be used to track countries' progress over time and to determine which countries have best practices that might be replicated. We will publish the results and update them biennially at www.DownSyndromeQualityOfLife.com.

Parents of children with Down syndrome reflect on their postnatal diagnoses, 2003-2022.

A 2003 survey revealed the scope of mothers' dissatisfaction with their postnatal support following a diagnosis of Down syndrome (DS). Substantial proportions of mothers reported that providers conveyed diagnoses with pity, emphasized negative aspects of DS, and neglected to provide adequate materials explaining DS. This study follows up on the 2003 survey by assessing whether parents' experiences have improved. Four DS nonprofit organizations, which participated in the original study, distributed a mixed-methods survey to families who have had children with DS between 2003 and 2022. Quantitative analysis assessed correlations among responses and differences between the 2003 and 2022 survey groups. Open-ended responses were qualitatively analyzed. Compared to the 2003 findings, parents' perceptions of their postnatal care have not improved (N = 89). Parents are increasingly likely to report that their providers pitied them, omitted positive aspects of DS, and provided insufficient materials describing DS. Substantial proportions of parents reported fear (77%) and anxiety (79%), only 24% described receiving adequate explanatory materials, and parents were 45% likelier to report that physicians discussed negative aspects of DS than positive aspects. Qualitatively, substantial numbers of parents recounted insensitive conduct by providers. These results suggest that despite interventions, parents' experiences of postnatal diagnoses of DS have not improved over time. Certain provider behaviors-such as describing positive aspects of DS and providing comprehensive explanatory materials-can reduce fear and anxiety, pointing to directions for reform.

Tailored vs. General COVID-19 prevention for adults with mental disabilities residing in group homes: a randomized controlled effectiveness-implementation trial.

BACKGROUND: People with serious mental illness (SMI) and people with intellectual disabilities/developmental disabilities (ID/DD) are at higher risk for COVID-19 and more severe outcomes. We compare a tailored versus general best practice COVID-19 prevention program in group homes (GHs) for people with SMI or ID/DD in Massachusetts (MA). METHODS: A hybrid effectiveness-implementation cluster randomized control trial compared a four-component implementation strategy (Tailored Best Practices: TBP) to dissemination of standard prevention guidelines (General Best-Practices: GBP) in GHs across six MA behavioral health agencies. GBP consisted of standard best practices for preventing COVID-19. TBP included GBP plus four components including: (1) trusted-messenger peer testimonials on benefits of vaccination; (2) motivational interviewing; (3) interactive education on preventive practices; and (4) fidelity feedback dashboards for GHs. Primary implementation outcomes were full COVID-19 vaccination rates (baseline: 1/1/2021-3/31/2021) and fidelity scores (baseline: 5/1/21-7/30/21), at 3-month intervals to 15-month follow-up until October 2022. The primary effectiveness outcome was COVID-19 infection (baseline: 1/1/2021-3/31/2021), measured every 3 months to 15-month follow-up. Cumulative incidence of vaccinations were estimated using Kaplan-Meier curves. Cox frailty models evaluate differences in vaccination uptake and secondary outcomes. Linear mixed models (LMMs) and Poisson generalized linear mixed models (GLMMs) were used to evaluate differences in fidelity scores and incidence of COVID-19 infections. RESULTS: GHs (n=415) were randomized to TBP (n=208) and GBP (n=207) including 3,836 residents (1,041 ID/DD; 2,795 SMI) and 5,538 staff. No differences were found in fidelity scores or COVID-19 incidence rates between TBP and GBP, however TBP had greater acceptability, appropriateness, and feasibility. No overall differences in vaccination rates were found between TBP and GBP. However, among unvaccinated group home residents with mental disabilities, non-White residents achieved full vaccination status at double the rate for TBP (28.6%) compared to GBP (14.4%) at 15 months. Additionally, the impact of TBP on vaccine uptake was over two-times greater for non-White residents compared to non-Hispanic White residents (ratio of HR for TBP between non-White and non-Hispanic White: 2.28, p = 0.03). CONCLUSION: Tailored COVID-19 prevention strategies are beneficial as a feasible and acceptable implementation strategy with the potential to reduce disparities in vaccine acceptance among the subgroup of non-White individuals with mental disabilities. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04726371, 27/01/2021. https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT04726371 .

Hypoglossal Nerve Stimulation for Obstructive Sleep Apnea in a Young Child With Down Syndrome.

Obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) is common in children with Down syndrome (DS). Adenoidectomy and/or tonsillectomy are the usual first interventions employed to treat OSA in children with DS but sometimes do not achieve adequate resolution of clinical signs. Positive airway pressure treatment is often used next, but this treatment is poorly tolerated by this population. Persistent OSA can adversely affect a child's health and cognitive development. Hypoglossal nerve stimulation (HGNS), previously shown to be safe and effective in adults with OSA, has been used in children as young as 10 years old with DS and has achieved measurable neurocognitive benefits. The US Food and Drug Administration recently lowered the age for HGNS implantation to 13 years for children with DS. However, questions remain regarding treatment of refractory OSA in younger children. Here, we report the case of a 4-year-old boy with DS and treatment-refractory OSA who underwent successful HGNS implantation. The decision to proceed with HGNS implantation in such a young child involved discussions about anatomic feasibility and potential neurocognitive benefits. The device was implanted without complication and with minimal postoperative bulk. This case suggests a possible treatment option that can be discussed in the course of shared decision-making between clinicians and families of young children with DS and treatment-refractory OSA.

Using simulation modeling to inform intervention and implementation selection in a rapid stakeholder-engaged hybrid effectiveness-implementation randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: Implementation research generally assumes established evidence-based practices and prior piloting of implementation strategies, which may not be feasible during a public health emergency. We describe the use of a simulation model of the effectiveness of COVID-19 mitigation strategies to inform a stakeholder-engaged process of rapidly designing a tailored intervention and implementation strategy for individuals with serious mental illness (SMI) and intellectual/developmental disabilities (ID/DD) in group homes in a hybrid effectiveness-implementation randomized trial. METHODS: We used a validated dynamic microsimulation model of COVID-19 transmission and disease in late 2020/early 2021 to determine the most effective strategies to mitigate infections among Massachusetts group home staff and residents. Model inputs were informed by data from stakeholders, public records, and published literature. We assessed different prevention strategies, iterated over time with input from multidisciplinary stakeholders and pandemic evolution, including varying symptom screening, testing frequency, isolation, contact-time, use of personal protective equipment, and vaccination. Model outcomes included new infections in group home residents, new infections in group home staff, and resident hospital days. Sensitivity analyses were performed to account for parameter uncertainty. Results of the simulations informed a stakeholder-engaged process to select components of a tailored best practice intervention and implementation strategy. RESULTS: The largest projected decrease in infections was with initial vaccination, with minimal benefit for additional routine testing. The initial level of actual vaccination in the group homes was estimated to reduce resident infections by 72.4% and staff infections by 55.9% over the 90-day time horizon. Increasing resident and staff vaccination uptake to a target goal of 90% further decreased resident infections by 45.2% and staff infections by 51.3%. Subsequent simulated removal of masking led to a 6.5% increase in infections among residents and 3.2% among staff. The simulation model results were presented to multidisciplinary stakeholders and policymakers to inform the "Tailored Best Practice" package for the hybrid effectiveness-implementation trial. CONCLUSIONS: Vaccination and decreasing vaccine hesitancy among staff were predicted to have the greatest impact in mitigating COVID-19 risk in vulnerable populations of group home residents and staff. Simulation modeling was effective in rapidly informing the selection of the prevention and implementation strategy in a hybrid effectiveness-implementation trial. Future implementation may benefit from this approach when rapid deployment is necessary in the absence of data on tailored interventions. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04726371.

Predictors of COVID-19 infection and hospitalization in group homes for individuals with intellectual and/or developmental disabilities.

BACKGROUND: More than seven million people with intellectual and/or developmental disabilities (ID/DD) live in the US and may face an elevated risk for COVID-19. OBJECTIVE: To identify correlates of COVID-19 and related hospitalizations among people with ID/DD in group homes in Massachusetts. METHODS: We collected data during March 1, 2020-June 30, 2020 (wave 1) and July 1, 2020-March 31, 2021 (wave 2) from the Massachusetts Department of Public Health and six organizations administering 206 group homes for 1035 residents with ID/DD. The main outcomes were COVID-19 infections and related hospitalizations. We fit multilevel Cox proportional hazards models to estimate associations with observed predictors and assess contextual home- and organizational-level effects. RESULTS: Compared with Massachusetts residents, group home residents had a higher age-adjusted rate of COVID-19 in wave 1 (incidence rate ratio [IRR], 12.06; 95 % confidence interval [CI], 10.51-13.84) and wave 2 (IRR, 2.47; 95 % CI, 2.12-2.88) and a higher age-adjusted rate of COVID-19 hospitalizations in wave 1 (IRR, 17.64; 95 % CI, 12.59-24.70) and wave 2 (IRR, 4.95; 95 % CI, 3.23-7.60). COVID-19 infections and hospitalizations were more likely among residents aged 65+ and in group homes with 6+ resident beds and recent infection among staff and residents. CONCLUSIONS: Aggressive efforts to decrease resident density, staff-to-resident ratios, and staff infections through efforts such as vaccination, in addition to ongoing access to personal protective equipment and COVID-19 testing, may reduce COVID-19 and related hospitalizations in people with ID/DD living in group homes.