Physical Activity in Youth with Down Syndrome and Its Relationship with Adiposity.

PURPOSE: The aims of this study are to (1) compare physical activity (PA) and sedentary activity (SA) in youth with and without Down syndrome (DS and non-DS) and examine the relationships of PA and SA with their traditional risk factors (age, sex, race, and body mass index Z score [BMI-Z]) and (2) explore the relationship of PA with visceral fat (VFAT) in both groups. METHODS: SenseWear accelerometry data from at least 2 weekdays and 1 weekend day were collected from youth with DS (N = 77) and non-DS (N = 57) youth. VFAT was measured by dual x-ray absorptiometry. RESULTS: In age-, sex-, race-, and BMI-Z-adjusted models, those with DS engaged in more minutes of light PA (LPA) ( p < 0.0001) and less SA ( p = 0.003) and trended toward fewer minutes of moderate-to-vigorous PA (MVPA) ( p = 0.08) than non-DS youth. No race or sex differences in MVPA were detected in those with DS, unlike non-DS. After additional adjustment for pubertal status, the relationship between MVPA and VFAT approached significance ( p = 0.06), whereas the relationships of LPA and SA with VFAT were maintained ( p ≤ 0.0001 for both). CONCLUSION: Youth with DS engage in more LPA compared with non-DS, which, in typically developing populations, can confer a more favorable weight status. Increasing the opportunity for youth with DS to engage in LPA as part of their activities of daily living may offer a viable strategy for achieving healthy weight when barriers restrict pursuit of more vigorous PA.

Prevalence of unsuspected abnormal echocardiograms in adolescents with down syndrome.

The purpose of this article is to describe the prevalence of cardiac disease previously undiagnosed in healthy asymptomatic children and adolescents with Down syndrome (DS). Subjects with DS ages 10-20 years were recruited from two sites, the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia (Philadelphia, PA) and Children's National Health System (Washington, DC) for a cross-sectional study of body composition and cardiometabolic risk. Echocardiographic and clinical data were collected from patients enrolled in the parent study of cardiometabolic risk. Nine (6%) new cardiac diagnoses were identified out of 149 eligible patients. All new findings resulted in outpatient referrals to pediatric cardiology. Current guidelines recommend screening all newborns with DS for congenital heart disease. Older patients with DS may benefit from rescreening.

Cardiometabolic Risk and Body Composition in Youth With Down Syndrome.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Whether BMI captures adiposity and cardiometabolic risk in Down syndrome (DS), a condition associated with obesity, short stature, and altered body proportions, is not known. We compared cardiometabolic risk measures in youth with DS and typically developing matched controls. METHODS: Youth with (n = 150) and without (n = 103) DS of comparable age (10-20 years), sex, race, ethnicity, and BMI percentile underwent whole-body dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry, fasting glucose, insulin, lipids, lipoprotein particles, inflammatory factors, and when BMI percentile ≥85, an oral glucose tolerance test. RESULTS: Sixty-four percent of youth with DS had BMI percentile ≥85. Among these, no difference in glucose, insulin, or insulin resistance was detected, but prediabetes was more prevalent with DS (26.4% vs 10.3%; P = .025) after adjustment for demographics, pubertal status, and BMI z score (odds ratio = 3.2; P = .026). Among all participants, those with DS had higher low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (median 107 [interquartile range 89-128] vs 88.5 [79-103] mg/dL; P < .00005), triglycerides (89.5 [73-133] vs 71.5 [56-104] mg/dL; P < .00005), non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (non-HDL-C; 128 [104-153] vs 107 [92-123] mg/dL; P < .00005), and triglycerides/HDL-C (2.2 [1.6-3.4] vs 1.7 [1.1-2.5] mg/dL; P = .0003) and lower levels of HDL-C (41 [36.5-47] vs 45 [37-53] mg/dL; P = .012). DS youth had higher high-sensitivity C-reactive protein, interleukin-6, small low-density lipoprotein particles (LDL-P), and total LDL-P, but similar LDL-P size. Youth with DS had less visceral fat (VFAT), fat mass, and lean mass for BMI z score, but greater VFAT at higher fat mass. However, VFAT did not fully explain the increased prevalence of dyslipidemia or prediabetes in youth with DS. CONCLUSIONS: Despite similar insulin resistance, youth with DS had greater prevalence of dyslipidemia and prediabetes than typically developing youth, which was not fully explained by VFAT.

Cross-Sectional Study of Arterial Stiffness in Adolescents with Down Syndrome.

OBJECTIVES: To test whether youth with Down syndrome have aortic stiffness indices, as measured by pulse wave velocity (PWV), that differ from youth without Down syndrome and to compare reference-based age-adjusted (age-PWV-Z) and height-adjusted (Ht-PWV-Z) in youth with and without Down syndrome. STUDY DESIGN: Cross-sectional study of PWV in 129 adolescents with Down syndrome and 97 youth of comparable age, sex, race/ethnicity, and body mass index (BMI). PWV, age-PWV-Z, and Ht-PWV-Z were compared. Regression models were developed to test for associations with PWV. RESULTS: Youth with Down syndrome and controls were comparable in BMI-Z (1.4 [-1.5 to 2.8] vs 1.2 [-2.0 to 2.8], P = .57) but not Ht-Z (-2.3 [-4.7 to 0.8] vs 0.4 [-2.0 to 2.6], P < .0001). PWV (m/s, 5.0 [3.1-7.9] vs 5.0 [3.6-8.0], P = .5) and mean arterial pressure (MAP, mm Hg) (78 [61-102] vs 74 [64-97], P = .09) were not different between groups. In adjusted analyses confined to Down syndrome, PWV was associated only with BMI, but not age, black race, or MAP (R2 = 0.11). In contrast, BMI, age, black race, and MAP were all positively associated with and better explained PWV in controls (R2 = 0.50). PWV was not associated with height in youth with or without Down syndrome. Although age-PWV-Z was not different in Down syndrome (-0.36 [-2.93 to 3.49]) vs -0.15 [-2.32 to 3.22]), Ht-PWV-Z was greater in Down syndrome (0.32 [-2.28 to 4.07] vs -0.08 [-2.64 to 2.64], P = .002), and Ht-PWV-Z was greater than age-PWV-Z in Down syndrome (P < .0001). CONCLUSIONS: The lack of relationship of PWV, an independent predictor of adult cardiovascular events, with its traditional determinants including MAP suggests Down syndrome-specific phenomena may alter such relationships in this population. In youth with Down syndrome, Ht-adjusted PWV may overestimate aortic stiffness. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT01821300.

Relationships of Body Composition to Cardiac Structure and Function in Adolescents With Down Syndrome are Different than in Adolescents Without Down Syndrome.

Median survival in Down syndrome (DS) is 60 years, but cardiovascular disease risk and its markers such as left ventricular mass (LVM) have received limited attention. In youth, LVM is typically scaled to height2.7 as a surrogate for lean body mass (LBM), the strongest predictor of LVM, but whether this algorithm applies to DS, a condition which features short stature, is unknown. To examine the relationships of LVM and function with height, LBM, and moderate-to-vigorous physical activity(MVPA) in DS, DS youth aged 10-20 years, and age-, sex-, BMI-, race-matched nonDS controls underwent echocardiography for LVM, ejection fraction (EF), and left ventricular diastolic function (measured as E/E'); dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA)-measured LBM; accelerometry for MVPA. (DS vs. nonDS median [min-max]): DS had lower height (cm) (144.5 [116.7-170.3] vs. 163.3 [134.8-186.7]; p < 0.0001); LBM (kg) (33.48 [14.5-62.3] vs 41.8 [18.07-72.46], p < 0.0001); and LVM (g) (68.3 [32.1-135] vs 94.0 [43.9-164.6], p < 0.0001); similar EF (%) (65 [54-77] vs 64 [53-77], p = 0.59); and higher E/E' (8.41 [5.54-21.4] vs 5.81 [3.44-9.56], p < 0.0001). In height2.7-adjusted models, LVM was lower in DS (ß = - 7.7, p = 0.02). With adjustment for LBM, LVM was even lower in DS (ß = - 15.1, p < 0.0001), a finding not explained by MVPA. E/E' remained higher in DS after adjustment for age, height, HR, SBP, and BMI (ß = 2.6, p < 0.0001). DS was associated with stiffer left ventricles and lower LVM, the latter magnified with LBM adjustment. Scaling to height2.7, the traditional approach for assessing LVM in youth, may underestimate LVM differences in DS. Whether lower LVM and diastolic function are intrinsic to DS, pathologic, or protective remains unknown.Clinical Trial Registration: NCT01821300.

Clinical practice guideline: tympanostomy tubes in children--executive summary.

The American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery Foundation (AAO-HNSF) has published a supplement to this issue featuring the new Clinical Practice Guideline: Tympanostomy Tubes in Children. To assist in implementing the guideline recommendations, this article summarizes the rationale, purpose, and key action statements. The 12 recommendations developed address patient selection, surgical indications for and management of tympanostomy tubes in children. The development group broadly discussed indications for tube placement, perioperative management, care of children with indwelling tubes, and outcomes of tympanostomy tube surgery. Given the lack of current published guidance on surgical indications, the group focused on situations in which tube insertion would be optional, recommended, or not recommended. Additional emphasis was placed on opportunities for quality improvement, particularly regarding shared decision making and care of children with existing tubes.

Clinical practice guideline: Tympanostomy tubes in children.

OBJECTIVE: Insertion of tympanostomy tubes is the most common ambulatory surgery performed on children in the United States. Tympanostomy tubes are most often inserted because of persistent middle ear fluid, frequent ear infections, or ear infections that persist after antibiotic therapy. Despite the frequency of tympanostomy tube insertion, there are currently no clinical practice guidelines in the United States that address specific indications for surgery. This guideline is intended for any clinician involved in managing children, aged 6 months to 12 years, with tympanostomy tubes or being considered for tympanostomy tubes in any care setting, as an intervention for otitis media of any type. PURPOSE: The primary purpose of this clinical practice guideline is to provide clinicians with evidence-based recommendations on patient selection and surgical indications for and management of tympanostomy tubes in children. The development group broadly discussed indications for tube placement, perioperative management, care of children with indwelling tubes, and outcomes of tympanostomy tube surgery. Given the lack of current published guidance on surgical indications, the group focused on situations in which tube insertion would be optional, recommended, or not recommended. Additional emphasis was placed on opportunities for quality improvement, particularly regarding shared decision making and care of children with existing tubes. ACTION STATEMENTS: The development group made a strong recommendation that clinicians should prescribe topical antibiotic eardrops only, without oral antibiotics, for children with uncomplicated acute tympanostomy tube otorrhea. The panel made recommendations that (1) clinicians should not perform tympanostomy tube insertion in children with a single episode of otitis media with effusion (OME) of less than 3 months' duration; (2) clinicians should obtain an age-appropriate hearing test if OME persists for 3 months or longer (chronic OME) or prior to surgery when a child becomes a candidate for tympanostomy tube insertion; (3) clinicians should offer bilateral tympanostomy tube insertion to children with bilateral OME for 3 months or longer (chronic OME) and documented hearing difficulties; (4) clinicians should reevaluate, at 3- to 6-month intervals, children with chronic OME who did not receive tympanostomy tubes until the effusion is no longer present, significant hearing loss is detected, or structural abnormalities of the tympanic membrane or middle ear are suspected; (5) clinicians should not perform tympanostomy tube insertion in children with recurrent acute otitis media (AOM) who do not have middle ear effusion in either ear at the time of assessment for tube candidacy; (6) clinicians should offer bilateral tympanostomy tube insertion to children with recurrent AOM who have unilateral or bilateral middle ear effusion at the time of assessment for tube candidacy; (7) clinicians should determine if a child with recurrent AOM or with OME of any duration is at increased risk for speech, language, or learning problems from otitis media because of baseline sensory, physical, cognitive, or behavioral factors; (8) in the perioperative period, clinicians should educate caregivers of children with tympanostomy tubes regarding the expected duration of tube function, recommended follow-up schedule, and detection of complications; (9) clinicians should not encourage routine, prophylactic water precautions (use of earplugs, headbands; avoidance of swimming or water sports) for children with tympanostomy tubes. The development group provided the following options: (1) clinicians may perform tympanostomy tube insertion in children with unilateral or bilateral OME for 3 months or longer (chronic OME) and symptoms that are likely attributable to OME including, but not limited to, vestibular problems, poor school performance, behavioral problems, ear discomfort, or reduced quality of life and (2) clinicians may perform tympanostomy tube insertion in at-risk children with unilateral or bilateral OME that is unlikely to resolve quickly as reflected by a type B (flat) tympanogram or persistence of effusion for 3 months or longer (chronic OME).