Dietary aspects related to health and obesity in Williams syndrome, Down syndrome, and Prader–Willi syndrome

Figures & data

Table 1 Characteristics of the study population by living arrangement and diagnosis

	Living in community residence			Living with relatives
	Prader–Willi syndrome (n=20)	Williams syndrome (n=21)	Down syndrome (n=24)	Down syndrome (n=16)	p ^a Diagnosis	p ^b Living arrangements
Age (years)	29.3 (5.3)	33.6 (6.4)	30.4 (6.4)	21.5 (5.8)	0.067	<0.001**
Females (%)	55.0	66.7	62.5	62.5	0.739	1.000
BMI (kg/m^2)	30.9 (6.1)	28.2 (5.8)	32.8 (6.6)	30.6 (6.3)	0.050	0.250
Smokers (%)	10.0	4.8	0	0	0.289
Occupation					0.463	0.113
Student (%)	0	4.8	4.2	31.3
Employed (%)	85.0	81.0	66.7	50.0
Daycare attendant (%)	10.0	4.8	25.0	12.5
Unemployed (%)	5.0	9.5	4.2	6.3
Years lived in community residence (years)	8.5 (5.5)	9.4 (5.8)	7.3 (4.9)		0.443
Level of support in community residence**					0.020*
0–30 h/week (%)	40.0	47.6	54.2
31–60 h/week (%)	10.0	23.8	20.8
More than 60 h/week (%)	45.0	4.8	8.3
Level of support unknown (%)	5.0	23.8	16.7

The data are presented as percentage of the population or as the mean (standard deviation).

^a p-Values are derived by comparison of persons in community residence with different diagnosis using chi-square tests and one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA); ^b p-values are derived by comparison of persons with DS living in community residence to persons with DS living with relatives using chi-square tests and independent t-test. *p<0.05. **p<0.001.

Fig. 1 Proportion low- and high-frequency consumers by diagnosis. Intake frequencies are presented as a percentage of the population diagnosed with WS (n=21), DS (n=24) or PWS (n=20).

*p<0.05 when participants with PWS were compared to participants with WS and DS using logistic regression models adjusted for BMI.

Table 2 Carotenoids in plasma and omega-3 fatty acids in erythrocytes by diagnosis

	Living in community residence									Living with relatives
	Prader–Willi syndrome (n=20)			Williams syndrome (n=21)			Down syndrome (n=24)			Down syndrome (n=16)
Carotenoids (µmol/l)	Median	Q1	Q3	Median	Q1	Q3	Median	Q1	Q3	Median	Q1	Q3
Lycopene	0.806	0.564	0.918	0.579	0.490	0.875	0.810	0.554	1.113	0.822	0.686	0.896
Lutein	0.259*	0.220	0.328	0.149	0.119	0.267	0.186	0.145	0.206	0.178	0.143	0.211
Zeaxanthin	0.084*	0.051	0.104	0.051	0.029	0.091	0.054	0.048	0.076	0.060	0.042	0.068
β-Cryptoxanthin	0.258*	0.176	0.326	0.138	0.069	0.248	0.128	0.103	0.227	0.121	0.074	0.177
α-Carotene	0.227*	0.178	0.377	0.084	0.041	0.126	0.103	0.066	0.146	0.076	0.048	0.116
β-carotene	0.984*	0.519	1.335	0.456	0.327	0.538	0.351	0.239	0.482	0.365	0.262	0.465
Total carotenoids	2.76*	2.14	3.14	1.63	1.17	2.22	1.76	1.34	1.99	1.65	1.43	1.81
Omega-3 fatty acids (w %)
ALA^a	0.193	0.180	0.209	0.189	0.172	0.203	0.201	0.174	0.220	0.207	0.162	0.228
EPA^b	2.00	1.30	2.83	1.00**	0.75	1.40	1.10	0.90	1.70	1.20	1.10	1.45
DPA^c	2.60	2.40	3.05	2.50**	2.35	2.90	2.75	2.63	3.10	2.70	2.60	2.88
DHA^d	6.90	6.00	8.03	5.40**	4.65	6.30	6.15	5.80	7.50	6.75	5.25	7.30
Total omega-3 FAs	12.12	9.80	13.50	9.30**	8.55	10.51	10.19	9.44	12.75	10.67	9.56	11.72

Median plasma concentrations of carotenoids and median erythrocyte fatty acids presented with 25th and 75th percentiles (Q1 and Q3).

^aα-Linolenic acid, C18:3; ^beicosapentaenoic acid, C20:5; ^cdocosapentaenoic acid, C22:5; ^ddocosahexaenoic acid, C22:6.

*p<0.05 when participants with PWS were compared to participants with WS and DS using linear regression models, adjusted for BMI.

**p<0.05 when participants with WS were compared to participants with PWS and DS using linear regression models, adjusted for BMI.

Fig. 2 The association between BMI and total carotenoids by diagnosis. Scatter plot include participants with DS (n=40), participants with PWS (n=20), and participants with WS (n=21). The correlation was tested by use of person's correlation and significant for persons with DS, r−0.33, p=0.039.

Fig. 3 Proportion low- and high-frequency consumers based on living arrangement. Intake frequencies are presented as a percentage of the population with DS living with relatives (n=16) or in communities (n=24).

*p<0.05 when participants with DS living in community residences were compared to diagnose specific peers living with relatives using chi-square tests.

Fig. 4 Food-related autonomy for persons with Down syndrome in different living arrangements. Degrees of participation are presented as a proportion (%) of the population living with relatives (n=16) or in communities (n=24).

*p<0.05 when participants living in community residences were compared to participants living with relatives using chi-square tests.

**p<0.001 when participants living in community residences were compared to participants living with relatives using chi-square tests.