World Wide Incidence of Down Syndrome
Stephen G. Read

Spreadsheet of worldwide incidence of Down Syndrome1

Spreadsheet of worldwide incidence of Down Syndrome2
Learning Disability Research Unit, University of Huddersfield1
Corresponding author: Professor Stephen G. Read, MD, FRCPsych, Learning Disability Research Unit, University of Huddersfield, HD1 3DH, UK
Introduction: Two previous surveys have shown that exposure to the contraceptive pill at/or around the occasion of conception can affect the risk of Down Syndrome. For young mothers this exposure can increase the risk, whereas for older mothers it can decrease the risk. Methods: A review of records of Down Syndrome rates between 1962 and 2002 was made in an attempt to provide evidence for or against this hypothesis. Results: This meta-analysis confirms these findings. In a comparison of a 2 decade block low in oral contraceptive use with the more recent, 2 decade block high in oral contraceptive use, a Worldwide incidence of Down Syndrome is found to differ in the expected manner. In recent years there has been an increased incidence of Down Syndrome born to young mothers, while the overall incidence has gone down. Conclusion: For young mothers, avoidance of the contraceptive pill, and the use of alternative contraceptive methods prior to attempts at conception should obviate or reduce this risk.
Key words: Woldwide incidence, Down Syndrome, Contraceptive pill, Oral contraceptive
1. Introduction
In their extensive survey of the relationship between peri-conceptional exposure to oral contraceptives (OCP) and the incidence of Down Syndrome, Martinez-Frias et al. [1] and the work of Read [2] conclude that the OCP does change the incidence of Down Syndrome. The rate is increased for younger mothers and decreased for older mothers. The essential epidemiological finding, and therefore prediction in any further study, is that there will be an increased rate of Down Syndrome for maternal age group 20–29, a decreased rate for maternal age group 30–39 and a gross rate which changes little over time.
This paper attempts a review of records of Down Syndrome rates between 1962 and 2002 in an attempt to provide evidence for or against this hypothesis. In comparing the second half of this period of widespread OCP use with the first half, with less extensive OCP use, the prediction is that the gross rate will be much the same, whereas the rate for younger mothers will have increased. To do this it is necessary to adopt a new method.
Techniques need to be developed for establishing and monitoring the worldwide incidence of Down Syndrome. A part of this is producing an acceptable method of weighting incidence rates according to both the size of the survey and the methods used. This paper is an attempt to do that and produces average rates for the two periods 1962–1983 and 1984–2002 with regard to gross incidence rates and also rates for maternal ages 20–24 and 25–29 (Table 1. Calculation of mean gross rate for the
two blocks. Table 2. Calculation of mean rates for ages 20-24 and 25-29 for the two blocks.).
2. Methods
A Medline search was performed for Down Syndrome and incidence or prevalence. papers were selected if the title suggested that a population had been studied. There were 95 papers of which 48 were excluded as not having the fundamental requirement of an ascertained number of Down Syndrome probands and a calculated gross incidence rate and 2 papers were excluded because they had extreme values for Down Syndrome incidence being < 0.5/1000 or > 2.0/1000 [2-49] .
A Number Rating was produced by dividing the number of Down Syndrome probands for each paper into 3 groups: rating of 1 if <100, 2 if 100–500, 3 if >500.
A Method Rating was produced by assigning a score of 1 if a total live birth number was recorded and a further score of 1 if there was a simultaneous recording of the incidence rates for maternal age 20–24 and 25–29. This was added to a cytogenetic rating of 0 if <25%, 1 if 25–75% and 2 if >75%. This in turn was added to a case finding rating of 0 or 2 depending on the use of 3 or more additional contributions to the main register.
An Overall Rating was then produced by multiplying the Number Rating and the Method Rating by the Gross Incidence.
Finally, a Mean Rate was calculated by dividing the Average Overall Rate by the Average Number Rating and the Average Method Rating. A similar calculation was performed to obtain Overall Ratings for maternal age 20–24 and 25–29, and subsequently to obtain Mean Rates for these groups also.
The whole of these calculations were performed for the period 1962 – 1983 and then repeated for the period 1984–2002. Results show a decrease in the Gross Incidence between the two periods and an increase in the 20–24 Incidence and the 25–29 Incidence (Table 3). No probability has been calculated as it would be spurious until such a method as this has gained acceptance.
If it is reasonable to treat the figures in this fashion, an explanation must be sought as to why a search should not be put in place to determine why the mean rates for younger mothers have gone up yet the mean gross rates have gone down.
We are in a position now, with forty or more years investigation into the rates of Down Syndrome, to perform manipulations of this type. Whatever the effects may be of amniocentesis, it is difficult to understand how this alone could affect the incidence of Down Syndrome for younger mothers who only very exceptionally would be offered this procedure.
Read, and subsequently Martinez-Frias , have suggested an explanation for this phenomenon in peri-conceptional exposure to the oral contraceptive pill. Its small androgenic effect is enough in younger mothers to slightly increase the rate. In older mothers, with higher endogenous androgens, this has no effect, and the oestrogenic effect is enough to reduce the rate.
Further research is needed into the methods described in this paper and into the validity of the underlying hypothesis. In the meantime, the suggestion that the incidence of Down Syndrome has increased for younger women must receive serious attention, and the underlying hypothesis of the association with the oral contraceptive pill must receive serious consideration.
[1] Martinez-Frias ML, Bermejo E, Rodriguez-Pinilla E, Prieto L, Periconceptional Exposure to Contraceptive Pills and Risk for Down Syndrome. J. of Perinatology, 2001;21;288-92.
[2] Read SG. The distribution of Down’s syndrome. J Ment Defic Res 1982; (Pt 4):215-27.
[3] Buchan, AR, (1962) A study of mongolism in Newcastle-Upon-Tyne. Med. Officer 1962;107;51.
[4] Collman RD, Stoller A, A survey of mongoloid births in Victoria, Australia 1942-57. Am. J. Public Health 1062; 52, 813.
[5] Baird PA, Miller JR. Some epidemiological aspects of Down’s Syndrome in British Columbia. Br J Prev Soc Med 1968;22:81-5.
[6] Morris R. Down’s Syndrome in New Zealand. N Z Med J 1971 73(467):195-8.
[7] McDonald AD. (1972) Yearly and seasonal incline of Mongolism in Quebec. Teratology 1972; 6:1-3.
[8] Lindsjo A. Down’s Syndrome in Sweden. An epidemiological study of a three year material. Acta Paediatr Scand 1974;63:571-6.
[9] Lowry RB, Jones DC, Renwick DH, Trimble BK. Down’s Syndrome in British Columbia, 1952-73: incident and mean maternal age. Teratology 197614:29-34.
[10] Mikkelsen M, Fischer G, Stene E, Petersen E. Incidence study of Down’s syndrome in Copenhagen, 1960-1971; with chromosome investigation. Ann Hum Genet 1975; 40:177-82.
[11] Christodorescu D, Berbescu C, Retezeanu A, et al. The incidence of Down’s syndrome in Bucharest. A retrospective survey. Neurol Psychiatr (Bucur) 1977; 15(2):147-54.
[12] Hook EB, Chambers GM. Estimated rates of Down Syndrome in live births by one year maternal age intervals for mothers aged 20-49 in a New York State study-implications of the risk figures for genetic counselling and cost-benefit analysis of paternal diagnosis programs. Birth Defects Orig Artic Ser 1977;13:123-41.
[13] Trimble BK, Baird PA. Maternal age and Down syndrome: age-specific incidence rates by single-year intervals. Am J Med Genet 1978; 2:1-5.
[14] Fryers T, Mackay RI. (1979) Down syndrome: prevalence at birth, mortality and survival. A 17-year study. Early Hum Dev 1979;3:29~41
[15] Griffiths AJ, Lowry RB, Renwick DH. Down’s syndrome and maternal age in British Columbia, 1972-75. Environ Health Perspect 1979; 31:9-11.
[16] Mulcahy MT. (1979) Down’s syndrome in Western Australia: cytogenetics and incidence. Hum Genet 1979;48:67-72.
[17] Nordenson I. Population studies in northern Sweden. IX. Incidence of Down’s syndrome by time, region and maternal age. Hereditas 1979;91:257-61.
[18] Koulischer L, Gillerot Y. ( Down’s Syndrome in Wallonia (South Belgium), 1971-1978: Cytogenetics and Incidence. Hum Genet 1980;54:243-50.
[19] Young ID, Williams EM, Newcombe RG. Down syndrome and maternal age in South Glamorgan. J Med Genet. 1980;17:433-6.
[20] Adams MM, Erickson JD, Layde PM, Oakley GP. Down’s syndrome. Recent trends in the United States. JAMA 1981;246:758-60.
[21] Lindsten J, Marsk L, Berglund K, et al. Incidence of Down’s syndrome in Sweden during the years 1968-1977. Hum Genet Suppl; 1981;2:195-210.
[22] Smart RD. (1981) Down syndrome in the Cape Peninsula and the value of amniocentesis as a preventative measure. S Afr Med J 1981;59:670-2
[23] Coffey VP, Hillery MB. A review of Downs Syndrome in the Eastern Health Board Region of Ireland-1979 and 1980. Ir Med J 1982;75:276-8.
[24] Huether CA, Gummere GR. Influence of demographic factors on annual Down’s syndrome births in Ohio, 1970-1979, and the United States, 1920-1979. M J Epidemiol 1982;115:846-60.
[25] Mulcahy MT. (1983) The effect of prenatal diagnosis on the incidence of Down’s syndrome in Western Australia. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol 1983;23:197-8.
[26] Harris F, Owens JR, Walker S, McAllister E, West L. The incidence of Down’s syndrome over a 19-year period with special reference to maternal age. J Med Genet 1983;20:90-3.
[27] Hafez M, el-Tahan M, Zedan M, Elisa M. Demographic trends of Down’s syndrome in Egypt. Hum Biol 1984;56:703-12.
[28] Leisti J, Vahtola L, Linna SL, Herva R, Kiskela SL, Vitali M. The incidence of Down Syndrome in northern Finland with special reference to maternal age. Clinical Genetics 1985; 27: 252-7.
[29] Iselius L, Lindsten J. Changes in the incidence of Down syndrome in Sweden during 1968-1982. Hum Genet 1986;72;139.
[30] Seifert C, Sommer A. A summertime peak of Down’s syndrome in Franklin County, Ohio. Am J Dis Child 1986;140:822-4.
[31] Lie RT, Heuch I, Irgens LM. (1991) A temporary increase of Down syndrome among births of young mothers in Norway: an effect of risk unrelated to maternal age? Genet Epidemiol 19918:217-30.
[32] Op’t Hof J, Venter PA, Louw M. Down’s syndrome in South Africa-incidence, maternal age and utilisation of prenatal diagnosis. A Afr Med J. Feb 1991;79:213-6.
[33] Sperling K, Pelz J, Wegner RD, Schulzke I, Struck E. Frequency of trisomy 21 in Germany before and after the Chernobyl accident. Biomed Pharmacother 1991;45:255-62.
[34] Staples AJ, Sunderland GR, Haan EA, Clisby S. Epidemiology of Down Syndrome in South Australia, 1960-89. Am Hum Genet 1991 49:1014-25,
[35] Wilson M, Chan LS, Herbert WS. Birth prevalence of Down syndrome in a predominantly Latino population: a 15-year study. Teratology 1992;45:285-92.
[36] Unknown. Down syndrome prevalence at birth – United State, 1983-1990. M~Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 1990;43:617-22.
[37] Bound JP, Francis BJ, Harvey PW. Down’s syndrome: prevalence and ionising radiation in an area of North West England 1957-91. J Epidomiol Community Health 1995;49:164-70.
[38] Lopez PM, Stone D, Gilmour H. Epidemiology of Down’s syndrome in a Scottish city. Paediatr Perinat Epidemic 1995;9:331-40.
[39] Niazi MA, al-Mazyad AS, al-Husain MA, et al. Down’s Syndrome in Saudi Arabia: incidence and cytogenetics. Hum Hered 1995;45:65-9.
[40] Johnson Z, Lillis D, Delany V, Hayes C, Dack P. The epidemiology of Down syndrome in four countries in Ireland 1981-1990. J Public Health Med 1996; 18:78-86.
[41] Mosquera Tenreiro C, Fernandez Toral J, Espinosa Perez J, et al. Prevalence of Down’s syndrome in Austria, 1987-1993. Members of the Work Group of the RCDA. Gac Sanit 1996;53:62-6. Spanish.
[42] Molteno C, Smart R, Vi1joen D, Sayed R, Roux A. Twenty-year birth prevalence of Down syndrome in Cape Town, South Africa. Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol 1997;4:428-35.
[43] Huether CA, Ivanovich J, Goodwin BS, et al. (1998). Maternal Age Specific Risk estimates for Down Syndrome among live births in whites and other races from Ohio and metropolitan Atlanta, 1970-1989. J Med Genet 1998; 35: 482-90.
[44] Yaegashi N, Senoo M, Uehara S, et al. Age-specific incidences of chromosome abnormalities at the second trimester amniocentesis for Japanese mothers aged 35 and older: collaborative case study 5484 cases.J Hum Genet 1998;43:85-90.
[45] Chan A, McCaul KA, Keane RK, Haan EA. Effect of parity, gravidity, previous miscarriage and age on risk of Down’s syndrome; population based study. BMJ 1998;317: 923-4.
[46] Hoshi N, Hattori R, Hanatani K, et al. Recent Trends in the Prevalence of Down Syndrome in Japan, 1980-1997American Journal of Medical Genetics 1999;84:340-5.
[47] Rosch C, Steinbicker V, Kropf S. Down’s syndrome: the effects of prenatal diagnosis and demographic factors in a region of the eastern part of Germany.
Eur J Epidemiol 2000;16:627-32.
[48] Verloes A, Gillerot Y, Van Maldergem L, et al. (2001) Major decrease in the incidence of trisomy 21 at birth in south Belgium: mass impact of triple test? Eur J Hum Genet 2001;9:1-4.
[49] Lai Fm, Woo BH, Tan KH, et al.Birth prevalence of Down syndrome in Singapore from 1993 to 1998. Singapore Med J 2002;43:070-6.
Table 3. Results: Comparison between calculated incidence rates for the 2 block periods.
Mean Rate Mean Rate Mean Rate
Gross Age 20–24 Age 25-29
1962 – 1983 1.67 0.67 0.85
1984 – 2002 1.34 0.96 1.28

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>