Trisomy 21, the presence of a supernumerary chromosome 21, results in a collection of clinical features commonly known as Down syndrome (DS). DS is among the most genetically complex of the conditions that are compatible with human survival post-term, and the most frequent survivable autosomal aneuploidy. Mouse models of DS, involving trisomy of all or part of human chromosome 21 or orthologous mouse genomic regions, are providing valuable insights into the contribution of triplicated genes or groups of genes to the many clinical manifestations in DS. This endeavour is challenging, as there are >200 protein-coding genes on chromosome 21 and they can have direct and indirect effects on homeostasis in cells, tissues, organs and systems. Although this complexity poses formidable challenges to understanding the underlying molecular basis for each of the many clinical features of DS, it also provides opportunities for improving understanding of genetic mechanisms underlying the development and function of many cell types, tissues, organs and systems. Since the first description of trisomy 21, we have learned much about intellectual

Increasingly individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities, including Down syndrome, are being targeted for clinical trials. However, a challenge exists in effectively evaluating the outcomes of these new pharmacological interventions. Few empirically evaluated, psychometrically sound outcome measures appropriate for use in clinical trials with individuals with Down syndrome have been identified. To address this challenge, the NIH assembled leading clinicians and scientists to review existing measures and identify those that currently are appropriate for trials; those that may be appropriate after expansion of age range addition of easier items, and/or downward extension of psychometric norms; and areas where new measures need to be developed. This paper focuses on measures in the areas of cognition and behavior.

Insulin modulates aspects of brain function relevant to Alzheimer disease and can be delivered to the brain using intranasal devices. To date, the use of intranasal insulin to treat persons with mild cognitive impairment and Alzheimer's disease dementia remains to be examined in a multi-site trial.OBJECTIVE To examine the feasibility, safety, and efficacy of intranasal insulin for the treatment of persons with mild cognitive impairment and Alzheimer disease dementia in a phase 2/3 multisite clinical trial. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTSA randomized (1:1) double-blind clinical trial was conducted between 2014 and 2018. Participants received 40 IU of insulin or placebo for 12 months during the blinded phase, which was followed by a 6-month open-label extension phase. The clinical trial was conducted at 27 sites of the Alzheimer's Therapeutic Research Institute. A total of 432 adults were screened, and 144 adults were excluded. Inclusion criteria included adults aged 55 to 85 years with a diagnosis of amnestic mild cognitive impairment or Alzheimer disease (based on National Institute on Aging-Alzheimer Association criteria), a score of 20 or higher on the Mini-Mental State Examination, a clinical dementia rating of 0.5 or 1.0, and a delayed logical memory score within a specified range. A total of 289 participants were randomized. Among the first 49 participants, the first device (device 1) used to administer intranasal insulin treatment had inconsistent reliability. A new device (device 2) was used for the remaining 240 participants, who were designated the primary intention-to-treat population. Data were analyzed from August 2018 to March 2019.INTERVENTIONS Participants received 40 IU of insulin (Humulin-RU-100; Lilly) or placebo (diluent) daily for 12 months (blinded phase) followed by a 6-month open-label extension phase. Insulin was administered with 2 intranasal delivery devices. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURESThe primary outcome (mean score change on the Alzheimer Disease Assessment Scale-cognitive subscale 12) was evaluated at 3-month intervals. Secondary clinical outcomes were assessed at 6-month intervals. Cerebrospinal fluid collection and magnetic resonance imaging scans occurred at baseline and 12 months. RESULTS A total of 289 participants (155 men [54.6%]; mean [SD] age, 70.9 [7.1] years) were randomized. Of those, 260 participants completed the blinded phase, and 240 participants completed the open-label extension phase. For the first 49 participants, the first device used to administer treatment had inconsistent reliability. A second device was used for the remaining 240 participants (123 men [51.3%]; mean [SD] age, 70.8 [7.1] years), who were designated the primary intention-to-treat population. No differences were observed between treatment arms for the primary outcome (mean score change on ADAS-cog-12 from baseline to month 12) in the device 2 ITT cohort (0.0258 points; 95% CI, −1.771 to 1.822 points; P = .98) or for the other clinical or cerebrospinal fluid outcomes in the primary (second device)...