Skip to main content
NIHPA Author Manuscripts logoLink to NIHPA Author Manuscripts
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2017 Jul 30.
Published in final edited form as: Am J Med Genet A. 2014 Nov 26;167A(2):331–344. doi: 10.1002/ajmg.a.36864

Angelman Syndrome in Adulthood

Anna M Larson 1, Julianna E Shinnick 1, Elias A Shaaya 1, Elizabeth A Thiele 1, Ronald L Thibert 1
PMCID: PMC5534346  NIHMSID: NIHMS862099  PMID: 25428759

Abstract

Angelman syndrome (AS) is a neurogenetic disorder. The goal of this study was to investigate the primary health issues affecting adults with AS and to further characterize the natural history and genotype-phenotype correlations. Standardized phone interviews with caregivers for 110 adolescents and adults with AS were conducted. The impact of age, gender, and genotype on specific outcomes in neurology, orthopedics, internal medicine, and psychiatry were investigated. The mean age of individuals with AS was 24 years (range 16–50y). Active seizures were present in 41% of individuals, and 72% had sleep dysfunction. Significant constipation was present in 85%, and 32% were overweight or obese, with obesity disproportionately affecting women. Scoliosis affected 50% with a mean age at diagnosis of 12 years, and 24% of those diagnosed with scoliosis required surgery, an intervention disproportionately affecting men. Sixty-eight percent were able to walk independently, and 13% were able to speak 5 or more words. Self-injurious behavior was exhibited in 52% of individuals. The results of this study indicate that epilepsy severity may assume a bimodal age distribution: seizures are typically most severe in early childhood but may recur in adulthood. While late-adolescent and adult sleep patterns were improved when compared to the degree of sleep dysfunction present during infancy and childhood, the prevalence of poor sleep in adults remained quite high. Primary areas of clinical management identified include the following: seizures, sleep, aspiration risk, GERD, constipation, dental care, vision, obesity, scoliosis, bone density, mobility, communication, behavior, and anxiety.

Keywords: Angelman syndrome, adults, seizures, behavior, self-injury

INTRODUCTION

Angelman syndrome (AS) is a neurogenetic disorder clinically characterized by features of epilepsy, poor sleep, ataxia, frequent smiling/sociability, and scoliosis. Individuals typically have severe cognitive impairment and limited expressive speech. Eighty to 90% of individuals with AS develop seizures, which may include multiple semiologies [Thibert et al., 2009]. Children may have gross motor delays, sitting at an average age of 20.5 months and walking at 3.7 years, and 10% of individuals with AS do not develop the ability to walk independently [Williams et al., 2010]. Although many children with AS have significant receptive language skills, the majority of individuals gain very few words [Jolleff et al., 1993, Williams 2005].

AS has an estimated incidence of approximately 1 in 12,000–20,000 live births, but life expectancy by epidemiologic measures remains unknown [Williams et al., 2010]. The molecular etiology of AS is a loss of function of the maternally inherited UBE3A gene, which codes for E6AP-3A ubiquitin protein ligase [Knoll et al., 1989, Albrecht et al., 1997, Kishino et al., 1997]. There are 4 molecular subtypes of AS, and deletion of the 15q11.2–13.1 region (Del) is the most common. Mutation of the maternal UBE3A gene, paternal uniparental disomy (UPD), and imprinting defects also cause an AS phenotype [Knoll et al., 1989, Malcom et al., 1991, Buriting et al., 1995, Kishino et al., 1997, Matsuura et al., 1997].

The first individuals to undergo genetic testing for AS in early childhood during the late 1980s are now young adults. Over the past 3 decades, there has been significant progress in diagnostics and care for adults with AS. Drs. Jill Clayton-Smith and Charles Williams were the pioneers of this field and among the first to characterize the adult phenotype and to study the impact of age [Williams et al., 1982, Clayton-Smith et al., 1993]. In 1984, Bjerre et al. contributed a case report of a 75-year-old patient with a clinical diagnosis of AS from Sweden who was described to be in generally good health [Bjerre et al., 1984]. The case, which features the oldest patient reported in the literature, played a pivotal role in AS research, as it provided some evidence that the disease was not a degenerative process [Bjerre et al., 1984, Sandanam et al., 1997]. Today, research on aging in the setting of AS continues to advance, and quality of life for the majority of individuals with AS has been found to be maintained into adulthood [Bjerre et al., 1984, Clayton-Smith et al., 2003]. In this study, investigators aimed to further characterize the natural history and current clinical manifestations of AS in adulthood.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This institutional review board-approved study conducted at the Massachusetts General Hospital investigated AS in adulthood with subject data collected by a series of phone interviews with primary caregivers. Subject recruitment information was sent by e-mail to close to 1,120 addresses from the Angelman Syndrome Foundation (ASF) database. Study information was also posted to the “Current Research” page on the ASF website. Subject inclusion criteria were as follows: diagnosis of AS by a physician, 16 years of age or older, interviewee self-identification as one of the subject’s primary caregivers. Subjects were from 34 states in the United States, Puerto Rico, and 2 Canadian provinces. All interviews were completed over a period of 4 months in 2011. The impact of age, gender, and genotype on specific outcomes in neurology, internal medicine, orthopedics, and psychiatry were investigated. The interview consisted of a set of standardized questions developed by the investigators. In addition, there were several designated points in the interview during which participants were asked to describe additional pertinent medical history not specifically covered in the standardized questions. The investigators were contacted by 3 families with a son or daughter with AS who had previously died. These caregivers completed the standardized interview, and their responses were included in the full data set. In one case, the subject had died prior to an AS diagnosis; however, his sibling, who had a similar phenotype, was subsequently diagnosed with AS, identified by a mutation in UBE3A. Both siblings were therefore included and reported as having the same associated genotype. One subject had a diagnosis of mosaicism (unknown to investigators if the individual’s genotype was an imprinting defect or a chromosomal type). Because she was a genotypic outlier, her case data were not included in the full cohort analyses.

The interview included a modified Early Childhood Epilepsy Severity Scale (E-Chess) [Humphrey et al., 2008]. The score was modified from the rubric initially described by Humphrey et al. in two ways: (a) “time period over which seizure occurred” was eliminated, given that the full cohort would receive the same score (“more than 6 months”); (b) “response to treatment” was reduced to 1 of 2 possible responses, “complete cessation” or “partial/no improvement” [Humphrey et al., 2008]. Caregivers were asked the age range during which seizures were most severe, and the median age was calculated. Episodes reported by caregivers as seizures were recorded as such; however, in many cases, the patients had not recently undergone electroencephalography (EEG).

Categorical data were presented as frequencies and compared using a 2-sided Fisher exact test. Continuous data were presented as mean ± standard deviation (SD). Covariate impact was measured by linear regression for continuous variables and logistic regression for nominal or ordinal variables. Multivariate regression analyses assessing gender and age included the full cohort (n=109). Univariate regression analyses assessing genetic impact included the cohort of individuals with a known genotype (Del, UBE3A, UPD) (n=93). Alpha was set at 0.05.

RESULTS

Cohort demographic data are presented in Table I. There were no statistically significant differences in age or gender between the known genotype (n=93) cohort and the subset of individuals with a clinical diagnosis or unknown genotype (n=16). Epilepsy and sleep data are reported in Tables II and III. There was no association between having active seizures and sleep problems (p=0.506) and/or co-sleeping (p=0.423). Five cases were reported to have prolonged episodes of rhythmic shaking of their arms, legs, face, or whole body (F22, F24, M24, M29, M49). Events occurred only when the individuals were awake, and maximum duration ranged from 1 to 6 hours. Event frequency ranged from 3 events per year to 2 events per day prior to treatment. Triggers included menstruation, systemic illness, constipation, exhaustion, stress, and anger.

Table I.

Demographics of Angelman syndrome study cohort.

Full Cohort Known Genotype
% (n=109) % (n=93) p-valuea

Mean age 24.3y (sd: 7.24) 24.3 y (sd: 7.46) 0.895b
 16–20y 38% 38% 1.000
 21–25y 27% 28% 0.552
 26–30y 21% 19% 0.322
 31–40y 11% 11% 0.689
 41–50y 4% 4% 1.000
Sex
 Female 50% 51% 0.788
 Male 50% 49%
Interviewee
 Mother 89% 89% 0.689
 Father 6% 5% 0.273
 Both 2% 2% 1.000
 Other 3% 3% 1.000
Genotype
 Maternal deletion 68% 80% --
 UBE3A mutation 8% 10% --
 UPD 9% 11% --
 Mosaic Single case -- --
 Clinical 10% -- --
 Unknown 5% -- --
Home environment
 Parents’ home 75% 74% 0.756
 Group home 17% 16% 0.731
 Residential center 6% 7% 0.588
 Other 3% 3% 1.000
a

2-sided Fisher’s Exact Test.

b

Independent Samples T-Test/Levene’s Test for Equality (Sig. 0.510). y: years, UPD: uniparental disomy.

TABLE II.

Epilepsy parameters for individuals with Angelman syndrome, late-adolescence through adulthood

Full Cohort
% (n)
Female
odds ratio
21–25y
odds ratio
26–30y
odds ratio
31–50y
odds ratio
UBE3A
odds ratio
UPD
odds ratio

History of seizures 94% (109) 0.437 IS (100%, 29) 0.335 0.775 IS (100%, 9) 0.111*
Current seizures
 Seizure free/off AEDs a 12% (103) 0.937 0.786 1.197 2.470 1.584 0.792
 Seizure free/AED Tx a 48% (103) 0.844 0.525 0.238* 0.202* 0.945 1.970
 Active seizures b 41% (103) 1.154 2.345 4.102* 6.701* 1.853 0.494
 Current AED ≥2 45% (103) 0.676 2.241 1.445 1.556 0.625 0.750
 ≥ 2 semiologies c 12% (103) 0.497 1.418 2.966 1.832 IS (0%, 9) 0.886
Frequency
 Monthly d 29% (103) 1.021 3.051 4.558* 7.802* 1.214 0.810
 Daily 16% (103) 2.266 2.11 10.328* 6.883* 0.567 IS (0%, 8)
Seizure severity
 Modified E-chess score δ 4.65 (SD: 2.754, n=103) 0.055 0.807 1.706** 1.688** -0.139 -0.569
 Score > 6 26% (103) 0.817 1.464 3.032 2.28 0.857 1.000
Current medications
 Valproate 39% (103) 0.673 1.614 2.234 1.493 0.424 0.890
 Clonazepam 17% (103) 1.033 1.232 0.431 0.277 IS (0%, 9) 0.500
 Lamotrigine 17% (103) 1.809 2.080 0.622 0.855 0.567 0.648
 Levetiracetam 13% (103) 0.588 3.948 0.955 9.329* 0.775 IS (0%, 8)
 Ethosuximide 9% (103) 0.49 0.198 0.279 0.383 1.675 1.914
 Topiramate 9% (103) 0.264 0.258 0.653 0.477 3.943 1.533
Lifetime seizure severity
 AEDs >2 lifetime 63% (103) 1.782 2.020 1.188 1.577 0.283 0.942
 AEDs >3 lifetime 45% (103) 1.107 2.455 2.008 1.754 0.140 0.671
 Seizure onset <3y 68% (103) 0.847 1.555 2.076 2.777 0.206* 1.235
Most severe age δ 7.53 (SD: 7.035, n=100) 1.192 1.772 −0.111 4.041 −2.536 1.339
 0–5 y 52% (100) 0.472 0.863 0.667 1.827 2.000 1.000
 6–10 y 25% (100) 0.875 0.568 1.071 0.154 0.964 0.482
 11–15 y 12% (100) 4.519* 0.922 2.956 0.602 IS (0%, 9) 0.766
 16–20 y 6% (100) 6.19 2.827 IS (0%, 18) IS (0%, 15) 2.062 2.357
 21–25 y 5% (62) 2.370 -- -- -- IS (0%, 5) 7.167
 26–30 y 0% (33) -- -- -- -- -- --
 >31 y 20% (15) 0.500 -- -- -- IS (0%, 2) IS (0%, 1)

Age sub-groups compared with the 16–20y cohort. Genotype sub-groups compared with the Del cohort.

a

cohort of individuals with history of seizures who have not had an event in 1 year or more.

b

includes 3 individuals who were not being treated with an AED.

c

reported to have 2 or more types of seizure, i.e. events that look different to caregiver.

d

events occurring at least monthly. δ. regression coefficient listed for each covariate.

*

statistically significant odds ratio (α = 0.05).

**

statistically significant regression coefficient (α=0.05). IS: infinite solution (%, n), AED: anti-epileptic drugs, Tx: treatment, y: years.

TABLE III.

Sleep parameters for individuals with Angelman syndrome, late-adolescence through adulthood

Full Cohort
% (n)
Female
odds ratio
21–25y
odds ratio
26–30y
odds ratio
31–50y
odds ratio
UBE3A
odds ratio
UPD
odds ratio

Sleep
 Sleep problems 72% (109) 1.310 0.977 3.479 1.553 1.296 1.481
 Melatonin Tx 22% (109) 0.997 3.070 1.228 1.945 1.812 0.906
 Other sleep medication a 25% (109) 0.949 0.345 0.942 0.497 1.447 1.241
Sleep latency
 Trouble falling asleep 65% (85) 2.449 0.539 0.827 1.042 0.357 1.071
 TV on to fall asleep 45% (85) 1.727 2.035 3.263 2.146 1.111 0.370
Night waking
 Difficulty staying asleep 66% (85) 2.139 0.907 0.587 3.036 5.469 2.344
 Awake overnight weekly b 20% (85) 1.150 0.426 0.969 0.848 0.484 2.031
 Never sleeps through the night b 11% (84) 3.985 0.522 3.026 3.420 IS (0%, 9) 1.000
 Co-sleeping 17% (109) 1.373 1.468 4.080* 2.131 IS (0%, 8) 1.173
 TV on all night long 24% (85) 2.224 1.170 2.721 1.821 1.680 0.400
 Close nighttime monitoring c 37% (109) 1.193 3.311* 1.999 1.858 0.694 0.347
Daytime sleepiness
 Naps routinely 56% (108) 0.997 3.704* 3.125* 2.778 0.545 0.545
 Often falls asleep
  Riding in the car 35% (108) 0.837 4.424* 4.315* 2.833 1.477 0.923
  Watching TV or movies 40% (108) 1.282 3.214* 3.304* 1.803 0.375 0.656
Sleep quantity
 Hours of sleep per night δ 7.4 (sd:1.67, n=61) −0.175 0.985** −0.439 1.470 −0.850 −0.207
  ≤5 hrs 18% (61) 3.762 0.261 2.073 2.619 4.714 1.886
  ≥8 hrs 59% (61) 0.948 4.526* 0.871 0.273 0.905 1.206
Lifetime sleep severity
 Compared to infancy
  Improved 77% (108) 1.741 1.740 0.799 0.406 0.964 2.893
  Worse 6% (108) 0.487 1.478 1.853 IS (0%, 15) 2.500 IS (0%, 10)
  Unchanged 18% (108) 0.648 0.363 1.019 3.339 0.612 0.476
 Compared to childhood
  Improved 68% (108) 1.995 1.344 1.426 0.748 0.903 4.333
  Worse 7% (108) 0.302 6.852 6.292 IS (0%, 15) 1.971 1.725
  Unchanged 24% (108) 0.650 0.346 0.333 1.470 0.841 IS (0%, 9)

Age sub-groups compared with the 16–20y cohort. Genotype sub-groups compared with the Del cohort.

a

sleep medications included: trazadone, clonidine, clonazepam, seroquel, tranxene, eszopiclone, zolpidem, mirtazepine, temazepam, ramelteon, doxylamine.

b

awake for a period of an hour or more overnight.

c

awake caregiver overnight, audio/video monitoring, or posey bed. δ. regression coefficient listed for each covariate.

*

statistically significant odds ratio (α = 0.05).

**

statistically significant regression coefficient (α=0.05). IS: infinite solution (%, n), Tx: treatment, hrs: hours.

Table IV presents internal medicine data. In the treatment of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), 6 individuals underwent Nissen fundoplication: 4 had the procedure before the age of 2 years (F18, M21, M24, M32), and 2 had the procedure in their twenties (F24, M20). Four individuals had a history of gastroparesis (F21, F26, M17, M24). From an ophthalmologic perspective, F32 had extreme sensitivity to bright sun in her eyes; M26 developed keratoconus from persistent eye rubbing behavior; M32 was legally blind; and M24 had been diagnosed with cortical visual impairment. Tables V and VI present anthropomorphic, orthopedic, mobility, and exercise data. Mean female height was 1.55 meters (sd: 0.084), and male height was 1.68 meters (sd: 0.099). Scoliosis was not associated with the independently mobile (p=0.816) or non-ambulatory (p=0.242) covariates.

TABLE IV.

Internal medicine parameters for individuals with Angelman syndrome, late-adolescence through adulthood

Full Cohort
% (n)
Female
odds ratio
21–25y
odds ratio
26–30y
odds ratio
31–50y
odds ratio
UBE3A
odds ratio
UPD
odds ratio

HEENT
 History of severe choking 40% (84) 0.648 1.524 1.690 1.098 0.825 1.375
 Abnormal swallow study a 56% (16) 0.631 0.926 0.459 IS (100%, 3) IS (0%, 2) (n=0)
 History of severe pneumonia 38% (85) 0.916 1.254 1.211 2.988 1.478 0.493
 Episodic gagging b 51% (85) 0.569 2.239 0.433 1.141 0.839 0.280
   Progresses to vomiting 49% (43) 2.675 2.239 1.677 1.245 3.643 1.214
   Triggered by a strong smell 53% (43) 3.836 0.928 0.738 0.277 3.200 1.067
 Dental care non-sedated 64% (85) 1.191 1.589 1.117 0.624 2.029 1.127
 Seasonal allergies 48% (85) 0.737 0.628 1.331 0.718 1.192 1.192
Gastrointestinal/nutrition
 Decreased satiety 50% (105) 3.152* 0.318 1.866 1.137 0.600 7.000
 Poor hydration c 49% (109) 1.761 0.924 1.526 1.153 0.758 0.947
 Gastroesophageal reflux d 47% (109) 1.291 1.848 1.900 2.229 0.800 0.667
   History of medication 61% (51) 0.743 0.764 1.594 0.247 0.682 0.682
   Improvement with treatment 48% (31) 0.740 0.505 0.896 IS (100%, 3) 1.000 IS (100%, 2)
 Cyclic vomiting 37% (109) 1.447 0.110 0.617 0.521 1.314 0.411
   Episode >6hrs e 83% (40) 0.436 IS (100%, 8) 0.861 1.133 0.120 IS (100%, 2)
 Constipation 85% (109) 1.333 0.527 0.661 2.079 0.366 0.940
   Medication for constipation 43% (109) 0.825 0.917 1.890 2.903 2.625 1.313
   Typically < 4 stools per week 40% (80) 0.715 0.731 1.042 2.300 IS (0%, 6) 0.346
Gynecology
 Average age at menarche δ 13.2 (sd: 2.18, n=52) 0.689 0.606 0.178 0.528 −0.347
   Early menarche f 17% 52 1.308 3.643 2.833 IS (0%, 4) 3.333
   Late menarche g 27% (52) 0.623 0.190 0.571 0.758 1.151
 OCP/Depo-Provera h 31% (54) 2.000 4.800 1.333 0.571 0.429
 Regular menstrual cycle i 62% (37) 2.333 4.000 2.000 1.429 0.238
 Severe menstrual symptoms j 13% (54) IS (0%, 15) 0.300 0.429 IS (0%, 4) 0.947

Age sub-groups compared with the 16–20y cohort. Genotype sub-groups compared with the Del cohort.

a

abnormal results included swallow delay and silent aspiration.

b

unrelated to eating.

c

drinks <20 ounces of fluid per day.

d

diagnosed over lifetime.

e

>6hrs or necessitating trip to emergency room.

f

≤ 10 years or more than 2 years earlier than maternal menarche.

g

≥ 15 years or more than 2 years later than maternal menarche.

h

depot medroxyprogesterone acetate.

i

individuals not on OCP/Depo-provera.

j

significant pain and/or increased irritability. δ. regression coefficient listed for each covariate.

*

statistically significant odds ratio (α = 0.05).

**

statistically significant regression coefficient (α=0.05). HEENT: Head eyes ears nose and throat, IS: infinite solution (%, n), OCP: oral contraceptive.

TABLE V.

Anthropometrics and orthopedics for individuals with Angelman syndrome, late-adolescence through adulthood

Full Cohort
% (n)
Female
odds ratio
21–25y
odds ratio
26–30y
odds ratio
31–50y
odds ratio
UBE3A
odds ratio
UPD
odds ratio

Anthropometrics
 Height (m) 1.62 (0.114, 109) −0.135** −0.003 0.025 −0.012 −0.010 0.030
 Body Mass Index 23.72 (4.679, 109) 1.085 0.423 0.931 1.525 1.582 −0.210
  Underweight 9% (109) 1.655 0.352 0.220 IS (0%, 16) 0.903 IS (0%, 10)
  Overweight 22% (109) 0.415 0.637 0.349 0.553 0.889 0.346
  Obese 10% (109) 12.468* 1.418 2.048 1.853 2.735 1.063
Orthopedics
 Hypertonia
  Knee contracture 43% (109) 1.107 1.266 1.005 2.007 2.933 3.422
  Tendon lengthening surgery a 20% (85) 0.299* 0.503 0.151 1.178 1.778 0.762
 Scoliosis 50 (109) 1.491 1.985 0.559 1.045 0.680 0.437
  Age at scoliosis diagnosis δ 12.06 (sd: 5.603, n=49) 0.258 1.968 2.759 3.629 −3.974 1.259
  Scoliosis, mild 61% (54) 2.521 0.793 1.239 1.239 IS (0%, 4) IS (100%, 5)
  Scoliosis, severe 39% (54) 0.397 1.261 0.807 0.807 IS (0%, 4) IS (0%, 5)
  Surgical intervention 24% (54) 0.207* 1.000 0.613 0.250 IS (0%, 4) IS (0%, 5)
 Bone density
  Osteoporosis/osteopenia 16% (109) 1.137 5.684* 1.208 2.920 IS (0%, 9) 1.071
  History of broken hip or femur 7% (109) 1.776 1.423 1.873 2.783 1.417 1.259

Age sub-groups compared with the 16–20y cohort. Genotype sub-groups compared with the Del cohort.

a

hamstring and/or achilles. δ. regression coefficient listed for each covariate.

*

statistically significant odds ratio (α = 0.05).

**

statistically significant regression coefficient (α=0.05). IS: infinite solution (%, n), m: meters.

TABLE VI.

Mobility and exercise for individuals with Angelman syndrome, late-adolescence through adulthood

Full Cohort
% (n)
Female
odds ratio
21–25y
odds ratio
26–30y
odds ratio
31–50y
odds ratio
UBE3A
odds ratio
UPD
odds ratio

Mobility
 Walks independently 68% (85) 4.544* 1.110 2.290 0.251 0.500 3.500
 Side arm assist 22% (85) 0.454 0.986 0.810 2.341 1.843 0.439
 Non-ambulatory 4% (85) 0.433 1.203 IS (0%, 17) 2.331 3.929 IS (0%, 8)
 Walks in the home
  Always 93% (109) 8.581 1.016 IS (100%, 23) 0.306 0.706 IS (100%, 10)
  Almost never (<10%) 7% (109) 0.117 0.985 IS (0%, 23) 3.272 1.417 IS (0%, 10)
 Walks in the community
  Always 38% (109) 1.789 1.207 1.123 0.779 1.667
  Almost never (<10%) 18% (109) 0.329* 1.375 IS (0%, 23 1.968 1.224 IS (0%, 10)
 Maximum distance
  < 50–100 yards 41% (108) 0.714 1.992 2.220 2.824 1.961 0.294
  1/4 – 1 mile 35% (108) 1.426 0.479 0.682 0.455 0.249 1.160
  No clear distance limit 25% (108) 0.904 0.923 0.508 0.607 1.564 4.692*
 Walking distance limited by
  Behavior 22% (101) 0.934 0.792 1.694 0.610 IS (0%, 8) 0.671
  Physical symptoms 43% (101) 1.744 1.380 1.126 1.533 2.222 0.571
Exercise
 Able to run 35% (108) 1.953 0.683 0.685 0.753 1.739 1.449
 Swimming 90% (109) 0.736 IS (100%, 29) 0.070 0.075* 0.836 0.418
  Shallow water or with float 77% (109) 1.073 0.986 0.386 0.452 0.552 0.414
  Deep water without a float 13% (109) 0.723 1.228 0.553 0.390 2.063 1.806
 Horseback riding
  Current routine 17% (84) 1.169 0.493 0.295 0.714 1.636 1.432
  Lifetime 77% (84) 0.885 0.765 0.686 0.404 0.345 1.103
  Positive experience 58% (84) 1.005 0.876 0.750 0.636 0.718 0.897
 Adaptive bike lifetime
  Current routine 33% (84) 0.750 0.480 0.135 0.302 1.042 3.125
  Lifetime 77% (84) 0.882 1.411 1.038 0.612 0.902 4.059
  Positive experience 60% (84) 0.952 1.576 0.649 0.425 0.718 8.077

Age sub-groups compared with the 16–20y cohort. Genotype sub-groups compared with the Del cohort.

*

statistically significant odds ratio (α = 0.05). IS: infinite solution (%, n).

Table VII presents data on communication and activities of daily living. Recurrent themes included the following: significant receptive language skills; typically able to communicate needs and wants using direct objects; highly sensitive to voice tone, specifically when aggressive or confrontational; a demonstrated ability to make meaningful connections with people, despite limited expressive language. Table VIII presents data on challenging behaviors in AS. The most commonly cited challenging behaviors were as follows: pulling others’ hair (31%), hitting others (28%), yelling/screaming (21%), pulling on others (19%), dropping to the floor (18%), hugging too tightly and/or hugging strangers (17%), biting others (17%), chewing clothing (16%), chewing plastic (13%), pinching others (13%), hitting self (12%), biting nails (12%), kicking others (11%), banging head (10%). The majority of the AS cohort had never been evaluated by a psychiatrist; however, 46% (n=48) of caregivers felt that the individual had shown some signs of anxiety. Alternatively, only 2% of caregivers endorsed possible signs of depression.

TABLE VII.

Communication and activities of daily living for individuals with Angelman syndrome, late-adolescence through adulthood

Full Cohort
% (n)
Female
odds ratio
21–25y
odds ratio
26–30y
odds ratio
31–50y
odds ratio
UBE3A
odds ratio
UPD
odds ratio

ADLs
 Self feeds with utensils 71% (85) 1.443 1.104 1.724 1.876 3.500 3.500
 Continent of bowel and bladder a
  Daytime 39% (85) 1.270 0.912 0.895 1.605 0.722 15.167*
  Nighttime 20% (85) 0.603 0.742 0.815 1.612 2.381 7.143*
Communication
 Words 47% (109) 1.760 0.757 0.875 0.561 5.431* 3.621
  ≥5 words 13% (109) 3.056 0.339 1.034 0.310 2.735 4.102
 Sounds with meaning 54% (109) 0.621 0.708 1.343 1.455 1.895 3.789
 Signs or natural gestures 68% (109) 1.483 1.349 1.191 0.859 4.870 5.478
  ≥5 signs 33% (109) 1.447 1.258 0.433 0.220 13.767* 35.400*
 Photos 43% (109) 0.692 0.813 0.374 0.286 1.641 1.969
  Pictures 33% (109) 1.001 1.369 0.122* 0.085* 0.595 3.125
  Voice output device or iPad 15% (109) 1.008 1.267 0.463 0.324 IS (0%, 9) 1.292
  Music extremely important 90% (108) 0.313 2.339 0.365 0.340 0.970 IS (100%, 9)

Age sub-groups compared with the 16–20y cohort. Genotype sub-groups compared with the Del cohort.

*

statistically significant odds ratio (α = 0.05).

a

consistently does not wear a diaper or pull-up. IS: infinite solution (%, n). solution, AED: anti-epileptic drugs, Tx: treatment, y: years.

TABLE VIII.

Challenging behavior for individuals with Angelman syndrome, late-adolescence through adulthood

Full Cohort
% (n)
Female
odds ratio
21–25y
odds ratio
26–30y
odds ratio
31–50y
odds ratio
UBE3A
odds ratio
UPD
odds ratio

Challenging behavior
 Aggressive towards others a 72% (109) 1.302 0.377 0.222* 0.284 1.387 1.585
 Self-injurious 52% (109) 0.715 0.601 0.992 0.212* 4.118 1.765
 Obsessive or persistent 48% (109) 0.643 1.313 0.453 1.362 0.758 0.406
 Identified emotional trigger
  Anxiety 20% (85) 0.465 0.985 1.173 0.678 0.762 3.200
  Frustration 47% (85) 1.031 0.524 2.241 0.372 2.464 1.478
 Behavior function
  Social attention 61% (109) 1.123 1.212 0.699 1.406 0.304 1.420
  Tangible demand 61% (109) 1.507 0.587 3.080 0.634 1.364 0.682
  Avoidant escape 57% (109) 1.452 0.992 1.631 0.317 0.952 1.143
  Sensory stimulation 45% (109) 0.327* 1.394 1.306 1.122 0.656 1.969
Behavior modification
 Consistent routine 93% (109) 0.290 0.344 0.159 0.172 IS (100%, 9) 0.794
 Sensitive to change in routine 50% (109) 1.119 0.699 0.556 1.898 2.111 0.452
 Motivation
  Immediate reward 55% (84) 2.185 0.824 0.326 0.169* 3.222 7.519
  Delayed reward 15% (84) 4.060 0.376 0.179 0.435 1.857 13.000*
Psychiatric medications
 Anxyolytic/antidepressant
  Current 12% (109) 0.261 1.204 0.669 1.046 2.063 0.802
  Past 6% (109) 1.356 1.450 IS (0%, 23) 0.841 2.187 4.375
 SSRI
  Current 10% (109) 0.836 0.361 0.221 0.324 11.833* 5.917
  Past 11% (109) 1.032 1.066 1.948 0.616 IS (0%, 9) 1.806
 Antipsychotic
  Current 10% (109) 0.838 0.835 1.078 IS (0%, 16) 1.196 IS (0%, 10)
  Past 19% (109) 0.701 1.592 0.865 0.275 0.587 3.128
 Stimulant/antihypnotic
  Current 5% (109) 4.456 0.666 IS (0%, 23) 2.835 IS (0%, 9) IS (0%, 10)
  Past 8% (109) 1.301 0.680 0.421 1.318 IS (100%, 9) 0.917

Age sub-groups compared with the 16–20y cohort. Genotype sub-groups compared with the Del cohort.

b

behavior that has the potential to harm others.

*

statistically significant odds ratio (α = 0.05). IS: infinite solution (%, n), SSRI: selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor. Behavior medications: anxyolytic/anti-depressants (current: busparone-3, guanfacine-2, trazedone-2, clonidine-1, duloxetine-1, alprazolam-1, clobazam-1, clomipramine-1, clorazepate-1, diazepam-1, lorazepam-1, past: clonidine-3, guanfacine-2, clonazepam-2, diezepam-2, busarone-1); selective seratonin reuptake inhibitor (current: fluoxetine - 4, sertraline- 4, citalopram-3, escitalopram-1, past: sertraline-4, fluvoxetine-3, fluvoxamine-2, paroxetine-2, citalopram-1, escitalopram-1); antipsychotics (current: risperidone-6, quetiapine-2, aripiprazole-1, olazapine-1, paliperidone-1, past: risperdal-19, aripiprazol-5, olanzapine-4, quetiapine-2, promethazine-1, haloperidol (PRN)-1, ziprasidone-1); anxyolytic/anti-depressants (current: busparone-3, guanfacine-2, trazedone-2, clonidine-1, duloxetine-1, alprazolam-1, clobazam-1, clomipramine-1, clorazepate-1, diazepam-1, lorazepam-1, past: clonidine-3, guanfacine-2, clonazepam-2, diezepam-2, busarone-1); antihypnotic/stimulant (current: atomoxetine-2, buprobion-1, modafinil-1, dexmethamphetamine-1, past: methylphenidate-7, dexmethamphetamine-6); antiepileptics (current: oxcarbazepine-2, lamotrigine-1, topiramate-1, past: valproic acid-1, ethosuximide-1); Other: (current: vitamin B complex - 3, past: vitamin B complex-1, lithium-1).

M16 died in a drowning accident in the home. F24 died of pneumonia in the setting of severe seizures, and M38 died of metastatic lung cancer. Of the interviewed caregivers, 55% endorsed having back pain or other chronic pain symptoms. Thirty-seven percent endorsed feelings of isolation, and 19% were unable to identify a source of emotional support. Caregivers endorsed significant anxiety about the future: 30% described the anxiety as moderate, and 18% described it as severe.

DISCUSSION

The results of this study were limited by the interview design, which did not include a physical exam by a physician or medical record review. Given that participants were recruited through the ASF, this study may have a response bias toward a more severe medical phenotype. Additionally, a larger proportion of the study cohort was living with parents (75%) compared to a clinical series of adults with AS (ages 16 to 40 years) reported by Clayton-Smith et al., in which about half the study cohort continued to live with parents [Clayton-Smith et al., 2001]. The study cohort provided a relatively close representation of the genotypic distribution seen in the general AS population, with the exception of a mildly increased UPD subset and an absence of any subjects with an imprinting defect: Del 65–75% (study 68%), UBE3A 5–11% (8%), imprinting defect 3% (0%), UPD 3–7% (9%) [Williams et al., 2010].

Neurology

Epilepsy is one of the primary health concerns for adults with AS and is the leading cause of hospitalization across age groups [Thomson et al., 2006]. The literature suggests that the period of greatest epilepsy severity is typically early childhood and that seizures often improve over the first decade and a half of life [Matsumoto et al., 1992, Clayton-Smith et al., 1993, Smith et al., 1996, Viani et al., 1995, Valente et al., 2006, Thibert et al., 2009, Pelc et al., 2008, Uemura et al., 2005]. According to the literature, individuals with AS may then experience a quiet period or seizure remission through their late teens and early twenties, followed by a possible recurrence of seizure severity during their third and fourth decades [Clayton-Smith et al., 1993, Thibert et al., 2009, Laan et al., 1996, Laan et al., 1997, Clayton-Smith et al., 2001, Williams et al., 1982, Matsumoto et al., 1992, Moncla et al., 1999, Thomson et al., 2006, Buckley et al., 1998]. Consistent with prior series, the vast majority of this study cohort (94%) had a history of seizures [Thomson et al., 2006, Smith et al., 1996, Laan et al., 1997], and the majority of adults (77%) experienced their most severe seizures before age 11. We found a similarly bimodal distribution of seizure severity, with decreased rates of seizure-freedom and increased seizure severity scores, for individuals over 25 years compared to those 16 to 20 years of age.

Previously, across age groups, the Del genotype has been found to confer the most severe epilepsy phenotype, followed by UBE3A. The UPD population has been found to exhibit the least severe epilepsy phenotype [Minassian et al., 1998, Clayton-Smith et al., 2003, Lossie et al., 2001, Moncla et al., 1999]. In our study we found that individuals with UBE3A had significantly decreased odds of developing seizures under the age of 3 compared to the Del cohort, and no one with this genotype had more than one seizure semiology. The UPD cohort had significantly decreased odds of developing epilepsy compared to the Del cohort, and no one with this genotype experienced daily seizures.

With an EEG correlate, sustained shaking episodes without loss of consciousness have been described in individuals with AS as myoclonic status in non-progressive encephalopathy (MSNE) [Pelc et al., 2008, Dalla Bernardina et al., 1985, Elia et al., 2009, Valente et al., 2006, Guerrini et al., 1996, Ogawa et al., 1996, Dalla Bernardina et al., 1995, Viani et al., 1995]. Without an EEG correlate, similar episodes of sustained shaking have also been clinically identified in AS and have been described as cortical myoclonus [Guerrini et al., 1996, Stecker et al., 2003, Pelc et al., 2008, Guerrini et al., 2003]. Based on clinical experience with other adult AS patients, the investigators hypothesize that the shaking episodes described by the caregivers in this study are likely consistent with cortical myoclonus; follow-up studies that incorporate electrophysiological data are being conducted to further characterize this pathology in the adult AS population.

AS may also confer significant sleep problems [Walz et al., 2005, Conant et al., 2009]. The pathophysiologic mechanism of epilepsy and sleep dysfunction in AS may be secondary to haploinsufficiency and decreased expression of a GABA receptor gene, specifically GABRB3 on 15qll-13, adjacent to UBE3A [Minassian et al., 1998, Lossie et al., 2001, DeLorey et al., 1996, Nolt et al., 2003]. While significant sleep problems during infancy and early childhood are nearly universal among individuals with AS, it has been previously reported that sleep dysfunction may improve with age [Smith et al., 1996, Miano et al., 2004, Clayton-Smith et al., 2001, Sandanam et al., 1997]. The results of this study support this hypothesis: the majority of caregivers described current sleep patterns as improved when compared to the degree of sleep dysfunction experienced during infancy and childhood. The prevalence of poor sleep in adults, however, remained quite high, affecting the majority (72%) of the cohort.

Our results indicate sleep dysfunction in multiple domains for adults with AS, including increased sleep latency, night waking, and daytime sleepiness. Consistent with prior rates of increased sleep latency (48–50.5%) across age groups [Walz et al., 2005, Conant et al., 2009], 65% of this study’s cohort had trouble falling asleep. Sandanam et al. found that 54% of adults (Del) had significant nighttime waking, and, similarly, 66% percent of this cohort was reported to have difficulty staying asleep [Sandanam et al., 1997]. Prior studies have shown a decreased need for sleep in children with AS [Conant et al., 2009, Clayton-Smith et al., 1993]. However, our results indicate a reported average of 7.4 hours of sleep per night and some evidence of daytime sleepiness. These findings suggest that adults may not show the same degree of decreased need for sleep as younger individuals [Clayton-Smith et al., 1993]. The interaction between epilepsy and sleep dysfunction is not well understood, but these pathologies often coexist in the general epilepsy population, as well as in the AS population [Conant et al., 2009]. In this study, however, ongoing seizure activity was not significantly associated with sleep problems.

Internal medicine

The pathophysiologic impact of AS on the pulmonary, endocrine, and gastrointestinal systems has not been formally investigated in the adult population. We report high rates of pneumonia, choking episodes with eating, and resistant behavior surrounding drinking fluids. Very few individuals had undergone a formal speech and swallow study in the past, but our findings suggest that many adults with AS may have some degree of orapharyngeal dysfunction. Episodic gagging unrelated to eating was also common and for some, these gagging episodes had an olfactory trigger or anxiety component. These episodes appear quite uniform across the study population and may represent a form of stereotypy. Further, although AS is not traditionally associated with true hyperphagia, as is common in Prader-Willi syndrome [Clayton-Smith et al., 2001], we found that half the individuals were reported to not self-regulate food intake and/or to exhibit a (suspected) limited sense of fullness. Caregiveres of females more often reported limited satiety.

Gastrointestinal health issues, specifically gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) and constipation, are common among adults with AS and often require ongoing medical management [Clayton-Smith et al., 2001]. Previously, Clayton-Smith et al. reported potentially severe reflux in adulthood, including a case of stricture requiring surgical intervention [Clayton-Smith et al., 2001]. Similarly, a substantial proportion of our cohort with GERD did not improve with medical treatment, and 2 individuals underwent Nissen fundoplication in adulthood. Constipation was nearly universal, often requiring medical management. These results show that diagnostics in internal medicine often pose a significant clinical challenge, and common pathologies of the alimentary tract can be severe and may require long-term medical management.

Ophthalmology

The prevalence and natural history of visual impairment in AS remains unclear. In the AS adult literature, there have been several reports of keratoconus, typically developing secondary to recurrent eye rubbing behaviors as was described in this study [Laan et al., 1996, Williams et al., 1982, Bjerre et al., 1984, Clayton-Smith et al., 2003, Sandanam et al., 1997]. In an adult series, strabismus and/or a pale fundus were the primary issues identified on ophthalmologic exam [Buntinx et al., 1995]. In a second report, retinochoroidal atrophy (RCA) with optic disk paleness was described in 2 adult patients, and Rufa et al. hypothesized that the RCA may be secondary to impaired ubiquitination and subsequent retinal photooxidative damage with age [Rufa et al., 2003].

Anthropometrics

Obesity is a major health concern for adults with AS [Van Buggenhout et al., 2009, Laan et al., 1996, Clayton-Smith et al., 2001, Smith et al., 1996, Thomson et al., 2006]. Thirty-two percent of the adults in this study were overweight or obese. We found that women in the cohort had increased odds of developing obesity, consistent with a prior report [Clayton-Smith et al., 2001]. Alternatively, Smith et al. observed obesity disproportionately affecting men [Smith et al., 1996]. Genotypic differences in the rates of obesity have been reported, with Del cohorts showing lower BMIs compared to non-deletion [Moncla et al., 1999]. In this study, however, no statistically significant genotype-phenotype correlations were observed. Weight management in the AS population is a complex issue potentially involving multiple factors, including genetic predisposition, aberrant sense of satiety, limited access to opportunities for exercise, and challenging behaviors related to food.

Orthopedics

Many adults with AS have had previous orthopedic care. Thoracic scoliosis affects about 10% of children with AS, but with age, scoliosis becomes more pervasive [Clayton-Smith et al., 2001, Clayton-Smith et al., 2003]. Prior reported prevalence rates of scoliosis span a broad range in adult AS cohorts (38.8%–71%) [Buntinx et al., 1995, Laan et al., 1996, Thomson et al., 2006], but in this study half the individuals had scoliosis. Clayton-Smith et al. observed that scoliosis progressed faster in non-ambulatory patients [Clayton-Smith et al., 1993], but Laan et al. alternatively hypothesized that this may not be causative, given that scoliosis can be identified in both ambulatory and non-ambulatory individuals [Laan et al., 1996]. In this study, no association was found between scoliosis and mobility parameters, but further prospective investigation is indicated. Laan et al. reported a significant difference in the rates of scoliosis by sex, with 92% of females and 56% of males affected [Laan et al., 1996]. Clayton-Smith et al. described a similar female predominance [Clayton-Smith et al., 2003]. Conversely, in this study, statistically significant differences in rates of scoliosis by sex, age, or genotype were not observed, but males did have increased odds of undergoing surgical intervention. Coppola et al. suggested that given the combination of limited mobility and chronic AED treatments, individuals with AS may have increased risk of fractures due to decreased bone density [Coppola et al., 2007]. We found that the individuals in their early twenties had increased odds of being diagnosed with osetopenia/osteporosis. This result is confounded by the fact that this age group may be more likely to have undergone bone density screening compared to the 16- to 20-year-old cohort. Based on these findings, primary orthopedic issues for adults with AS include scoliosis, contractures, and fractures.

Mobility

In the AS population, there is a complex interplay between independent mobility and many distinct parameters, including ataxia and gross motor development, obesity, scoliosis, hypertonia, bone density, and voluntary behavior [Clayton-Smith et al., 2001, Clayton-Smith et al., 2003, Van Buggenhout et al., 2000, Van Buggenhout et al., 2009]. We found that the majority of our cohort was able to walk independently (68%), consistent with the rate previously reported for an adult cohort (75%) [Clayton-Smith et al., 2001]. From a genetic perspective, adults with UBE3A and UPD, compared to those with a Del, have been found to have increased mobility [Moncla et al., 1999, Clayton-Smith et al., 2001]. In this study, however, only the UPD cohort had a statistically significant increase in mobility. Further, we found that adults with AS showed a capacity to learn to swim independently and participate in a wide range of physical activities including riding an adaptive bike, hippotherapy, and yoga. Consistent access to opportunities for routine exercise, however, remains a significant challenge.

Communication

Severe oral motor dyspraxia with absent or limited expressive speech is nearly universal in AS across age groups, with a significant discrepancy between expressive and receptive language abilities [Clayton-Smith et al., 1993, Penner et al., 1993, Didden et al., 2009, Laan et al., 1996, Moncla et al., 1999, Jolleff et al., 1993]. Individuals with AS communicate through multiple modalities, including vocalizations, signs or gestures, pictures, and electronic devices [Clayton-Smith et al., 1993, Calculator et al., 2013]. Previously, Clayton-Smith et al. found that 68% of adults with AS were able to communicate their basic needs, primarily through the use of gestures [Clayton-Smith et al., 2001]. In this study, a minority of individuals (13%) had facility with 5 or more words. Individuals showed use of multiple communication modalities, with the use of signs or gestures (including reaching/pointing) and the use of sounds with meaning, the two most common. The speech-language phenotype for UBE3A and UPD is typically less severe [Lossie et al., 2001, Clayton-Smith et al., 2001, Clayton-Smith et al., 2003, Moncla et al., 1999]. In this study, individuals with UBE3A had increased odds of developing some speech, and both non-deletion sub-groups had increased odds of using signs or natural gestures. Didden et al. similarly found increased use of signs and gestures among individuals with UPD compared to Del [Didden et al., 2009]. Finally, music was nearly universally (90%) described as very important and independently motivating for our cohort.

Challenging behavior

Aggressive and self-injurious behavior can lead to significant morbidity. Every day, challenging behaviors directly impact opportunities for community involvement and social inclusion, which can lead to increased isolation, often perpetuating behavior problems. Importantly, aggressive behaviors in AS (behaviors with the potential of harming others) are often without malicious intent, but rather with goals of social engagement. Prior studies have reported the prevalence of aggressive behavior at much lower rates (6–10%) in individuals across age groups in comparison to our cohort (72%) [Summers et al., 1995, Adams et al., 2011]. Contributing to this difference may be variable definitions of aggression and the size and strength of adults, as some behaviors considered benign in childhood may become more problematic when expressed in adulthood.

In a prior study of communication in AS, Didden et al. indicated that aggressive behaviors were often used as a communication method for rejection/protest, suggesting a negative reinforcement maintenance mechanism [Mudford et al., 2008, Didden et al., 2009]. Laan et al. described sensory stimulation behavior in adults with AS, with chewing/mouthing behavior affecting 75% of the study cohort [Laan et al., 1996]. Consistent with these reports, our data similarly suggests that behaviors in AS typically serve multiple functions, including seeking social attention, communicating tangible demand/avoidant escape, and seeking sensory stimulation. Clinically, acute changes in behavior require thorough evaluation for a possible as-yet unrecognized illness or injury.

Anxiety is likely under-recognized in this population and may also contribute to challenging behavior [Clayton-Smith et al., 2001]. The therapeutic impact of medical management of anxiety on self-injurious and/or aggressive behaviors in AS is largely unknown, but our data suggest a decrease in the use of antipsychotic and stimulant/antihypnotic medications, stable use of SSRIs, and an increase in the use of anxiolytics. From an environmental perspective, Clayton-Smith et al. previously described adults with AS as often quite sensitive to changes in routine, a trend also seen in this study [Clayton-Smith et al., 2001].

Conclusions

As part of the longitudinal clinical care of adults with AS, primary areas of clinical management include the following: seizures, sleep, aspiration risk, GERD, constipation, dental care, vision, obesity, scoliosis, bone density, mobility, communication, behavior, and anxiety. Given the results of this study, adults with AS may require lifelong epilepsy management, as seizures have the potential to recur and/or progress in severity with age in a subset of the population, though they tend to improve with age. Additionally, sleep dysfunction, though it often improves over an individual’s lifetime, continues to impact the majority of adults and may require behavioral and/or pharmacological intervention. The multiple domains of healthcare in AS are best served by a comprehensive approach and an interdisciplinary team, working towards the goals of health and wellness, safety, social inclusion, and autonomy.

The results of this study demonstrate a profound need for improved understanding of the natural history of seizures in AS and ongoing inquiry into innovative treatment options for epilepsy and other neurobehavioral issues in AS. Additional areas of future research include prospective and polysomnographic trials to better characterize sleep and the impact of age in AS. Our findings indicate a need for further research characterizing AS-associated ophthalmologic pathology and also suggest a great need for ongoing innovative research and the development of evidence-based weight management and fitness programs for individuals with AS. Finally, in the area of communication, future investigation of the neurocognitive processing of music in AS may be pursued to further characterize language development and to potentially yield improved adaptive communication technologies.

Acknowledgments

Our deepest thanks go to the families who participated in this study for their patience, their overwhelming generosity of their time, and their willingness to share information with investigators. Our thanks also go to the Angelman Syndrome Foundation for their help with subject recruitment. Thank you to Dr. Jane Summers, Eileen Braun, and Renee Pritzker for help with interview development. This study was supported by the Fred and Renee Pritzker Family. Many thanks to Dr. Hang Lee for his support and guidance with statistical analyses and manuscript review. This work was conducted with support from Harvard Catalyst | The Harvard Clinical and Translational Science Center (NIH Award #UL1 RR 025758 and financial contributions from Harvard University and its affiliated academic health care centers). The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of Harvard Catalyst, Harvard University, and its affiliated academic health care centers, the National Center for Research Resources, or the National Institutes of Health.

References

  1. Adams D, Horsler K, Oliver C. Age related change in social behavior in children with Angelman syndrome. Am J Med Genet A. 2011;155:1290–1297. doi: 10.1002/ajmg.a.33964. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Albrecht U, Sutcliffe JS, Cattanach BM, Beechey CV, Armstrong D, Eichele G, Beaudet AL. Imprinted expression of the murine Angelman syndrome gene, Ube3a, in hippocampal and Purkinje neurons. Nat Genet. 1997;17:75–78. doi: 10.1038/ng0997-75. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Bjerre I, Fagher B, Ryding E, Rosén I. The Angelman or “happy puppet” syndrome. Clinical and electroencephalographic features and cerebral blood flow. Acta Paediatr Scand. 1984;73:398–402. doi: 10.1111/j.1651-2227.1994.tb17755.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Buckley RH1, Dinno N, Weber P. Angelman syndrome: are the estimates too low? Am J Med Genet. 1998;80:385–390. doi: 10.1002/(sici)1096-8628(19981204)80:4<385::aid-ajmg15>3.0.co;2-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Buiting K, Saitoh S, Gross S, Dittrich B, Schwartz S, Nicholls RD, Horsthemke B. Inherited microdeletions in the Angelman and Prader-Willi syndromes define an imprinting centre on human chromosome 15. Nat Genet. 1995;9:395–400. doi: 10.1038/ng0495-395. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Buntinx IM, Hennekam RCM, Brouwer OF, Stroink H, Beuten J, Mangelschots K, Fryns JP. Clinical profile of Angelman syndrome at different ages. Am J Med Genet. 1995;56:176–183. doi: 10.1002/ajmg.1320560213. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Calculator SN. Use and acceptance of AAC systems by children with Angelman syndrome. J Appl Res Intellect Disabil. 2013;26:557–567. doi: 10.1111/jar.12048. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Clayton-Smith J. Clinical research on Angelman syndrome in the United Kingdom: observations of 82 affected individuals. Am J Med Genet. 1993;46:12–15. doi: 10.1002/ajmg.1320460105. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Clayton-Smith J. Angelman syndrome: evolution of the phenotype in adolescents and adults. Dev Med Child Neurol. 2001;43:476–480. doi: 10.1017/s0012162201000871. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Clayton-Smith J, Laan L. Angelman syndrome: a review of the clinical and genetic aspects. J Med Genet. 2003;40:87–95. doi: 10.1136/jmg.40.2.87. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Conant KD, Thibert RL, Thiele EA. Epilepsy and the sleep-wake patterns found in Angelman syndrome. Epilepsia. 2009;50:2497–2500. doi: 10.1111/j.1528-1167.2009.02109.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Coppola G, Verrotti A, Mainolfi C, Auricchio G, Fortunato D, Operto FF, Pascotto A. Bone mineral density in angelman syndrome. Pediatr Neurol. 2007;37:411–416. doi: 10.1016/j.pediatrneurol.2007.07.004. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Dalla Bernardina B, Fontana E, Zullini E, La Selva L, Franco A, Darra F. Angelman syndrome: electroclinical features of 10 personal cases. Gaslini. 1995;27:75–78. [Google Scholar]
  14. Dalla Bernardina B, Trevisan E, Colamaria V, Magaudda A. Myoclonic epilepsy (‘myoclonic status’) in non-progressive encephalopathies. In: Roger J, Dravet C, Bureau M, Dreifuss FE, Wolf P, editors. Epileptic Syndromes in Infancy, Childhood and Adolescence. London and Paris: John Libbey; 1985. pp. 68–72. [Google Scholar]
  15. DeLorey TM, Minassian B, Datt A, Delgado-Escueta AV, Olsen RW. GABAA receptor expression is reduced in Angelman syndrome. Society For Neuroscience Abstract. 1996;22:1166. [Google Scholar]
  16. Didden R, Sigafoos J, Korzilius H, Baas A, Lancioni GE, O’Reilly MF, Curfs LMG. Form and function of communicative behaviours in individuals with Angelman syndrome. J Appl Res Intellect Disabil. 2009;22:526–537. [Google Scholar]
  17. Elia M. Myoclonic status in nonprogressive envephalopathies: an update. Epilepsia. 2009;50:41–44. doi: 10.1111/j.1528-1167.2009.02119.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Guerrini R, Carrozzo R, Rinaldi R, Bonanni P. Angelman syndrome: etiology, clinical features, diagnosis, and management of symptoms. Paediatr Drugs. 2003;5:647–661. doi: 10.2165/00148581-200305100-00001. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Guerrini R, De Lorey TM, Bonanni P, Moncla A, Dravet C, Suisse G, Livet MO, Bureau M, Malzac P, Genton P, Thomas P, Sartucci F, Simi P, Serratosa JM. Cortical myoclonus in Angelman syndrome. Ann Neurol. 1996;40:39–48. doi: 10.1002/ana.410400109. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Humphrey A, Ploubidis GB, Yates JR, Steinberg T, Bolton PF. The early childhood epilepsy severity scale (E-Chess) Epilepsy Res. 2008;79:139–145. doi: 10.1016/j.eplepsyres.2008.01.007. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Jolleff N, Ryan MM. Communication development in Angelman syndrome. Arch Dis Child. 1993;69:148–150. doi: 10.1136/adc.69.1.148. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Kishino T, Lalande M, Wagstaff J. UBE3A/E6-AP mutations cause Angelman syndrome. Nat Genet. 1997;15:70–73. doi: 10.1038/ng0197-70. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Knoll JHM, Nicholls RD, Magenis RE, Graham JM, Jr, Lalande M, Latt SA. Angelman and Prader-Willli syndromes share a common chromosome 15 deletion but differ in parental origin of the deletion. Am J Med Genet. 1989;32:285–290. doi: 10.1002/ajmg.1320320235. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Laan LA, Renier WO, Arts WF, Buntinx IM, vd Burgt IJ, Stroink H, Beuten J, Zwinderman KH, van Dijk JG, Brouwer OF. Evolution of epilepsy and EEG findings in Angelman syndrome. Epilepsia. 1997;38:195–199. doi: 10.1111/j.1528-1157.1997.tb01097.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Laan LA, Th den Boer A, Hennekam R, Renier WO, Brouwer OF. Angelman syndrome in adulthood. Am J Med Genet. 1996;66:356–360. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1096-8628(19961218)66:3<356::AID-AJMG21>3.0.CO;2-K. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Lossie AC, Whitney MM, Amidon D, Dong HJ, Chen P, Theriaque D, Hutson A, Nicholls RD, Zori RT, Williams CA, Driscoll DJ. Distinct phenotypes distinguish the molecular classes of Angelman syndrome. J Med Genet. 2001;38:831–845. doi: 10.1136/jmg.38.12.834. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. Malcolm S, Clayton-Smith J, Nichols M, Robb S, Webb T, Armour JAL, Jeffreys AJ, Pembrey ME. Uniparental disomy in Angelman syndrome. Lancet. 1991;337:694–697. doi: 10.1016/0140-6736(91)90278-w. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Matsumoto A, Toshiyuki K, Kiyokuni M, Miyazaki S, Hayakawa C, Yamanaka T. Epilepsy in Angelman syndrome associated with chromosome 15q deletion. Epilepsia. 1992;6:1083–1090. doi: 10.1111/j.1528-1157.1992.tb01763.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. Matsuura T, Sutcliffe JS, Fang P, Galjaard RJ, Jiang YH, Benton CS, Rommens JM, Beaudet AL. De novo truncating mutations in E6-AP ubiquitin-protein ligase gene (UBE3A) in Angelman syndrome. Nat Genet. 1997;15:74–77. doi: 10.1038/ng0197-74. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Miano S, Bruni O, Leuzzi V, Elia M, Verrillo E, Ferri R. Sleep polygraphy in Angelman syndrome. Clin Neurophysiol. 2004;115:938–945. doi: 10.1016/j.clinph.2003.11.004. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. Minassian BA, Delorey TM, Olsen RW, Philippart M, Bronstein Y, Zhang Q, Guerrini R, van Ness P, Livet MO, Delgado-Escueta AV. Angelman syndrome: correlations between epilepsy phenotypes and genotypes. Ann Neurol. 1998;43:485–493. doi: 10.1002/ana.410430412. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. Moncla A, Malzac P, Voelckel MA, Auquier P, Girardot L, Mattei MG, Philip N, Mattei JF, Lalande M, Livet MO. Phenotype-genotype correlation in 20 deletion and 20 non-deletion Angelman syndrome patients. Eur J Med Genet. 1999;7:131–139. doi: 10.1038/sj.ejhg.5200258. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  33. Mudford O, Arnold-Saritepe A, Phillips K, Locke J, Ho I, Taylor S. Challenging behavior. In: Matson J, editor. Clinical Assessment and Intervention for Autism Spectrum Disorders, 1e. New York: Academic Press; 2008. pp. 267–297. [Google Scholar]
  34. Nolt DH, Mott JM, Lopez WL. Assessment of anticonvulsant effectiveness and safety in patients with Angelman’s syndrome using an Internet questionnaire. Am J Health Syst Pharm. 2003;60:2583–2587. doi: 10.1093/ajhp/60.24.2583. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  35. Ogawa K, Ohtsuka Y, Kobayashi K, Asano T, Oka E. The characteristics of epilepsy with Angelman syndrome. Epilepsia. 1996;37:83–84. [Google Scholar]
  36. Pelc K, Boyd SG, Cheron G, Dan B. Epilepsy in Angelman syndrome. Seizure. 2008;17:211–217. doi: 10.1016/j.seizure.2007.08.004. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  37. Penner KA, Johnston J, Faircloth BH, Irish P, Williams CA. Communication, cognition and social interaction in the Angelman syndrome. Am J Med Genet. 1993;46:34–39. doi: 10.1002/ajmg.1320460108. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  38. Rufa A, Dotti MT, Orrico A, Battisti C, Carletto F, Federico A. Retinochoroidal atrophy in two adult patients with Angelman syndrome. Am J Med Genet A. 2003;122:155–158. doi: 10.1002/ajmg.a.20217. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  39. Sandanam T, Beange H, Robson L, Woolnough H, Buchholz T, Smith A. Manifestations in institutionalized adults with Angelman syndrome due to deletion. Am J Med Genet. 1997;70:415–420. doi: 10.1002/(sici)1096-8628(19970627)70:4<415::aid-ajmg16>3.0.co;2-k. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  40. Schneider BB, Maino DM. Angelman syndrome. J Am Optom Assoc. 1993;64:502–506. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  41. Smith AC, Wiles C, Haan E, McGill J, Wallace G, Dixon J, Selby R, Colley A, Marks R, Trent RJ. Clinical features in 27 patients with Angelman syndrome resulting from DNA deletion. J Med Genet. 1996;33:107–112. doi: 10.1136/jmg.33.2.107. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  42. Stecker MM, Myers SM. Reserpine responsive myoclonus and hyperpyrexia in a patient with Angelman syndrome. Clin Neurol Neurosurg. 2003;105:183–187. doi: 10.1016/s0303-8467(03)00005-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  43. Summers JA, Allison DB, Lynch PS, Sandler L. Behaviour problems in Angelman syndrome. J Intellect Disabil Res. 1995;39:97–106. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2788.1995.tb00477.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  44. Thibert RL, Conant KD, Braun EK, Bruno P, Said RR, Nespeca MP, Thiele EL. Epilepsy in Angelman syndrome: a questionnaire-based assessment of the natural history and current treatment options. Epilepsia. 2009;50:2369–2376. doi: 10.1111/j.1528-1167.2009.02108.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  45. Thomson AK, Glasson EJ, Bittles AH. A long-term population-based clinical and morbidity profile of Angelman syndrome in Western Australia: 1953–2003. Disabil Rehabil. 2006;28:299–305. doi: 10.1080/09638280500190631. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  46. Uemura N, Matsumoto A, Nakamura M, Watanabe K, Negoro T, Kumagai T, Miura K, Ohki T, Mizuno S, Okumura A, Aso K, Hayakawa F, Kondo Y. Evolution of seizures and electroencephalographical findings in 23 cases of deletion type Angelman syndrome. Brain Dev. 2005;5:383–388. doi: 10.1016/j.braindev.2004.01.009. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  47. Valente KD, Koiffmann CP, Fridman C, Varella M, Kok F, Andrade JQ, Grossmann RM, Marques-Dias MJ. Epilepsy in patients with Angelman syndrome caused by deletion of the chromosome 15q11–13. Arch Neurol. 2006;63:122–128. doi: 10.1001/archneur.63.1.122. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  48. Van Buggenhout GJ, Descheemaeker MJ, Thiry P, Trommelen JC, Hamel BC, Fryns JP. Angelman syndrome in three adult patients with atypical presentation and severe neurological complications. Genet Couns. 2000;11:363–373. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  49. Van Buggenhout G, Fryns JP. Angelman syndrome (AS, MIM 105830) Eur J Hum Genet. 2009;17:1367–1373. doi: 10.1038/ejhg.2009.67. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  50. Viani F, Romeo A, Viri M, Mastrangelo M, Lalatta F, Selicorni A, Gobbi G, Lanzi G, Bettio D, Briscioli V, Segni MD, Parini R, Viani GF, Romeo A, Viri M, Mastrangelo M, Lalatta F, Selicorni A. Seizure and EEG patterns in Angelman’s syndrome. J Child Neurol. 1995;10:467–471. doi: 10.1177/088307389501000609. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  51. Waltz NC, Beebe D, Byars K. Sleep in individuals with Angelman syndrome: parent perceptions of patterns and problems. Am J Ment Retard. 2005;110:243–252. doi: 10.1352/0895-8017(2005)110[243:SIIWAS]2.0.CO;2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  52. Williams CA, Frias JL. The Angelman (“happy puppet”) syndrome. Am J Med Genet. 1982;11:453–460. doi: 10.1002/ajmg.1320110411. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  53. Williams CA. Neurological aspects of the Angelman Syndrome. Brain Dev. 2005;27:88–94. doi: 10.1016/j.braindev.2003.09.014. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  54. Williams CA, Driscoll DJ, Dagli AI. Clinical and genetic aspects of Angelman syndrome. Genet Med. 2010;12:385–395. doi: 10.1097/GIM.0b013e3181def138. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

RESOURCES