Background Rapid spread of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has affected people with intellectual disability disproportionately. Existing data does not provide enough information to understand factors associated with increased deaths in those with intellectual disability. Establishing who is at high risk is important in developing prevention strategies, given risk factors or comorbidities in people with intellectual disability may be different to those in the general population. Aims To identify comorbidities, demographic and clinical factors of those individuals with intellectual disability who have died from COVID-19. Method An observational descriptive case series looking at deaths because of COVID-19 in people with intellectual disability was conducted. Along with established risk factors observed in the general population, possible specific risk factors and comorbidities in people with intellectual disability for deaths related to COVID-19 were examined. Comparisons between mild and moderate-to-profound intellectual disability subcohorts were undertaken. Results Data on 66 deaths in individuals with intellectual disability were analysed. This group was younger (mean age 64 years) compared with the age of death in the general population because of COVID-19. High rates of moderate-to-profound intellectual disability (n = 43), epilepsy (n = 29), mental illness (n = 29), dysphagia (n = 23), Down syndrome (n = 20) and dementia (n = 15) were observed. Conclusions This is the first study exploring associations between possible risk factors and comorbidities found in COVID-19 deaths in people with intellectual disability. Our data provides insight into possible factors for deaths in people with intellectual disability. Some of the factors varied between the mild and moderate-to-profound intellectual disability groups. This highlights an urgent need for further systemic inquiry and study of the possible cumulative impact of these factors and comorbidities given the possibility of COVID-19 resurgence.

We found evidence of prevalent potential 'off-label' use for psychotropic medication, which may be due to PBs. We also found evidence of potential diagnostic-overshadowing, where symptoms of psychiatric co-morbidity may have been attributed to PBs. Our findings provide renewed importance, across borders and health systems, for clinicians to consider a holistic approach to treating PBs, and attempting to best understand the precipitants and predisposing factors before psychotropic prescribing.

A quarter of people with Intellectual Disability (ID) in the UK have epilepsy compared to 0.6% in the general population and die much younger. Epilepsy is associated with two-fifths of all deaths with related polypharmacy and multi-morbidity. Epilepsy research on this population has been poor. This study describes real-world clinical and risk characteristics of a large cohort across England and Wales. Methods:A retrospective multi-centre cohort study was conducted. Information on seizure characteristics, ID severity, relevant co-morbidities, psychotropic and antiseizure drugs (ASDs), SUDEP and other risk factors was collected across a year. Results:Of 904 adults across 10 centres (male:female,1•5:1), 320 (35%) had mild ID and 584 (65%) moderate-profound (M/P) ID. The mean age was 39.9 years (SD 15.0). Seizures were more frequent in M/P ID (p <0•001). Over 50% had physical health co-morbidities, more in mild ID (p<0•01). A third had psychiatric co-morbidity and a fifth had an underlying genetic disorder. Autism Spectrum Disorder was seen in over a third (37%). Participants were on median two ASDs and overall, five medications. Over quarter were on anti-psychotics. Over 90% had an epilepsy review in the past year but 25% did not have an epilepsy care plan, particularly those with mild ID (p<0•001). Only 61% had a documented discussion of SUDEP, again less likely with mild ID or their care stakeholders (p<0•001). Conclusions:Significant levels of multi-morbidity, polypharmacy and a lack of systemised approach to treatment and risk exist. Addressing these concerns is essential to reduce premature mortality.

ObjectivesTo determine the prevalence and quality of antipsychotic prescribing for people with intellectual disability (ID).DesignA clinical audit of prescribing practice in the context of a quality improvement programme. Practice standards for audit were derived from relevant, evidence-based guidelines, including NICE. Data were mainly collected from the clinical records, but to determine the clinical rationale for using antipsychotic medication in individual cases, prescribers could also be directly questioned.Settings54 mental health services in the UK, which were predominantly NHS Trusts.ParticipantsInformation on prescribing was collected for 5654 people with ID.ResultsAlmost two-thirds (64%) of the total sample was prescribed antipsychotic medication, of whom almost half (49%) had a schizophrenia spectrum or affective disorder diagnosis, while a further third (36%) exhibited behaviours recognised by NICE as potentially legitimate targets for such treatment such as violence, aggression or self-injury. With respect to screening for potential side effects within the past year, 41% had a documented measure of body weight (range across participating services 18–100%), 32% blood pressure (0–100%) and 37% blood glucose and blood lipids (0–100%).ConclusionsThese data from mental health services across the UK suggest that antipsychotic medications are not widely used outside of licensed and/or evidence-based indications in people with ID. However, screening for side effects in those patients on continuing antipsychotic medication was inconsistent across the participating services and the possibility that a small number of these services failed to meet basic standards of care cannot be excluded.

We investigated psychiatric morbidity in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus, in a hospital-based study. Thirty patients (23 consecutive out-patients and seven unselected in-patients) were prospectively assessed by a multidisciplinary team for the presence of psychiatric disorders and disease activity. Psychiatric assessment was done with structured interviews. Demographic information was recorded in a structured proforma; all the patients completed the Presumptive Stressful Life Event Scale. A close relative was interviewed in every case. Patients who had psychiatric disorders were compared with the rest with respect to demographic variables, lupus disease activity, use of steroids, and stressful life events. We found a 50% prevalence of psychiatric disorders. The patients with psychiatric disorders were similar to those who had no psychopathology with respect to age, sex, duration of illness, lupus activity and the use of steroids. However, they had experienced more stressful life events in the last year.