Disclosure of individual research results at federally funded Alzheimer's Disease Research Centers

Building expert consensus regarding sharing of individual research results in Alzheimer's disease research: a Delphi study protocol

INTRODUCTION

Informed decisions to enrol in the clinical investigations of Alzheimer's disease and related dementias (ADRD) require careful consideration of complex risks and uncertain benefits. Decisions regarding whether to receive information about biomarker status are complicated by lack of scientific consensus regarding biomarkers as surrogate endpoints for Alzheimer's disease and how information about individual risk should be evaluated and shared with research participants. This study aims to establish stakeholder consensus regarding ethically optimal approaches to sharing individual results with ADRD research participants.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This Delphi consensus-building study consists of multiple online surveys conducted with Alzheimer's disease research experts, including neurologists, neuropsychologists, ethicists, research oversight specialists and clinical trialists. Panellists will be administered questionnaires developed from a synthesis of researcher- and participant-endorsed considerations and decisional needs identified in published literature and a decisional needs assessment conducted with support from an Alzheimer's Association Research Grant. Panellists will also be asked their views on the content and implementation of processes for sharing individual research results. ≥75% agreement will be required to achieve consensus. Response rates, level of agreement, medians, interquartile ranges and group rankings will be analysed. Following each round of data collection, our research team will undertake qualitative content analysis of open-ended responses.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethical approval will be obtained from the Cleveland Clinic Institutional Review Board (Study Number 22-766). Delphi panellists will receive participant information sheets describing the study before agreeing to participate in the Delphi process. Results from the data we anticipate will be generated through this research and will be submitted for peer-reviewed journal publication and presentation at international conferences.

Communicating Alzheimer's biomarker results to cognitively unimpaired research participants: Satisfaction, utility, and impact on research attitudes

Introduction

Recruitment and retention pose a significant challenge to Alzheimer's disease (AD) research. Returning AD biomarker results to participants has been proposed as a means to improve recruitment and retention. We present findings related to participant satisfaction, utility, and impact on research attitudes from the amyloid positron emission tomography (PET) disclosure sub-study within the Wisconsin Registry for Alzheimer's Prevention (WRAP).

Methods

Ninety-nine cognitively unimpaired WRAP participants learned their amyloid PET results (mean age ± SD = 72.0 ± 4.8). Measures of reasons for wanting to learn results, study comprehension, result utility, visit satisfaction, research attitudes, and future study enrollment willingness were collected. Between-group, chi-squared analysis was conducted to determine differences by result type (elevated vs. not elevated amyloid PET result) in study comprehension, result utility, and visit satisfaction. Linear mixed-effects modeling was used to evaluate changes in research attitudes and enrollment willingness as a function of time, amyloid result type (elevated/not elevated), and their interaction.

Results

The reasons most frequently endorsed for wanting to learn amyloid PET result was a "desire to contribute to research on Alzheimer's disease dementia" and "to inform preventative measures [one] might take (e.g., change diet, exercise, or other lifestyle changes)." Overall, participants reported understanding the results and found learning them useful. Satisfaction with the study visits was overwhelmingly high, with over 80% agreeing with visit usefulness and their satisfaction. Few differences were found between participants who learned an elevated and not elevated result. Over the course of the study, participants who learned an elevated amyloid PET result reported higher willingness to enroll in drug trials (beta: 0.12, p = 0.01) and lifestyle interventions (beta: 0.10, p = 0.02) compared to participants who learned a not elevated result.

Discussion

Formal incorporation of disclosure practices may encourage participant recruitment and retention within AD research.

Highlights

Participants wanted to learn their amyloid results to contribute to research.Satisfaction with disclosure and post-disclosure visits was high overall.Returning AD biomarkers can increase willingness to participate in research.

The Return of Biomarker Results in Research: Balancing Complexity, Precision, and Ethical Responsibility

Recent research aimed at the discovery, integration, and communication of health outcome measures (or "biomarkers") in Alzheimer's disease has raised challenging questions related to whether, how and when results from these investigations should be disclosed to research participants. Reflecting the apparent heterogeneity of many neurodegenerative diseases, biomarker or other risk factor results are often probabilistic, interactive, multi-modal, and selective. Such characteristics make it very complex to summarize and communicate to clinicians, researchers, and research participants. Whereas the format and content of academic literature is well-managed by the peer-review process, reporting individualized results to participants involves complex, sensitive, and ethical considerations. This paper describes three key factors to consider in decisions about the return of results to research participants: complexity, precision, and responsibility. The paper also presents six practical recommendations for implementing meaningful and ethical communication with research participants.

A Pragmatic, Investigator-Driven Process for Disclosure of Amyloid PET Scan Results to ADNI-4 Research Participants

BACKGROUND

Prior studies of Alzheimer's disease (AD) biomarker disclosure have answered important questions about individuals' safety after learning and comprehending their amyloid PET results; however, these studies have typically employed highly structured disclosure protocols and focused on the psychological impact of disclosure (e.g., anxiety, depression, and suicidality) in homogeneous populations. More work is needed to develop flexible disclosure protocols and study outcomes in ethnoculturally representative samples.

METHODS

The Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI) is formally incorporating amyloid PET disclosure into the newest protocol (ADNI-4). Participants across the cognitive spectrum who wish to know their amyloid PET results may learn them. The pragmatic disclosure process spans four timepoints: (1) a pre-disclosure visit, (2) the PET scan and its read, (3) a disclosure visit, and (4) a post-disclosure check-in. This process applies to all participants, with slight modifications to account for their cognitive status. In designing this process, special emphasis was placed on utilizing investigator discretion. Participant measures include perceived risk of dementia, purpose in life, and disclosure satisfaction. Investigator assessment of the disclosure visit (e.g., challenges encountered, topics discussed, etc.) is also included.

RESULTS

Data collection is ongoing. Results will allow for more robust characterization of the impact of learning amyloid PET results on individuals and describe the perspectives of investigators.

CONCLUSION

The pragmatic design of the disclosure process in ADNI-4 coupled with the novel participant and investigator data will inform future disclosure practices. This is especially important as disclosure of biomarker results expands in research and care.

Biomarker disclosure protocols in prodromal Alzheimer's disease clinical trials

INTRODUCTION

The development of biomarkers for Alzheimer's disease (AD) has allowed researchers to increase sample homogeneity and test candidate treatments earlier in the disease. The integration of biomarker "screening" criteria should be met with a parallel implementation of standardized methods to disclose biomarker testing results to research participants; however, the extent to which protocolized disclosure occurs in trials is unknown.

METHODS

We reviewed the literature to identify prodromal AD trials published in the past 10 years. From these, we quantified the frequency of biomarker disclosure reporting and the depth of descriptions provided.

RESULTS

Of 30 published trials using positron emission tomography or cerebrospinal fluid-based amyloid positivity as an eligibility criterion, only one mentioned disclosure, with no details on methods.

DISCUSSION

Possible reasons for and implications of this information gap are discussed. Recommendations are provided for trialists considering biomarker screening as part of intervention trials focused on prodromal AD.

HIGHLIGHTS

Few prodromal Alzheimer's disease (AD) trial papers discuss biomarker disclosure. Disclosure has implications for participants, family members, and trial success. Disclosure must be consistently integrated and reported in prodromal AD trials. Best practice guidelines and training resources for disclosure are needed.

The importance of the dyad: Participant perspectives on sharing biomarker results in Alzheimer's disease research

BACKGROUND

In the asymptomatic "preclinical" phase of Alzheimer's disease (AD), abnormal biomarkers indicate risk for developing cognitive impairment. Biomarker information is increasingly being disclosed to participants in research settings, and biomarker testing and results disclosure will be implemented in clinical settings in the future. Biomarker disclosure has potential psychosocial benefits and harms, impacting affected individuals and their support person(s). Limited data are available about with whom research participants share their results, information that will be necessary to develop disclosure protocols and post-disclosure resources. Additionally, existing research has been conducted in largely White cohorts, limiting applicability to future clinical populations.

METHODS

We enrolled a diverse cohort of 329 adults (184 non-Hispanic White and 145 Black/African American individuals) who previously participated in AD research. After reviewing a vignette describing a hypothetical biomarker research study, participants indicated their anticipated willingness to share biomarker results with loved ones, and what reactions they anticipated from others. Using mixed-methods analysis, we identified responses related to willingness to share results.

RESULTS

A majority (78.7%) were willing to share their results with support persons. Many (59.6%) felt it would not be difficult to share, and most (90.6%) believed their loved ones would be supportive. The most common reasons for sharing were to prepare for possible future AD (41.0% of respondents), while the most common reason for not sharing was to avoid worrying loved ones (4.8% of respondents). A total of 7.3% of respondents related reasons regarding being unsure about sharing.

DISCUSSION

Participants' interest in sharing results supports integrating support persons into AD biomarker research, and may help maximize potential benefits for participants. Communicating with this "dyad" of research participant and support person(s) may improve involvement in research, and help prepare for implementation of clinical biomarker testing by clarifying communication preferences and the influence of support persons on psychosocial outcomes.

Testing for Alzheimer Disease Biomarkers and Disclosing Results Across the Disease Continuum

Three pathologic processes are characteristic of Alzheimer disease (AD): β-amyloid, hyperphosphorylated tau, and neurodegeneration. Our understanding of AD is undergoing a transformation due to our ability to measure biomarkers of these processes across different stages of cognitive impairment. There is growing interest in using AD biomarker tests in care and research and, with this, a growing need for guidance on how to return these sensitive results to patients and participants. Here, we propose a 5-step approach informed by clinical and research experience designing and implementing AD biomarker disclosure processes, extant evidence describing how individuals react to AD biomarker information, ethics, law, and the literature on breaking bad news. The clinician should (1) determine the appropriateness of AD biomarker testing and return of results for the particular patient or research participant. If testing is appropriate, the next steps are to (2) provide pretest education and seek consent for testing from the individual and their support person, (3) administer testing, (4) return the results to the individual and their support person, and (5) follow-up to promote the recipient's well-being.

Understanding Online Registry Facilitators and Barriers Experienced by Black Brain Health Registry Participants: The Community Engaged Digital Alzheimer's Research (CEDAR) Study

BACKGROUND

Failure of Alzheimer's disease and related diseases (ADRD) research studies to include and engage Black participants is a major issue, which limits the impact and generalizability of research findings. Little is known about participation of Black adults in online ADRD-related research registries.

OBJECTIVES

As part of the Community Engaged Digital Alzheimer's Research (CEDAR) Study, this study aims to increase our understanding of facilitators and barriers of Black adults to participating in ADRD-related online registries, as well as to understand their preferences for communication channels.

DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, MEASUREMENTS

We invited all Black participants enrolled in the Brain Health Registry (BHR) to complete a cross-sectional online survey. The survey consisted of rating scales and open-text questions asking about their attitudes towards brain health research, reasons for joining and continuing to participate in BHR, difficulties with participating, and preferences for modes of contact and website usage.

RESULTS

Of all invited Black BHR participants (N=3,636), 198 (5.5%) completed the survey. The mean age was 58.4 (SD=11.3), mean years of education were 16.3 (SD=2.4), and 85.5% identified as female. Reported facilitators for joining and continuing to participate in BHR were personal interest (e.g., learning more about own brain health) and altruism (e.g., helping research). Among additional registry features which could encourage return, receiving feedback or scores about BHR tasks was rated the highest. Of those who found BHR participation difficult (21%), the most frequent reason was time burden. The most preferred way of receiving study information was via email. Participants reported that the websites that they used the most were YouTube and Facebook.

DISCUSSION

The results of our study can inform the development of culturally-responsive registry features and engagement efforts to improve inclusion and participation of Black adults in online ADRD research. Providing participants with feedback about their registry performance and reducing the number of registry tasks are among the recommended strategies.

Factors influencing the participation of Black and White Americans in Alzheimer's disease biomarker research

Introduction

Alzheimer's disease (AD) is a public health priority. AD biomarkers may vary based on race, but the recruitment of diverse participants has been challenging.

Methods

Three groups of Black and White participants with and without prior research advocacy or participation were interviewed individually or in focus groups to better understand perspectives related to AD biomarker research participation. A rapid qualitative data analytic approach was used to analyze the data.

Results

Identified barriers to AD biomarker research participation included hesitancy due to fear, distrust of research and researchers, lack of relevant knowledge, and lack of research test results disclosure. Drivers for engagement in biomarker research procedures included knowledge about research, AD, and related clinical procedures, perceived benefits of participation, and outreach from trusted sources.

Discussion

Participants' comments related to the need for diversity in research and desire for results disclosure suggest opportunities to engage Black individuals.

Highlights

Black Americans experience more salient barriers to Alzheimer's disease (AD) biomarker research participation.Concerns about research diversity influence research participation decisions.Research test disclosure may affect research participation and retention.

Moving beyond disclosure: Stages of care in preclinical Alzheimer's disease biomarker testing

Alzheimer's disease (AD) begins with an asymptomatic "preclinical" phase, in which abnormal biomarkers indicate risk for developing cognitive impairment. Biomarker information is increasingly being disclosed in research settings, and is moving toward clinical settings with the development of cheaper and non-invasive testing. Limited research has focused on the safety and psychological effects of disclosing biomarker results to cognitively unimpaired adults. However, less is known about how to ensure equitable access and robust counseling for decision-making before testing, and how to effectively provide long-term follow-up and risk management after testing. Using the framework of Huntington's disease, which is based on extensive experience with disclosing and managing risk for a progressive neurodegenerative condition, this article proposes a conceptual model of pre-disclosure, disclosure, and post-disclosure phases for AD biomarker testing. Addressing research questions in each phase will facilitate the transition of biomarker testing into clinical practice.