Valuing biomarker diagnostics for dementia care: enhancing the reflection of patients, their care-givers and members of the wider public

Views on the Desirability of Diagnosing Sporadic Cerebral Amyloid Angiopathy with Biological Evidence

BACKGROUND

Sporadic cerebral amyloid angiopathy (sCAA) research of the past decade has increasingly focused on developing biomarkers that allow for an earlier and more accurate sCAA-diagnosis. Considering that sCAA does not have treatment options available (yet), more fundamental questions concerning the desirability of using such early-sCAA biomarkers in clinical practice need to be addressed.

OBJECTIVE

In this qualitative interview study, we aim to explore the views of vascular neurologists on the purpose and possible consequences of an earlier and more accurate sCAA-diagnosis, using new biomarkers.

METHODS

Vascular neurologists from around the world were approached via email and interviewed via video call. Topics included views on current sCAA diagnostic practice, considerations on the use of new biomarkers, and expectations and hopes for the future. All interviews were transcribed ad verbatim using a transcription program (Otter.ai). Transcripts were analyzed using inductive content analysis.

RESULTS

We interviewed 14 vascular neurologists. Views regarding the desirability of new sCAA-biomarkers differed substantially between interviewees as to when and in whom these biomarkers could be of benefit in clinical practice. These differences were mainly reported with regards to prognosis, risk stratification, and biological precision, between general stroke neurologists and neurologists with specific sCAA-expertise.

CONCLUSION

Views on the use of sCAA-biomarkers in clinical practice differ substantially between vascular neurologists. There is particularly no consensus regarding when, and in whom sCAA biomarkers could be useful in clinical practice.

Physician-Assisted Suicide in Dementia: Paradoxes, Pitfalls and the Need for Prudence

There has been an increasing drive towards the legalization of physician-assisted suicide (PAS) in patients with dementia, particularly in patients with advanced disease and severe cognitive impairment. Advocacy for this position is often based on utilitarian philosophical principles, on appeals to the quality of life of the patient and their caregiver(s), or on economic constraints faced by caregivers as well as healthcare systems. In this paper, two lines of evidence against this position are presented. First, data on attitudes towards euthanasia for twenty-eight countries, obtained from the World Values Survey, is analyzed. An examination of this data shows that, paradoxically, positive attitudes towards this procedure are found in more economically advanced countries, and are strongly associated with specific cultural factors. Second, the literature on existing attitudes towards PAS in cases of dementia, along with ethical arguments for and against the practice, is reviewed and specific hazards for patients, caregivers and healthcare professionals are identified. On the basis of these findings, the author suggests that the practice of PAS in dementia is not one that can be widely or safely endorsed, on both cultural and ethical grounds. Instead, the medical field should work in collaboration with governmental, social welfare and patient advocacy services to ensure optimal physical, emotional and financial support to this group of patients and their caregivers.

Attitudes towards prediction and early diagnosis of late-onset dementia: a comparison of tested persons and family caregivers

Background: The focus on early detection of dementia and Mild Cognitive Impairment (MCI) diagnosis has entered the clinics' daily routine. However, there exist epistemic uncertainty and moral concerns whether early detection and prediction of dementia is clinically meaningful for the people affected, primarily due to the lack of effective treatment options.Methods: In this study, we adopted qualitative research methods. Twelve face-to-face interviews with tested persons with MCI and early dementia and five focus groups with family caregivers were conducted in Germany in order to explore and analyze their understanding and assessments of early detection and prediction of dementia in memory clinics.Results: Our study revealed that there was much uncertainty among the participants diagnosed with MCI especially when compared to the participants with an early dementia diagnosis. Their uncertainty concerned the meaning of a 'MCI' diagnosis as well as the validity of specific biomarker test results. Moreover, we identified different lines of moral issues for and against the tests among the participants. They include a) inter-familiar conflicts of interest in the initial phase of memory problems, b) the hope for (future) therapy and prevention, c) the desire for easier access to experts in memory clinics, d) advance planning, e) stigmatization, as well as, f) suicide as an option to avoid the future loss of self-determination.Conclusions: Current clinical and communication strategies only partly address the perspectives and needs of the affected. A standardized and ethically reflected procedure of the information provided by professionals before testing and afterwards, during disclosure, seems necessary. Further, longitudinal studies are needed to improve our knowledge about the experiences tested persons and family caregivers have with different levels of stigma.

Ambivalent anticipation: How people with Alzheimer's disease value diagnosis in current and envisioned future practices

Emergent biomarkers for Alzheimer's disease (AD) are expected to provide earlier and more precise diagnoses. However, even if biomarkers live up to these expectations, it cannot be taken for granted that patients actually would value an earlier and more precise AD diagnosis. Based on an interview study, we aim to give more insight into the value of an AD diagnosis for patients, in existing as well as future practices, by describing how a diagnosis enables or may enable knowing, foreseeing, and acting in relation to one's illness. Our findings show that how people with AD value a diagnosis is not only characterised by great variety, as previous studies have shown, but also by profound ambivalence for the individual. With lack of treatment and poor prognostics as the status quo, this ambivalence and the way people deal with it are particularly linked to the far-from-straightforward capacity of an AD diagnosis to support anticipation of the future. We argue that in otherwise unchanged practices the envisioned future biomarker-based diagnostics are unlikely to reduce the ambivalence about receiving an AD diagnosis and, in particular, the challenges of anticipation that it entails. Rather, biomarker-based innovations may even reinforce some of the main issues involved.