On the personal utility of Alzheimer's disease-related biomarker testing in the research context

Beyond severity: utility as a criterion for setting the scope of RGCS

Reproductive genetic carrier screening (RGCS) allows prospective parents to identify and act upon their chances of having a child with a genetic condition. In deciding which genetic conditions to include in RGCS, severity is often used as a criterion. However, the concept is inherently complex, subjective and multidimensional, and determinations of severity will remain intractably contested. We propose the concept of utility as a criterion for setting the scope of RGCS, and put forward two central arguments for doing so. First, utility is a more appropriate and effective concept as it responds to context and makes an explicit connection between the purpose of RGCS and the value of information obtained for that purpose: namely, to facilitate reproductive decision-making. Utility comprises both clinical and personal utility, and varies according to the availability and accessibility of reproductive options, including pre-implantation genetic testing, prenatal genetic diagnosis, and termination of pregnancy. Second, there are ethical reasons for preferring utility over severity. Utility is a property of the information gleaned from RGCS, while severity is a property of a genetic condition or of an instance of this condition in a person. While consideration of the severity of genetic conditions is not lost when focusing on utility, the need to rely on value judgements regarding the quality of life of people who live with genetic conditions is circumvented. Therefore, utility should replace severity as justification for the inclusion of genetic conditions in RGCS programmes.

Validation of the "Perceptions Regarding pRE-Symptomatic Alzheimer's Disease Screening" (PRE-ADS) Questionnaire in the German Population: Attitudes, Motivations, and Barriers to Pre-Symptomatic Dementia Screening

BACKGROUND

Attitudes, motivations, and barriers to pre-symptomatic screening for Alzheimer's disease (AD) in the general population are unclear, and validated measurement tools are lacking.

OBJECTIVE

Translation and validation of the German version of the "Perceptions regarding pRE-symptomatic Alzheimer's Disease Screening" (PRE-ADS) questionnaire.

METHODS

A convenience sample (N = 256) was recruited via an online platform. Validation of the PRE-ADS-D consisted of assessments of reliability, structural validity using Principal Component Analysis (PCA) and Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) and construct validity using known-group tests. A subscale "Acceptability of Screening", with 5 PRE-ADS-D items, was extracted to measure acceptance of screening in clinical practice. The STROBE checklist was used for reporting.

RESULTS

EFA revealed a three-factor model for the PRE-ADS-D. Acceptable to good internal consistency was found for the 25-item scale (α= 0.78), as well as for the three factors "Concerns about Screening" (α= 0.85), "Intention to be Screened" (α= 0.87), and "Preventive Health Behaviors" (α= 0.81). Construct validity was confirmed for both the 25-item PRE-ADS-D and the "Acceptability of Screening" scale (α= 0.91). Overall, 51.2% of the participants showed a preference for screening. Non-parametric tests were conducted to further explore group differences of the sample.

CONCLUSIONS

The PRE-ADS-D is a reliable and valid tool to measure attitudes, motives, and barriers regarding pre-symptomatic dementia screening in the German-speaking general population. Additionally, the subscale "Acceptability of Screening" demonstrated good construct validity and reliability, suggesting its promising potential as a practical tool in clinical practice.

Attitudes toward pre-symptomatic screening for Alzheimer's dementia in five European countries: a comparison of family members of people with Alzheimer's dementia versus non-family members

Introduction: Pre-symptomatic screening is getting more attention in healthcare as it detects the risk for developing neurodegenerative diseases like Alzheimer's disease (AD), which is very useful for treatment or prevention. AD screening could play an important role in individuals with at least one affected first-degree relative, but also without family history. As the demand for screening is rising worldwide, it is important to consider possible cross-cultural differences in attitudes toward pre-symptomatic screening in order to tailor healthcare services to the needs of each country. Objective: This study aims to investigate the attitudes of family members and non-family members of people with dementia toward pre-symptomatic screening and explore possible differences in attitudes across five European countries (Belgium, Germany, Greece, Spain, Turkey) using translated versions of the "Perceptions regarding pRE-symptomatic Alzheimer's Disease Screening" questionnaire (PRE-ADS). Methods: The multicultural sample (N = 650) was recruited from samples that were previously used in validation studies of the translated PRE-ADS versions. The subscale "Acceptability of Screening", consisting of five PRE-ADS items to specifically explore willingness to undergo screening, was created. Ιnternal consistency was measured, and structural validity was determined using Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA). Group comparisons were performed to investigate differences in attitudes toward pre-symptomatic AD screening regarding family history and country of origin using the PRE-ADS and the "Acceptability of Screening" mean scores. Results: Construct validity was acceptable for the PRE-ADS. Both the PRE-ADS (α = 0.76) and its subscale "Acceptability of Screening" (α = 0.90) had good internal consistency. Overall, 56.9% of the total sample expressed a positive intention toward pre-symptomatic AD screening. T-tests showed significantly higher mean scores of participants with an affected family member. An international comparison revealed differences in the "Acceptability of Screening" mean score across the five European countries. No cross-cultural differences were found for the PRE-ADS mean score after adjusting for confounding variables. Conclusion: The PRE-ADS and its subscale are reliable tools for assessing pre-symptomatic AD screening attitudes. Variations in the acceptability of screening seem to be linked to family history and cultural influences. Further research with larger samples is needed to explore underlying relationships.

Impact of sharing Alzheimer's disease biomarkers with individuals without dementia: A systematic review and meta-analysis of empirical data

INTRODUCTION

We conducted a systematic literature review and meta-analysis of empirical evidence on expected and experienced implications of sharing Alzheimer's disease (AD) biomarker results with individuals without dementia.

METHODS

PubMed, Embase, APA PsycInfo, and Web of Science Core Collection were searched according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Results from included studies were synthesized, and quantitative data on psychosocial impact were meta-analyzed using a random-effects model.

RESULTS

We included 35 publications. Most personal stakeholders expressed interest in biomarker assessment. Learning negative biomarker results led to relief and sometimes frustration, while positive biomarkers induced anxiety but also clarity. Meta-analysis of five studies including 2012 participants (elevated amyloid = 1324 [66%], asymptomatic = 1855 [92%]) showed short-term psychological impact was not significant (random-effect estimate = 0.10, standard error = 0.23, P = 0.65). Most professional stakeholders valued biomarker testing, although attitudes and practices varied considerably.

DISCUSSION

Interest in AD biomarker testing was high and sharing their results did not cause psychological harm.

HIGHLIGHTS

Most personal stakeholders expressed interest in Alzheimer's disease biomarker assessment. Personal motivations included gaining insight, improving lifestyle, or preparing for the future. There was no short-term psychological impact of sharing biomarker status, implying it can be safe. Most professional stakeholders valued biomarker testing, believing the benefits outweigh the risk. Harmonized guidelines on biomarker testing and sharing results are required.

Biomarkers of aging

Aging biomarkers are a combination of biological parameters to (i) assess age-related changes, (ii) track the physiological aging process, and (iii) predict the transition into a pathological status. Although a broad spectrum of aging biomarkers has been developed, their potential uses and limitations remain poorly characterized. An immediate goal of biomarkers is to help us answer the following three fundamental questions in aging research: How old are we? Why do we get old? And how can we age slower? This review aims to address this need. Here, we summarize our current knowledge of biomarkers developed for cellular, organ, and organismal levels of aging, comprising six pillars: physiological characteristics, medical imaging, histological features, cellular alterations, molecular changes, and secretory factors. To fulfill all these requisites, we propose that aging biomarkers should qualify for being specific, systemic, and clinically relevant.

Moral motivation regarding dementia risk testing among affected persons in Germany and Israel

Recent advances in biomarkers may soon make it possible to identify persons at high risk for late-onset Alzheimer's disease at a presymptomatic (preclinical) stage. Popular demand for testing is increasing despite the lack of cure and effective prevention options and despite uncertainties regarding the predictive value of biomarker tests. This underscores the relevance of the ethical, cultural and social implications of predictive testing and the need to advance the bioethical debate beyond considerations of clinical consequences. Our qualitative study included three groups of affected persons: People with mild neurocognitive disorder, their relatives and family caregivers of people with dementia. We explored their moral motivations regarding predictive, biomarker-based testing and preclinical diagnostics. We interviewed affected individuals in Germany and Israel (N=88; 44 participants in each country). Transcripts of 12 focus groups and 12 semistructured interviews were content analysed with a focus on the moral motivations of affected persons in their justification of why they accept or reject predictive testing and early diagnosis. We grouped the underlying aspects of moral motivation into four ethical categories: beneficence as a form of personal utility focusing on well-being, the ties of responsibility linking families and their individual members, the importance of self-determination by later life planning and notions of a good life. In general, cultural parallels among these motives were very obvious. Cultural variation occurred mainly in openness to suicide, scepticism about test validity and emphasis on personal autonomy. The study underscores the importance of counselling for life-planning issues and of informing test candidates about problems with test validity and about the ambiguity of test results.

Ethical Frameworks for Disclosure of Alzheimer Disease Biomarkers to Research Participants: Conflicting Norms and a Nuanced Policy

More and more frequently, clinical trials for Alzheimer disease (AD) are targeting cognitively unimpaired individuals who are at increased risk of developing the disease. It is not always clear whether AD biomarker information should be disclosed to research participants: on the one hand, research participants may be interested in learning this information because of its perceived utility, but on the other hand, learning this information may be harmful, as there are very few effective preventive or therapeutic options available for AD. In this article, we bring together three separate sets of ethical guidance literature: on the return of individual research results, on an individual's right to access personal data, and on transparent enrollment into clinical trials. Based on these literatures, we suggest policies for the disclosure of AD biomarker test results in longitudinal observational cohort studies, clinical trials, and hybrid research projects, such as the European Prevention of Alzheimer's Dementia (EPAD) project, in which we served as an ethics team. We also present and critically discuss recommendations for disclosure of AD biomarkers in practice. We underscore that, as long as the clinical validity of AD biomarkers remains limited, there are good reasons to avoid actively disclosing them to cognitively unimpaired research participants.

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.

Should Doctors Offer Biomarker Testing to Those Afraid to Develop Alzheimer's Dementia? : Applying the Method of Reflective Equilibrium for a Clinical Dilemma

An increasing number of people seek medical attention for mild cognitive symptoms at older age, worried that they might develop Alzheimer's disease. Some clinical practice guidelines suggest offering biomarker testing in such cases, using a brain scan or a lumbar puncture, to improve diagnostic certainty about Alzheimer's disease and enable an earlier diagnosis. Critics, on the other hand, point out that there is no effective Alzheimer treatment available and argue that biomarker tests lack clinical validity. The debate on the ethical desirability of biomarker testing is currently polarized; advocates and opponents tend to focus on their own line of arguments. In this paper, we show how the method of reflective equilibrium (RE) can be used to systematically weigh the relevant arguments on both sides of the debate to decide whether to offer Alzheimer biomarker testing. In the tradition of RE, we reflect upon these arguments in light of their coherence with other argumentative elements, including relevant facts (e.g. on the clinical validity of the test), ethical principles, and theories on societal ideals or relevant concepts, such as autonomy. Our stance in the debate therefore rests upon previously set out in-depth arguments and reflects a wide societal perspective.

Mapping the genetic landscape of early-onset Alzheimer's disease in a cohort of 36 families

BACKGROUND

Many families with clinical early-onset Alzheimer's disease (EOAD) remain genetically unexplained. A combination of genetic factors is not standardly investigated. In addition to monogenic causes, we evaluated the possible polygenic architecture in a large series of families, to assess if genetic testing of familial EOAD could be expanded.

METHODS

Thirty-six pedigrees (77 patients) were ascertained from a larger cohort of patients, with relationships determined by genetic data (exome sequencing data and/or SNP arrays). All families included at least one AD patient with symptom onset <70 years. We evaluated segregating rare variants in known dementia-related genes, and other genes or variants if shared by multiple families. APOE was genotyped and duplications in APP were assessed by targeted test or using SNP array data. We computed polygenic risk scores (PRS) compared with a reference population-based dataset, by imputing SNP arrays or exome sequencing data.

RESULTS

In eight families, we identified a pathogenic variant, including the genes APP, PSEN1, SORL1, and an unexpected GRN frameshift variant. APOE-ε4 homozygosity was present in eighteen families, showing full segregation with disease in seven families. Eight families harbored a variant of uncertain significance (VUS), of which six included APOE-ε4 homozygous carriers. PRS was not higher in the families combined compared with the population mean (beta 0.05, P = 0.21), with a maximum increase of 0.61 (OR = 1.84) in the GRN family. Subgroup analyses indicated lower PRS in six APP/PSEN1 families compared with the rest (beta -0.22 vs. 0.10; P = 0.009) and lower APOE burden in all eight families with monogenic cause (beta 0.29 vs. 1.15, P = 0.010). Nine families remained without a genetic cause or risk factor identified.

CONCLUSION

Besides monogenic causes, we suspect a polygenic disease architecture in multiple families based on APOE and rare VUS. The risk conveyed by PRS is modest across the studied families. Families without any identified risk factor render suitable candidates for further in-depth genetic evaluation.

Situational expectations and surveillance in families affected by dementia: organising uncertainties of ageing and cognition

Recent political processes have rendered people with dementia an increasingly surveilled population. Surveillance is a contentious issue within dementia research, spanning technological monitoring, biomarker research and epidemiological data gathering. This paper explores surveillance in the relationships of people affected by dementia, how older relatives both with and without diagnoses are surveilled in everyday interactions, and the importance of expectations in guiding surveillance. This paper presents data from 41 in-depth interviews with people affected by dementia living in the community in the United Kingdom. Agedness was a key contributor to expectations that a person may have dementia, based on previous experiences, media accounts and wider awareness. Expectations provoked surveillance in interactions, with participants looking for signs of dementia when interacting with older relatives. Older people also enacted self-surveillance, monitoring their own behaviour. Various actions could be attributed to dementia because interpretation is malleable, partly vindicating expectations while leaving some uncertainties. Expectant surveillance transformed people's experiences because they organised their own actions, and interpreted those of others, in line with pre-existing meanings. The ability to interpret behaviours to fit expectations can bring coherence to uncertainties of ageing, cognition and dementia, but risks ascribing dementia to many older people who straddle those uncertainties.

Considerations regarding a diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease before dementia: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

The NIA-AA research framework proposes a purely biological definition of Alzheimer's disease (AD). This implies that AD can be diagnosed based on biomarker abnormalities, irrespective of clinical manifestation. While this brings opportunities, it also raises challenges. We aimed to provide an overview of considerations regarding the disclosure of AD pathology before the onset of dementia.

METHODS

A systematic literature review was conducted and reported according to PRISMA guidelines. We searched PubMed, Embase, APA PsycINFO, and Web of Science Core Collection (on 10 December 2020) for references on conveying AD biomarker results to individuals without dementia. Our query combined variations on the terms Alzheimer's disease, disclosure, or diagnosis, preclinical or prodromal, and biomarkers. Two reviewers independently screened the resulting 6860 titles and abstracts for eligibility and examined 162 full-text records for relevance. We included theoretical articles in English, on communicating amyloid and/or tau results to individuals with mild cognitive impairment, subjective cognitive decline, or normal cognition. MAXQDA-software was used for inductive data analysis.

RESULTS

We included 27 publications. From these, we extracted 26 unique considerations, which we grouped according to their primary relevance to a clinical, personal, or societal context. Clinical considerations included (lack of) validity, utility, and disclosure protocols. Personal considerations covered psychological and behavioral implications, as well as the right to (not) know. Finally, societal considerations comprised the risk of misconception, stigmatization, and discrimination. Overall, views were heterogeneous and often contradictory, with emphasis on harmful effects.

CONCLUSIONS

We found 26 diverse and opposing considerations, related to a clinical, personal, or societal context, which are relevant to diagnosing AD before dementia. The theoretical literature tended to focus on adverse impact and rely on common morality, while the motivation for and implications of biomarker testing are deeply personal. Our findings provide a starting point for clinicians to discuss biomarker-based diagnosis with their patients, which will become even more relevant in light of the conditional approval of a first disease-modifying drug for AD.

What Influences the Willingness of Blacks and African Americans to Enroll in Preclinical Alzheimer's Disease Biomarker Research? A Qualitative Vignette Analysis

BACKGROUND

Alzheimer's disease (AD) begins with an asymptomatic "preclinical" phase, in which abnormal biomarkers indicate risk for developing cognitive impairment. Research is increasingly focused on validating biomarkers to improve reliable diagnosis and timely clinical treatment of AD. Most preclinical biomarker research lacks adequate representation of Black/African American and other racially and ethnically minoritized individuals, limiting the applicability of data to these groups. This may exacerbate existing disparities by hindering diagnosis and treatment among racially and ethnically minoritized individuals.

OBJECTIVE

Understand the factors influencing willingness of Blacks/African Americans to participate in AD biomarker research and identify opportunities to improve enrollment.

METHODS

We enrolled Blacks/African Americans (N = 145) between 46-85 years of age who had previously participated in AD research. Participants gave open-ended responses to a vignette describing a hypothetical biomarker research study. Using qualitative content analysis, we identified themes that motivated and discouraged enrollment in AD biomarker research.

RESULTS

Participant responses were categorized into several themes. Themes motivating participation included a desire to know their biomarker results and to support research. Major themes discouraging participation included concerns about potential negative psychological outcomes to learning one's increased risk for AD, doubt about the usefulness of testing, and worry about the potential physical harms of testing.

CONCLUSION

Understanding themes motivating and discouraging AD preclinical biomarker research participation may inform research material development, approach to community engagement, and/or trial design to increase enrollment of Blacks/African Americans.

Dementia risk communication. A user manual for Brain Health Services-part 3 of 6

Growing evidence suggests dementia incidence can be reduced through prevention programs targeting risk factors. To accelerate the implementation of such prevention programs, a new generation of brain health services (BHS) is envisioned, involving risk profiling, risk communication, risk reduction, and cognitive enhancement. The purpose of risk communication is to enable individuals at risk to make informed decisions and take action to protect themselves and is thus a crucial step in tailored prevention strategies of the dementia incidence. However, communicating about dementia risk is complex and challenging.In this paper, we provide an overview of (i) perspectives on communicating dementia risk from an ethical, clinical, and societal viewpoint; (ii) insights gained from memory clinical practice; (iii) available evidence on the impact of disclosing APOE and Alzheimer's disease biomarker test results gathered from clinical trials and observational studies; (iv) the value of established registries in light of BHS; and (v) practical recommendations regarding effective strategies for communicating about dementia risk.In addition, we identify challenges, i.e., the current lack of evidence on what to tell on an individual level-the actual risk-and on how to optimally communicate about dementia risk, especially concerning worried yet cognitively unimpaired individuals. Ideally, dementia risk communication strategies should maximize the desired impact of risk information on individuals' understanding of their health/disease status and risk perception and minimize potential harms. More research is thus warranted on the impact of dementia risk communication, to (1) evaluate the merits of different approaches to risk communication on outcomes in the cognitive, affective and behavioral domains, (2) develop an evidence-based, harmonized dementia risk communication protocol, and (3) develop e-tools to support and promote adherence to this protocol in BHSs.Based on the research reviewed, we recommend that dementia risk communication should be precise; include the use of absolute risks, visual displays, and time frames; based on a process of shared decision-making; and address the inherent uncertainty that comes with any probability.

Communicating 5-Year Risk of Alzheimer's Disease Dementia: Development and Evaluation of Materials that Incorporate Multiple Genetic and Biomarker Research Results

BACKGROUND

Cognitively normal (CN) older adults participating in Alzheimer's disease (AD) research increasingly ask for their research results-including genetic and neuroimaging findings-to understand their risk of developing AD dementia. AD research results are typically not returned for multiple reasons, including possible psychosocial harms of knowing one is at risk of a highly feared and untreatable disease.

OBJECTIVE

We developed materials that convey information about 5-year absolute risk of developing AD dementia based on research results.

METHODS

20 CN older adults who received a research brain MRI result were interviewed regarding their wishes for research results to inform material development (Pilot 1). Following material development, 17 CN older adults evaluated the materials for clarity and acceptability (Pilot 2). All participants were community-dwelling older adults participating in longitudinal studies of aging at a single site.

RESULTS

Participants want information on their risk of developing AD dementia to better understand their own health, satisfy curiosity, inform family, and future planning. Some articulated concerns, but the majority wanted to know their risk despite the limitations of information. Participants found the educational materials and results report clear and acceptable, and the majority would want to know their research results after reviewing them.

CONCLUSION

These materials will be used in a clinical study examining the psychosocial and cognitive effects of offering research results to a cohort of CN older adults. Future AD research may incorporate the return of complex risk information to CN older adults, and materials are needed to communicate this information.

Novel drug candidates targeting Alzheimer's disease: ethical challenges with identifying the relevant patient population

Intensive research is carried out to develop a disease-modifying drug for Alzheimer's disease (AD). The development of drug candidates that reduce Aß or tau in the brain seems particularly promising. However, these drugs target people at risk for AD, who must be identified before they have any, or only moderate, symptoms associated with the disease. There are different strategies that may be used to identify these individuals (eg, population screening, cascade screening, etc). Each of these strategies raises different ethical challenges. In this paper, we analyse these challenges in relation to the risk stratification for AD necessary for using these drugs. We conclude that the new drugs must generate large health benefits for people at risk of developing AD to justify the ethical costs associated with current risk stratification methods, benefits much larger than current drug candidates have. This conclusion raises a new set of ethical questions that should be further discussed.

The Framing of "Alzheimer's Disease": Differences Between Scientific and Lay Literature and Their Ethical Implications

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

The meaning of Alzheimer's disease (AD) is changing in research. It now refers to a pathophysiological process, regardless of whether clinical symptoms are present. In the lay literature, on the other hand, AD is understood as a form of dementia. This raises the question of whether researchers and the lay audience are still talking about the same thing. If not, how will these different understandings of AD shape perspectives on (societal) needs for people with AD?

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

We use framing analysis to retrieve the understandings of the term AD that are upheld in the research literature and in national Dutch newspaper articles. We make explicit how the framings of AD steer our normative attitudes toward the disease.

RESULTS

In the analyzed research articles, AD is framed as a pathological cascade, reflected by biomarkers, starting in cognitively healthy people and ending, inevitably, in dementia. In the lay literature, AD is used as a synonym for dementia, and an AD diagnosis is understood as an incentive to enjoy "the time that is left."

DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS

The two different uses of the term AD in research and in the lay literature may result in misunderstandings, especially those research framings that falsely imply that people with AD biomarkers will inevitably develop dementia. Adoption of the research understanding of AD in clinical practice will have normative implications for our view on priority setting in health care. For example, it legitimizes biomarker testing in people without dementia as improving "diagnostic" certainty.

Disclosure of preclinical Alzheimer's disease biomarker results in research and clinical settings: Why, how, and what we still need to know

Disclosure of personal disease-related information to asymptomatic adults has been debated over the last century in medicine and research. Recently, Alzheimer's disease (AD) has been conceptualized as a continuum that begins with a "preclinical" stage in which biomarkers are present in the absence of cognitive impairment. Studies have begun assessing the safety, psychological, and behavioral effects of disclosing both AD-related genetic and biomarker information to cognitively unimpaired older adults. Yet, debate continues over the appropriate circumstances and methods for returning such information. This article outlines concerns with and rationale for AD biomarker disclosure and summarizes findings from prior studies. Overall, this article aims to describe and respond to key questions concerning disclosure of amyloid positron emission tomography scan results to asymptomatic adults in a research setting. Moving forward, such conditions are important to consider as interventions target the preclinical phase of AD and normalize disclosing biomarker information to cognitively unimpaired persons.

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.

Views on Early Diagnosis of Alzheimer's Disease Among Dutch Physicians: A Qualitative Interview Study

BACKGROUND

Hope for future treatments to prevent or slow down dementia motivates researchers to strive for ever-earlier diagnoses of Alzheimer's disease (AD) based on biomarkers, even before symptoms occur. But is a biomarker-based early diagnosis desirable in clinical practice?

OBJECTIVE

This study explores the ethical considerations that shape current clinical practice regarding early AD diagnostics and the use of biomarkers.

METHODS

In this qualitative study, Dutch physicians were interviewed. Topics included physicians' views concerning early AD diagnosis in persons with no or mild cognitive impairment, physicians' considerations regarding current and expected future practices of early AD diagnosis, the use of biomarkers, and the use of the concepts preclinical and prodromal AD. We analyzed the transcripts using directed content analysis.

RESULTS

15 general practitioners, neurologists, and geriatricians in the Netherlands were interviewed. Most of them interpreted an early AD diagnosis with an early diagnosis of dementia. We identified six clusters of considerations sometimes in favor but most often against pursuing an early AD diagnosis in people with no or mild cognitive impairment that influence physicians' diagnostic decision-making: preferences and characteristics of persons, test characteristics, impact on care, type of setting, disease concepts, and issues on a societal level.

CONCLUSION

The discussion concerning an early AD diagnosis based on biomarkers which is widely held in the scientific field, has not entered clinical practice structurally. A biomarker-based early diagnosis does not fit within Dutch physicians' views on what good care for people with no, subjective, or mild cognitive impairment should entail.

Primary Prevention of Dementia: An Ethical Review

Dementia poses important medical and societal challenges, and of all health risks people face in life, dementia is one of the most feared. Recent research indicates that up to about 40% of all cases of dementia might be preventable. A series of environmental, social, and medical risk-factors have been identified that should be targeted from midlife onwards when people are still cognitively healthy. At first glance, this seems not merely advisable, but even imperative. However, these new developments trigger a series of new ethical questions and concerns which have hardly been addressed to date. Pro-active ethical reflection, however, is crucial to ensure that the interests and well-being of those affected, ultimately all of us, are adequately respected. This is the goal of the current contribution. Against the background of a concrete case in primary dementia prevention, it provides a systematic overview of the current ethical literature and sketches an ethical research agenda. First, possible benefits of increased well-being must be balanced with the burdens of being engaged in particularly long-term interventions for which it is unclear whether they will ever pay out on a personal level. Second, while knowledge about one's options to maintain brain health might empower people, it might also undermine autonomy, put high social pressure on people, medicalize healthy adults, and stigmatize those who still develop dementia. Third, while synergistic effects might occur, the ideals of dementia prevention might also conflict with other health and non-health related values people hold in life.

Genetic testing for Alzheimer's disease: trends, challenges and ethical considerations

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Advances in personal genomics have made predictive genetic testing increasingly popular. The purpose of this review is to examine and summarize recent literature regarding the ethical concerns and considerations surrounding genetic testing for Alzheimer's disease.

RECENT FINDINGS

Four basic bioethical principles can be applied in the context of genetic testing: autonomy, nonmaleficence, beneficence and justice. The concepts of clinical validity, clinical utility and personal utility are also necessary for the ethical deliberation of genetic testing for Alzheimer's disease. Ethical considerations can differ among three distinct settings present in the literature: research, clinical and direct-to-consumer services. Studies have found that the negative psychosocial impact of genetic test results on the individual is limited, but emphasize the importance of pre/posttesting genetic counselling.

SUMMARY

The literature should ideally inform policy-making around genetic testing. There exists an urgent need for regulation, particularly in the direct-to-consumer (DTC) market, since interest for testing in this context is rapidly growing. Standardized protocols for disclosure should be developed, and there is a need to find ways to meet the growing need for genetic counselling. Importantly, comprehensive, evidence-based regulation requires that research be conducted in different contexts with more diverse participants.

Patient Stakeholder Versus Physician Preferences Regarding Amyloid PET Testing

BACKGROUND

Patient and caregiver perspectives on amyloid positron emission tomography (PET) use are largely unexplored, particularly as compared with clinician views.

METHODS

We surveyed clinicians, patients, caregivers, and dementia advocates on topics relating to an evidence-based guideline on amyloid PET use. Topic importance was rated on a 9-point scale. Patient stakeholder and clinician views were compared using the Mann-Whitney U test.

RESULTS

Patient representatives (n=107) rated all survey topics as equal to or more important than clinicians (n=114) except 1 item discussing potential harms of false-positive diagnoses. Differences between patient representative and clinician populations were greatest when comparing the competing values of false-positive and false-negative diagnoses and the value of testing asymptomatic individuals.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients and caregivers emphasized the importance of having a dementia diagnosis and placed more value on testing and outcomes for asymptomatic populations than clinicians. This underscores the importance of research investigating the effect of amyloid PET results on asymptomatic individuals and the need for amyloid PET ordering and disclosure standards.