Genetic risk assessment for adult children of people with Alzheimer's disease: the Risk Evaluation and Education for Alzheimer's Disease (REVEAL) study

APOE Genotype Disclosure Influences Decisions About Future Planning but not Adoption of Healthy Lifestyle Changes in Cognitively Unimpaired Individuals

BACKGROUND

Studies have shown apolipoprotein E (APOE) genotype disclosure to be safe and well-tolerated in cognitively unimpaired (CU) older adults. This study aimed to examine the effect of the disclosure process on decisions about future directives and health behaviors in community-dwelling CU older adults from the Butler Alzheimer's Prevention Registry (BAPR).

METHODS

CU APOE E4 non-carriers (n = 106) and carriers (n = 80) aged 58-78 completed in-person psychological readiness screening to undergo APOE disclosure. Follow-up assessments were completed online 3 days, 6 weeks, and 6 months post-disclosure. The primary outcomes were future directives, dietary habits, and physical activity scores.

RESULTS

Disclosure was associated with decision making on future directives in E4 carriers (t = 3.59, P = .01) at 6 months compared to baseline, but not non-carriers. Family history of memory impairment, SCD endorsement, and education consistently predicted scores on future directives. A significant interaction between E4+ and SCD endorsement on future directive scores was noted (OR = 163.06, 9.5-2,799.8). E4 + carrier status was associated with physical activity (W = 60,148, P = .005) but not dietary habits scores.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings indicate that disclosure led to a change in future directives but not protective health behaviors, specifically in E4 carriers. Future work will explore whether pairing disclosure with education about the role of lifestyle factors in AD risk and providing guidelines on making risk-lowering lifestyle modifications as an intervention approach leads to positive change.

Safety and Tolerability of APOE Genotyping and Disclosure in Cognitively Normal Volunteers From the Butler Alzheimer's Prevention Registry

AIMS

Alzheimer's disease (AD) is a gradually progressive neurodegenerative disease that ultimately results in total loss of cognitive and functional independence in older adults. This study aimed to examine the safety and tolerability of APOE disclosure in community-dwelling, cognitively normal (CN) older adults from the Butler Alzheimer's Prevention Registry (BAPR), and to determine whether APOE disclosure impacted participant's decisions to participate in AD clinical research.

METHODS

186 (N = 106 ∊4 non-carriers, 80 ∊4 carriers) CN older adults aged 58-78 from the BAPR completed 2 visits: one for psychological readiness screening and genotyping and one for APOE disclosure. Online follow-ups were completed 3 days, 6 weeks, and 6 months post-disclosure. Primary outcomes were scores on self-report measures of depression, anxiety, impact of events, and perceived risk of AD, along with enrollment in AD clinical trials.

RESULTS

∊4 carriers and non-carriers did not differ significantly on measures of depression, anxiety, or suicidal ideation over the 6-month follow-up period. ∊4 carriers reported higher impact of disclosure than non-carriers immediately after disclosure, but both groups' scores on impact of events measures remained sub-clinical. ∊4 carriers and non-carriers were equally likely to participate in AD research after disclosure, with genotype-dependent differences in type of clinical trial enrollment.

CONCLUSIONS

APOE genotyping and disclosure was safe and well tolerated in a group of CN, community-dwelling older adults, who were pre-screened after volunteering for AD research through BAPR. Implications for the inclusion of APOE genotyping and disclosure at AD clinical trial sites are discussed.

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.

Return of individual research results from genomic research: A systematic review of stakeholder perspectives

Despite the plethora of empirical studies conducted to date, debate continues about whether and to what extent results should be returned to participants of genomic research. We aimed to systematically review the empirical literature exploring stakeholders’ perspectives on return of individual research results (IRR) from genomic research. We examined preferences for receiving or willingness to return IRR, and experiences with either receiving or returning them. The systematic searches were conducted across five major databases in August 2018 and repeated in April 2020, and included studies reporting findings from primary research regardless of method (quantitative, qualitative, mixed). Articles that related to the clinical setting were excluded. Our search identified 221 articles that met our search criteria. This included 118 quantitative, 69 qualitative and 34 mixed methods studies. These articles included a total number of 118,874 stakeholders with research participants (85,270/72%) and members of the general public (40,967/35%) being the largest groups represented. The articles spanned at least 22 different countries with most (144/65%) being from the USA. Most (76%) discussed clinical research projects, rather than biobanks. More than half (58%) gauged views that were hypothetical. We found overwhelming evidence of high interest in return of IRR from potential and actual genomic research participants. There is also a general willingness to provide such results by researchers and health professionals, although they tend to adopt a more cautious stance. While all results are desired to some degree, those that have the potential to change clinical management are generally prioritized by all stakeholders. Professional stakeholders appear more willing to return results that are reliable and clinically relevant than those that are less reliable and lack clinical relevance. The lack of evidence for significant enduring psychological harm and the clear benefits to some research participants suggest that researchers should be returning actionable IRRs to participants.

Biomarker-Based Risk Prediction of Alzheimer’s Disease Dementia in Mild Cognitive Impairment: Psychosocial, Ethical, and Legal Aspects

Background: Today, a growing number of individuals with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) wish to assess their risk of developing Alzheimer’s disease (AD) dementia. The expectations as well as the effects on quality of life (QoL) in MCI patients and their close others through biomarker-based dementia risk estimation are not well studied. Objective: The PreDADQoL project aims at providing empirical data on effects of such prediction on QoL and at developing an ethical and legal framework of biomarker-based dementia risk estimation in MCI. Methods: In the empirical study, 100 MCI-patients and their close others will be recruited from two sites (Germany and Spain). They receive standardized counselling on cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) biomarker-based prediction of AD dementia and a risk disclosure based on their AD biomarker status. A mixed methods approach will be applied to assess outcomes. Results: The pilot-study yielded a specification of the research topics and newly developed questionnaires for the main assessment. Within this binational quantitative and qualitative study, data on attitudes and expectations toward AD risk prediction, QoL, risk communication, coping strategies, mental health, lifestyle changes, and healthcare resource utilization will be obtained. Together with the normative part of the project, an empirically informed ethical and legal framework for biomarker-based dementia risk estimation will be developed. Conclusion: The empirical research of the PreDADQoL study together with the ethical and legal considerations and implications will help to improve the process of counselling and risk disclosure and thereby positively affect QoL and health of MCI-patients and their close others in the context of biomarker-based dementia risk estimation.

Disclosing Genetic Risk of Alzheimer's Disease to Cognitively Unimpaired Older Adults: Findings from the Study of Knowledge and Reactions to APOE Testing (SOKRATES II)

BACKGROUND

Current practice guidelines recommend against Apolipoprotein E (APOE) testing. However, advances in Alzheimer's disease (AD) research and care may soon change this.

OBJECTIVE

To examine longitudinally the experience of learning an APOE result and, if an ɛ4 carrier, taking a disease-specific treatment to reduce one's risk of AD.

METHODS

Fifty ɛ4 carriers and 20 non-carriers completed semi-structured interviews 3 months and 15 months after APOE disclosure.

RESULTS

Individuals generally understand their APOE results. While non-carriers felt relief, ɛ4 carriers often described themselves as disappointed by their result but nevertheless glad to know. Carriers expressed concerns about stigma and discrimination, including in the workplace. Carriers adopted new health behaviors at higher rates than non-carriers and revised their future plans to account for their increased risk of AD. Individuals participating in research were hopeful that their participation would help them or others; individuals who learned they were at increased risk for AD but who could not participate in research were disappointed.

CONCLUSION

Providers disclosing APOE results should be sensitive to how APOE results shape emotions, self-perceptions, and attitudes about memory; raise concerns about stigma and discrimination in personal and professional relationships; influence health behaviors and decision-making; and can have follow-on effects on family members.

Effects of health literacy skills, educational attainment, and level of melanoma risk on responses to personalized genomic testing

OBJECTIVE

Few studies have examined how health literacy impacts responses to genetic information.

METHODS

We examined this issue among 145 English or Spanish-speaking adult primary care patients enrolled in a trial that offered testing for MC1R gene variants that confer moderately increased melanoma risk. We investigated whether health literacy skills, educational attainment, or melanoma risk were related to short-term cognitive and affective responses to genetic test results.

RESULTS

On average, participants found the test results to be highly believable and clear, with low levels of negative emotional responses and moderate levels of positive responses. In adjusted models, health literacy skills were significantly inversely associated with confusion (OR = 0.75, 95 % CI = 0.58, 0.96); those with higher education thought significantly less about their test results (β = -0.66), were less hopeful (β = -0.89), and had lower distress (β = -1.15). We also observed a significant interaction (p < .001) between health literacy and melanoma risk in affecting the frequency of thoughts about test results.

CONCLUSION

The findings indicate that health literacy skills may affect to what extent individuals elaborate cognitively on genetic information.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Patients with lower health literacy skills or education may need support in understanding genetic test results.

Polygenic risk scores for genetic counseling in psychiatry: Lessons learned from other fields of medicine

Polygenic risk scores (PRS) may aid in the identification of individuals at-risk for psychiatric disorders, treatment optimization, and increase in prognostic accuracy. PRS may also add significant value to genetic counseling. Thus far, integration of PRSs in genetic counseling sessions remains problematic because of uncertainties in risk prediction and other concerns. Here, we review the current utility of PRSs in the context of clinical psychiatry. By comprehensively appraising the literature in other fields of medicine including breast cancer, Alzheimer's Disease, and cardiovascular disease, we outline several lessons learned that could be applied to future studies and may thus benefit the incorporation of PRS in psychiatric genetic counseling. These include integrating PRS with environmental factors (e.g. lifestyle), setting up large-scale studies, and applying reproducible methods allowing for cross-validation between cohorts. We conclude that psychiatry may benefit from experiences in these fields. PRS may in future have a role in genetic counseling in clinical psychiatric practice, by advancing prevention strategies and treatment decision-making, thus promoting quality of life for (potentially) affected individuals.

Proof of Concept of a Personalized Genetic Risk Tool to Promote Smoking Cessation: High Acceptability and Reduced Cigarette Smoking

Relatively little is known about the possible effects of personalized genetic risk information on smoking, the leading preventable cause of morbidity and mortality. We examined the acceptability and potential behavior change associated with a personalized genetically informed risk tool (RiskProfile) among current smokers. Current smokers (n = 108) were enrolled in a pre-post study with three visits. At visit 1, participants completed a baseline assessment and genetic testing via 23andMe. Participants' raw genetic data (CHRNA5 variants) and smoking heaviness were used to create a tailored RiskProfile tool that communicated personalized risks of smoking-related diseases and evidence-based recommendations to promote cessation. Participants received their personalized RiskProfile intervention at visit 2, approximately 6 weeks later. Visit 3 involved a telephone-based follow-up assessment 30 days after intervention. Of enrolled participants, 83% were retained across the three visits. Immediately following intervention, acceptability of RiskProfile was high (M = 4.4; SD = 0.6 on scale of 1 to 5); at 30-day follow-up, 89% of participants demonstrated accurate recall of key intervention messages. In the full analysis set of this single-arm trial, cigarettes smoked per day decreased from intervention to 30-day follow-up [11.3 vs. 9.8; difference = 1.5; 95% confidence interval (0.6-2.4); P = 0.001]. A personalized genetically informed risk tool was found to be highly acceptable and associated with a reduction in smoking, although the absence of a control group must be addressed in future research. This study demonstrates proof of concept for translating key basic science findings into a genetically informed risk tool that was used to promote progress toward smoking cessation.Prevention Relevance: This study demonstrates that personal genetic information can be incorporated into a risk feedback tool that was highly acceptable to current smokers and associated with reductions in smoking. These findings may pave the way for effectiveness and implementation research on genetically-informed behavior change interventions to enhance cancer prevention efforts.

Genetic Sample Provision Among National Alzheimer's Coordinating Center Participants

BACKGROUND

Genetic data help detect preclinical Alzheimer's disease and target individuals for clinical trials, making genetic research engagement critical for continued advancement in dementia prevention and treatment.

OBJECTIVE

To understand what individual and institutional factors may relate to provision of genetic samples within the Alzheimer's Disease Centers.

METHODS

Data from the National Alzheimer's Coordinating Center Uniform Data Set (2009-2016) were obtained along with genetic sample availability. Logistic regression was used to assess independent contributions of demographic and clinical characteristics to the probability of sample provision. Sites contributing data completed a brief survey exploring regulatory and scientific issues related to genetic research engagement.

RESULTS

Just over half (52.1%) of the 27,519 unique participants had genetic data available. Female sex, white race, non-Hispanic ethnicity, normal cognition, and greater than 5 years of follow-up were associated with greater probability of availability. Sites identified refusals as the most frequent barrier to sample provision, followed by staff availability.

CONCLUSION

These results highlight the importance of strategies to promote minority engagement and encourage earlier genetic research participation.

The effect of physical activity on cognition relative to APOE genotype (PAAD-2): study protocol for a phase II randomized control trial

BACKGROUND

By 2050, the prevalence of Alzheimer's disease (AD) in the United States is predicted to reach 13.8 million. Despite worldwide research efforts, a cure for AD has not been identified. Thus, it is critical to identify preventive strategies that can reduce the risk of or delay the onset of AD. Physical activity (PA) has potential in this regard. This randomized clinical trial aims to (a) test the causal relationship between PA and AD-associated cognitive function for persons with a family history of AD (FH+), (b) determine the moderating role of apolipoprotein epsilon 4 (APOE4) carrier status on cognition, and (c) assess cerebral structure, cerebral function, and putative biomarkers as mediators of the effects of PA on cognition.

METHODS

We are recruiting cognitively normal, middle aged (40-65 years) sedentary adults with FH+. Participants are randomly assigned to a 12-month PA intervention for 3 days/week or to a control group maintaining their normal lifestyle. Saliva samples are taken at pre-test to determine APOE genotype. At pre-, mid-, and post-tests, participants complete a series of cognitive tests to assess information-processing speed, verbal and visual episodic memory, constructional praxis, mnemonic discrimination, and higher-order executive functions. At pre- and post-tests, brain imaging and blood biomarkers are assessed.

DISCUSSION

We hypothesize that 1) the PA group will demonstrate improved cognition compared with controls; 2) PA-derived cognitive changes will be moderated by APOE4 status; and 3) PA-induced changes in neural and blood biomarkers will contribute to cognitive changes and differ as a function of APOE4 status. Our results may provide important insights into the potential of PA to preserve neurocognitive function in people with a heightened risk of AD due to FH+ and as moderated by APOE4 status. By using sophisticated analytic techniques to assess APOE as a moderator and neurobiological mechanisms as mediators across trajectories of cognitive change in response to PA, we will advance our understanding of the potential of PA in protecting against AD.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03876314. Registered March 15, 2019.

Big Data Analytical Approaches to the NACC Dataset: Aiding Preclinical Trial Enrichment

BACKGROUND

Clinical trials increasingly aim to retard disease progression during presymptomatic phases of Mild Cognitive Impairment (MCI) and thus recruiting study participants at high risk for developing MCI is critical for cost-effective prevention trials. However, accurately identifying those who are destined to develop MCI is difficult. Collecting biomarkers is often expensive.

METHODS

We used only noninvasive clinical variables collected in the National Alzheimer's Coordinating Center (NACC) Uniform Data Sets version 2.0 and applied machine learning techniques to build a low-cost and accurate Mild Cognitive Impairment (MCI) conversion prediction calculator. Cross-validation and bootstrap were used to select as few variables as possible accurately predicting MCI conversion within 4 years.

RESULTS

A total of 31,872 unique subjects, 748 clinical variables, and additional 128 derived variables in NACC data sets were used. About 15 noninvasive clinical variables are identified for predicting MCI/aMCI/naMCI converters, respectively. Over 75% Receiver Operating Characteristic Area Under the Curves (ROC AUC) was achieved. By bootstrap we created a simple spreadsheet calculator which estimates the probability of developing MCI within 4 years with a 95% confidence interval.

CONCLUSIONS

We achieved reasonably high prediction accuracy using only clinical variables. The approach used here could be useful for study enrichment in preclinical trials where enrolling participants at risk of cognitive decline is critical for proving study efficacy, and also for developing a shorter assessment battery.

Stakeholders' Views on Early Diagnosis for Alzheimer's Disease, Clinical Trial Participation and Amyloid PET Disclosure: A Focus Group Study

Detection of Alzheimer's disease (AD) in an early stage is receiving increasing attention for a number of reasons, such as the failure of drug trials in more advanced disease stages, the demographic evolution, the financial impact of AD, and the approval of amyloid tracers for clinical use. Five focus group interviews with stakeholders (healthy elderly, informal caregivers, nursing staff, researchers, and clinicians) were conducted.. The verbatim transcripts were analysed via the Nvivo 11 software. Most stakeholder groups wanted to know their own amyloid PET scan result. However, differences occurred between FGs: two groups (informal caregivers and researchers) wanted to know, whilst in the three other groups (healthy elderly, nursing staff, and clinicians) FG members opted not to know or were still in doubt about their decision. Stakeholders provided insight into their reasons for wanting to know their amyloid PET scan result (e.g., the need for clarity, to inform relatives, to make arrangements), for not wanting to know their result, or why they were in doubt about their decision (e.g., fear of AD, not wanting to burden their social environment). Several advantages (e.g., to know what is going on with their health, to plan for the future) and disadvantages (e.g., absence of a disease modifying treatment, risks when undergoing tests) were mentioned as part of knowing their amyloid PET scan result. Certain considerations were clustered in a grey zone, in between advantage and disadvantage, such as the emotional consequences. Clinicians, researchers, and policymakers ought to be aware of the diversity of reasons for (not) wanting to know their result and how possible benefits and risks can be viewed differently. The current findings are of importance for future early diagnosis and disclosure of results in the research setting.

From information to follow-up: Ethical recommendations to facilitate the disclosure of amyloid PET scan results in a research setting

In the field of Alzheimer's disease research, the use of biomarkers such as amyloid positron emission tomography (PET) has become widespread over a relatively brief period of time. There is an increasing tendency in research studies and trials to switch from no disclosure under any condition toward a qualified disclosure of individual research results, such as amyloid PET scan results. This perspective article aims to evaluate the possible need for a modification of the available recommendations on amyloid PET scan disclosure, based on recent empirical evidence obtained within the field of amyloid PET. This article also applies the International Guideline for Good Clinical Practice to the field of amyloid PET disclosure. Hence, we propose several recommendations to facilitate amyloid PET disclosure while minimizing possible risks of amyloid disclosure in a research context.

Enhancing Autonomy in Biobank Decisions: Too Much of a Good Thing?

The opportunity to receive individual research results (IRRs) in accordance with personal preferences may incentivize biobank participation and maximize perceived benefit. This trial investigated the relationship between parents' preferences and intent to participate (ITP) in biobank research utilizing their child's genetic information. We randomized parents of pediatric patients to four hypothetical biobanks, one of which employed a preference-setting model for return of results regarding their child. ITP was highest among those desiring all types of IRRs (93.3%) and decreased as participants became increasingly selective with their preferences ( p < .0001). We demonstrated that most parents would participate in a biobank that allows for preference setting; however, those who set preferences to receive a narrower set of IRRs are less likely to participate.

Amnestic MCI patients' experiences after disclosure of their amyloid PET result in a research context

BACKGROUND

Biomarkers such as amyloid imaging are increasingly used for diagnosis in the early stages of Alzheimer's disease. Very few studies have examined this from the perspective of the patient. To date, there is only limited evidence about how patients experience and value disclosure in an early disease stage.

METHODS

Semistructured interviews were carried out with 38 patients with amnestic mild cognitive impairment as part of an investigator-driven diagnostic trial (EudraCT, 2013-004671-12; registered on 20 June 2014) in which participants could opt to know the binary outcome (positive/negative) result of their amyloid positron emission tomography (PET) scan. Verbatim transcripts of the interviews were evaluated using qualitative content analysis and NVivo 11 software.

RESULTS

Eight of 38 patients received a positive amyloid PET scan result, and the remaining 30 patients received a negative amyloid PET scan result. After disclosure of the result to the patients, we interviewed each patient twice: 2 weeks after disclosure and 6 months after disclosure. Patients had difficulties in repeating the exact words used during disclosure of their amyloid PET scan result by the neurologist; yet, they could recall the core message of the result in their own words. Some patients were confused by the terminology of an amyloid-positive/negative test result. At 6 months, two of eight patients with a positive amyloid PET scan result experienced emotional difficulties (sadness, feeling worried). Three of 30 patients with a negative amyloid PET scan result started to doubt whether they had received the correct result. Patients reported that they experienced advantages after the disclosure, such as information about their health status, the possibility of making practical arrangements, medication, enjoying life more, and a positive impact on relationships. They also reported disadvantages following disclosure, such as having emotional difficulties, feeling worried about when their symptoms might worsen, the risk of a more patronizing attitude by relatives, and the possibility of a wrong diagnosis.

CONCLUSIONS

This exploratory study shows that the majority of patients can accurately recall the information received during disclosure. The experienced advantages and disadvantages reported by our patients depended on the outcome of the result (positive or negative) and the interval of the conducted interview (2 weeks or 6 months after amyloid PET disclosure). Discrepancies were found between patients' expectations according to the interview prior to amyloid PET disclosure (Vanderschaeghe et al. [Neuroethics. 2017;10:281-97]) and their actual experiences after their amyloid PET disclosure.

Effect of Genetic Information and Information About Caffeine Content on Caffeine Withdrawal Symptoms

This study sought to test the effect of genetic information and information about the caffeine content of a beverage on caffeine withdrawal, specifically if: (1) being informed that one has tested positive for a gene related to caffeine withdrawal can produce an exaggerated caffeine withdrawal response during abstinence; (2) belief that one has consumed caffeine leads to a reduction in withdrawal symptoms when no caffeine is consumed. Regular coffee drinkers were given a bogus genetic test and were told either that they had tested positive or negative for a gene related to withdrawal. After 24-hour caffeine abstinence withdrawal symptoms were measured using a self-report caffeine withdrawal scale, and then again after a cup of decaffeinated coffee. Half the participants were told their coffee was caffeinated and half were told truthfully that it was decaffeinated. Participants told the coffee was caffeinated reported a greater reduction in withdrawal symptoms than those told it was decaffeinated. Differing genetic test result information produced no difference in reported withdrawal symptoms. These results indicate that information about the dose of caffeine administered can influence withdrawal symptoms, but that genetic information does not have a universal ability to produce nocebo effects across all sensory and cognitive domains.

Genomic sequencing in clinical practice: applications, challenges, and opportunities

The development of massively parallel sequencing (or next-generation sequencing) has facilitated a rapid implementation of genomic sequencing in clinical medicine. Genomic sequencing (GS) is now an essential tool for evaluating rare disorders, identifying therapeutic targets in neoplasms, and screening for prenatal aneuploidy. Emerging applications, such as GS for preconception carrier screening and predisposition screening in healthy individuals, are being explored in research settings and utilized by members of the public eager to incorporate genomic information into their health management. The rapid pace of adoption has created challenges for all stakeholders in clinical GS, from standardizing variant interpretation approaches in clinical molecular laboratories to ensuring that nongeneticist clinicians are prepared for new types of clinical information. Clinical GS faces a pivotal moment, as the vast potential of new quantities and types of data enable further clinical innovation and complicated implementation questions continue to be resolved.

Overall and domain-specific life satisfaction when living with familial Alzheimer's disease risk: A quantitative approach

In this study, we explored life satisfaction and sense of coherence in relation to biopsychosocial variables in individuals at risk for the development of familial Alzheimer's disease. Forty nine individuals (response rate: 96%) were interviewed. Life satisfaction was found to be high for the majority of participants. Those who were older than the expected age of onset of disease, those <6 years' inclusion in the Familial Alzheimer's disease biomarker study, and males tended to experience positive psychological health. Sense of coherence was positively associated with satisfaction with life as a whole, psychological health, vocation, and economy. Women seem to be more vulnerable than men, and attention should be given to those who have not passed the age of expected symptom onset. Early and recurrent counseling and psychosocial support were found to be essential. Issues related to vocation and economy are areas of concern, and are closely associated with sense of coherence, life satisfaction, and psychological health. This study emphasizes the importance of professional teams working together with the patient and their families.

Amnestic MCI Patients' Perspectives toward Disclosure of Amyloid PET Results in a Research Context

Background

Researchers currently are not obligated to share individual research results (IRR) with participants. This non-disclosure policy has been challenged on the basis of participants’ rights to be aware and in control of their personal medical information. Here, we determined how patients view disclosure of research PET results of brain amyloid and why they believe it is advantageous or disadvantageous to disclose.

Method

As a part of a larger diagnostic trial, we conducted semi-structured interviews with patients with amnestic Mild Cognitive Impairment (aMCI). Participants had the option to receive their brain amyloid PET scan result (i.e., their IRR). Interviews were conducted before they received their IRR.

Results

A total of 38 aMCI patients (100% of study participants) wanted to know their IRR. The two most frequently mentioned reasons for choosing IRR disclosure were to better understand their brain health status and to be better able to make informed decisions about future personal arrangements (e.g., inheritance tax, moving into a smaller house, end-of-life decisions, etc.). Emotional risk was mentioned as the primary disadvantage of knowing one’s IRR. On the other hand, non-disclosure was considered to be emotionally difficult also, as patients would be uncertain about their future health condition.

Conclusions

Many patients diagnosed clinically with aMCI want to know their brain amyloid test results, even though this knowledge may be disadvantageous to them. Knowing what is going on with their health and the ability to make informed decisions about their future were the two principal advantages mentioned for obtaining their amyloid PET results. Because of the overwhelming consensus of aMCI patients was to disclose their brain amyloid PET scan results, researchers should strongly consider releasing this information to research subjects.

APOE-related risk of mild cognitive impairment and dementia for prevention trials: An analysis of four cohorts

BACKGROUND

With the onset of prevention trials for individuals at high risk for Alzheimer disease, there is increasing need for accurate risk prediction to inform study design and enrollment, but available risk estimates are limited. We developed risk estimates for the incidence of mild cognitive impairment (MCI) or dementia among cognitively unimpaired individuals by APOE-e4 dose for the genetic disclosure process of the Alzheimer's Prevention Initiative Generation Study, a prevention trial in cognitively unimpaired APOE-e4/e4 homozygote individuals.

METHODS AND FINDINGS

We included cognitively unimpaired individuals aged 60-75 y, consistent with Generation Study eligibility criteria, from the National Alzheimer's Coordinating Center (NACC) (n = 5,073, 158 APOE-e4/e4), the Rotterdam Study (n = 6,399, 156 APOE-e4/e4), the Framingham Heart Study (n = 4,078, 67 APOE-e4/e4), and the Sacramento Area Latino Study on Aging (SALSA) (n = 1,294, 11 APOE-e4/e4). We computed stratified cumulative incidence curves by age (60-64, 65-69, 70-75 y) and APOE-e4 dose, adjusting for the competing risk of mortality, and determined risk of MCI and/or dementia by genotype and baseline age. We also used subdistribution hazard regression to model relative hazard based on age, APOE genotype, sex, education, family history of dementia, vascular risk, subjective memory concerns, and baseline cognitive performance. The four cohorts varied considerably in age, education, ethnicity/race, and APOE-e4 allele frequency. Overall, cumulative incidence was uniformly higher in NACC than in the population-based cohorts. Among APOE-e4/e4 individuals, 5-y cumulative incidence was as follows: in the 60-64-y age stratum, it ranged from 0% to 5.88% in the three population-based cohorts versus 23.06% in NACC; in the 65-69-y age stratum, from 9.42% to 10.39% versus 34.62%; and in the 70-75-y age stratum, from 18.64% to 33.33% versus 38.34%. Five-year incidence of dementia was negligible except for APOE-e4/e4 individuals and those over 70 y. Lifetime incidence (to age 80-85 y) of MCI or dementia for the APOE-e4/e4 individuals in the long-term Framingham and Rotterdam cohorts was 34.69%-38.45% at age 60-64 y, 30.76%-40.26% at 65-69 y, and 33.3%-35.17% at 70-75 y. Confidence limits for these estimates are often wide, particularly for APOE-e4/e4 individuals and for the dementia outcome at 5 y. In regression models, APOE-e4 dose and age both consistently increased risk, as did lower education, subjective memory concerns, poorer baseline cognitive performance, and family history of dementia. We discuss several limitations of the study, including the small numbers of APOE-e4/e4 individuals, missing data and differential dropout, limited ethnic and racial diversity, and differences in definitions of exposure and outcome variables.

CONCLUSIONS

Estimates of the absolute risk of MCI or dementia, particularly over short time intervals, are sensitive to sampling and a variety of methodological factors. Nonetheless, such estimates were fairly consistent across the population-based cohorts, and lower than those from a convenience cohort and those estimated in prior studies-with implications for informed consent and design for clinical trials targeting high-risk individuals.

Psychological, behavioral and social effects of disclosing Alzheimer's disease biomarkers to research participants: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Current Alzheimer's disease (AD) research initiatives focus on cognitively healthy individuals with biomarkers that are associated with the development of AD. It is unclear whether biomarker results should be returned to research participants and what the psychological, behavioral and social effects of disclosure are. This systematic review therefore examines the psychological, behavioral and social effects of disclosing genetic and nongenetic AD-related biomarkers to cognitively healthy research participants.

METHODS

We performed a systematic literature search in eight scientific databases. Three independent reviewers screened the identified records and selected relevant articles. Results extracted from the included articles were aggregated and presented per effect group.

RESULTS

Fourteen studies met the inclusion criteria and were included in the data synthesis. None of the identified studies examined the effects of disclosing nongenetic biomarkers. All studies but one concerned the disclosure of APOE genotype and were conducted in the USA. Study populations consisted largely of cognitively healthy first-degree relatives of AD patients. In this group, disclosure of an increased risk was not associated with anxiety, depression or changes in perceived risk in relation to family history. Disclosure of an increased risk did lead to an increase in specific test-related distress levels, health-related behavior changes and long-term care insurance uptake and possibly diminished memory functioning.

CONCLUSION

In cognitively healthy research participants with a first-degree relative with AD, disclosure of APOE ε4-positivity does not lead to elevated anxiety and depression levels, but does increase test-related distress and results in behavior changes concerning insurance and health. We did not find studies reporting the effects of disclosing nongenetic biomarkers and only one study included people without a family history of AD. Empirical studies on the effects of disclosing nongenetic biomarkers and of disclosure to persons without a family history of AD are urgently needed.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

PROSPERO international prospective register for systematic reviews CRD42016035388 . Registered 19 February 2016.

Attitudes of Research Participants and the General Public Regarding Disclosure of Alzheimer Disease Research Results

IMPORTANCE

Results of Alzheimer disease (AD) research assessments typically are not disclosed to participants. Recent research has suggested interest in disclosure, but, to our knowledge, few studies have accounted for awareness of potential benefits and limitations of disclosure.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the attitudes of cognitively normal research participants and members of the general public regarding disclosure of AD research results.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

Participants in a longitudinal aging study (Alzheimer Disease Research Center [ADRC]) were given preintervention and postintervention surveys about disclosure attitudes. In a general public sample (The American Panel Survey), participants responded to a similar survey about disclosure attitudes.

INTERVENTIONS

Participants in the ADRC sample were randomly assigned to a group (n = 119) that read an education intervention about the usefulness of AD biomarkers or to a placebo group (n = 100) that read as its intervention general information about the ADRC. Participants in the general public sample read a brief vignette describing participation in a longitudinal AD study.

MAIN OUTCOME AND MEASURE

Interest in disclosure of AD research results.

RESULTS

Cognitively normal ADRC participants (n = 219) were 60.7% (n = 133) female, 83.6% (n = 183) of white race, and reported a mean of 15.91 years of education. Twenty-nine individuals refused participation. The American Panel Survey participants (n = 1418) indicated they did not have AD and were 50.5% (n = 716) female, 76.7% (n = 1087) of white race, and reported a mean of 13.85 years of education. Overall, 77.6% of eligible participants (1583 of 2041) completed the survey in July 2014. Interest in disclosure was high among the ADRC participants (55.1% [119 of 216] were "extremely interested"). Viewing the education intervention predicted lower interest in disclosure (odds ratio, 2.01; 95% CI, 1.15-3.53; P = .02). High subjective risk of AD, a family history of AD, and minimal attendance at research meetings were associated with high interest after the intervention. In the general public, interest was lower overall (12.5% [174 of 1389] were "extremely interested"), but the subset of participants most likely to join an AD research study reported higher interest (43.5% [40 of 92] were extremely interested).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Experience with AD appears to increase interest in disclosure of AD research results. Learning about potential limitations of disclosure somewhat tempered interest. These findings should inform the development of disclosure policies for asymptomatic individuals in AD studies.

Disclosing Pleiotropic Effects During Genetic Risk Assessment for Alzheimer Disease: A Randomized Trial

BACKGROUND

Increasing use of genetic testing raises questions about disclosing secondary findings, including pleiotropic information.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the safety and behavioral effect of disclosing modest associations between apolipoprotein E (APOE) genotype and coronary artery disease (CAD) risk during APOE-based genetic risk assessments for Alzheimer disease (AD).

DESIGN

Randomized, multicenter equivalence clinical trial. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT00462917).

SETTING

4 teaching hospitals.

PARTICIPANTS

257 asymptomatic adults were enrolled, 69% of whom had 1 AD-affected first-degree relative.

INTERVENTION

Disclosure of genetic risk information about AD and CAD (AD+CAD) or AD only (AD-only).

MEASUREMENTS

Primary outcomes were Beck Anxiety Inventory (BAI) and Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale (CES-D) scores at 12 months. Secondary outcomes were all measures at 6 weeks and 6 months and test-related distress and health behavior changes at 12 months.

RESULTS

At 12 months, mean BAI scores were 3.5 in both the AD-only and AD+CAD groups (difference, 0.0 [95% CI, -1.0 to 1.0]), and mean CES-D scores were 6.4 and 7.1 in the AD-only and AD+CAD groups, respectively (difference, 0.7 [CI, -1.0 to 2.4]). Both confidence bounds fell within the equivalence margin of ±5 points. Among carriers of the APOE ε4 allele, distress was lower in the AD+CAD groups (difference, -4.8 [CI, -8.6 to -1.0]) (P = 0.031 for the interaction between group and APOE genotype). Participants in the AD+CAD groups also reported more health behavior changes, regardless of APOE genotype.

LIMITATIONS

Outcomes were self-reported by volunteers without severe anxiety, severe depression, or cognitive problems. Analyses omitted 33 randomly assigned participants.

CONCLUSION

Disclosure of pleiotropic information did not increase anxiety or depression and may have decreased distress among persons at increased risk for 2 conditions. Providing risk modification information about CAD improved health behaviors. Findings highlight the potential benefits of disclosure of secondary genetic findings when options exist for decreasing risk.

PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE

National Human Genome Research Institute.

A randomized noninferiority trial of condensed protocols for genetic risk disclosure of Alzheimer's disease

INTRODUCTION

Conventional multisession genetic counseling is currently recommended when disclosing apolipoprotein E (APOE) genotype for the risk of Alzheimer's disease (AD) in cognitively normal individuals. The objective of this study was to evaluate the safety of brief disclosure protocols for disclosing APOE genotype for the risk of AD.

METHODS

A randomized, multicenter noninferiority trial was conducted at four sites. Participants were asymptomatic adults having a first-degree relative with AD. A standard disclosure protocol by genetic counselors (SP-GC) was compared with condensed protocols, with disclosures by genetic counselors (CP-GC) and by physicians (CP-MD). Preplanned co-primary outcomes were anxiety and depression scales 12 months after disclosure.

RESULTS

Three hundred and forty-three adults (mean age 58.3, range 33-86 years, 71% female, 23% African American) were randomly assigned to the SP-GC protocol (n = 115), CP-GC protocol (n = 116), or CP-MD protocol (n = 112). Mean postdisclosure scores on all outcomes were well below cut-offs for clinical concern across protocols. Comparing CP-GC with SP-GC, the 97.5% upper confidence limits at 12 months after disclosure on co-primary outcomes of anxiety and depression ranged from a difference of 1.2 to 2.0 in means (all P < .001 on noninferiority tests), establishing noninferiority for condensed protocols. Results were similar between European Americans and African Americans.

CONCLUSIONS

These data support the safety of condensed protocols for APOE disclosure for those free of severe anxiety or depression who are actively seeking such information.

Using a Historical Lens to Envision the Next Generation of Genomic Translation Research

BACKGROUND

The past 20 years have witnessed successive and exponential advances in genomic discovery and technology, with a broad scientific imperative pushing for continual advancements. The most consistent critique of these advances is that they have vastly outpaced translation of new knowledge into improvements in public health and medicine.

METHODS

We employ a historical and epistemological analysis to characterize how prevailing scientific meta-narratives have shaped the pace and priorities of research applying genomics to health promotion. We use four 'pivotal events' - the genetic characterization of Down syndrome, the launch of the Human Genome Research Project, the discovery of BRCA1, and the emergence of direct-to- consumer genetic testing - to illustrate how these scientific meta-narratives have inhibited genomic translation research.

RESULTS

The notion that discovery should precede translation research has over-focused translation research on the latest genetic testing platform. The idea that genetic-related research has an exceptional potential for public harm has encouraged research on worst case scenarios. The perceived competition between genetics and social determinants of health has discouraged a unified research agenda to move genomic translation forward.

CONCLUSION

We make a case for creating new scientific meta-narratives in which discovery and translation research agendas are envisioned as an interdependent enterprise.

Using ApoE Genotyping to Promote Healthy Lifestyles in Finland - Psychological Impacts: Randomized Controlled Trial

Common health recommendations often incite very little public response, as people instead require individualized information. The purpose of this study was to assess the psychological effects of personal genetic information, provided by different apoE genotypes, as a tool to promote lifestyle changes. This study was a one-year intervention study using healthy adults, aged 20-67 years (n = 107). Their experiences of state anxiety, threat and stage of change were measured three times over a 12 months period. These psychological experiences were assessed, during the genetic information gathering, for three groups: a high-risk group (Ɛ4+, n = 16); a low-risk group (Ɛ4-, n = 35); and a control group (n = 56). The psychological effects of personal genetic risk information were shown to be short-term, although the levels of state anxiety and threat experiences in the high-risk group both remained at a slightly higher level than in the baseline. Threat experiences differed almost significantly (alpha = 0.017) between the Ɛ4+ and Ɛ4- groups (p = 0.034). Information on the apoE genotype impacted the experience of cardiovascular threat; this effect was most intense immediately after genetic feedback was received. However, fears of threat and anxiety may not be an obstacle for using gene information to motivate healthy, stable adults towards making lifestyle changes. Further studies should thus focus on how to utilize genetic screening in prevention of lifestyle-related diseases.

The development of a preference-setting model for the return of individual genomic research results

Understanding participants' preferences for the return of individual research results (IRR) in genomic research may allow for the implementation of more beneficial result disclosure methods. We tested four preference-setting models through cognitive interviews of parents to explore how parents conceptualize the process of setting preferences and which disease characteristics they believe to be most important when deciding what results to receive on their child. Severity and preventability of a condition were highly influential in decision making and certain groups of research results were anticipated by participants to have negative psychological effects. These findings informed the development of an educational tool and preference-setting model that can be scaled for use in the return of IRR from large biobank studies.

Associations between self-referral and health behavior responses to genetic risk information

BACKGROUND

Studies examining whether genetic risk information about common, complex diseases can motivate individuals to improve health behaviors and advance planning have shown mixed results. Examining the influence of different study recruitment strategies may help reconcile inconsistencies.

METHODS

Secondary analyses were conducted on data from the REVEAL study, a series of randomized clinical trials examining the impact of genetic susceptibility testing for Alzheimer's disease (AD). We tested whether self-referred participants (SRPs) were more likely than actively recruited participants (ARPs) to report health behavior and advance planning changes after AD risk and APOE genotype disclosure.

RESULTS

Of 795 participants with known recruitment status, 546 (69%) were self-referred and 249 (31%) had been actively recruited. SRPs were younger, less likely to identify as African American, had higher household incomes, and were more attentive to AD than ARPs (all P < 0.01). They also dropped out of the study before genetic risk disclosure less frequently (26% versus 41%, P < 0.001). Cohorts did not differ in their likelihood of reporting a change to at least one health behavior 6 weeks and 12 months after genetic risk disclosure, nor in intentions to change at least one behavior in the future. However, interaction effects were observed where ε4-positive SRPs were more likely than ε4-negative SRPs to report changes specifically to mental activities (38% vs 19%, p < 0.001) and diets (21% vs 12%, p = 0.016) six weeks post-disclosure, whereas differences between ε4-positive and ε4-negative ARPs were not evident for mental activities (15% vs 21%, p = 0.413) or diets (8% versus 16%, P = 0.190). Similarly, ε4-positive participants were more likely than ε4-negative participants to report intentions to change long-term care insurance among SRPs (20% vs 5%, p < 0.001), but not ARPs (5% versus 9%, P = 0.365).

CONCLUSIONS

Individuals who proactively seek AD genetic risk assessment are more likely to undergo testing and use results to inform behavior changes than those who respond to genetic testing offers. These results demonstrate how the behavioral impact of genetic risk information may vary according to the models by which services are provided, and suggest that how participants are recruited into translational genomics research can influence findings.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00089882 and NCT00462917.

ARAC - The Montreal Jewish General Hospital Alzheimer Risk Assessment Clinic

Introduction:

In parallel with robust efforts world-wide to develop effective neuroprotection for established disease, resources are being mobilized to delineate risk factors and implement preventive measures in a concerted effort to forestall the anticipated Alzheimer disease (AD) epidemic. A review of heritable and ‘acquired’ dementia risk factors, many operating at midlife, is presented in a companion paper.

Objectives:

In 2009, an Alzheimer Risk Assessment Clinic (ARAC) was established at the Jewish General Hospital (Montreal) to address the concerns increasingly being voiced by active middle-aged individuals at risk for AD. A positive family history of AD and/or perceived changes in personal cognitive function (predominantly short-term memory) are main reasons for referral. The primary objectives of ARAC are to (i) ascertain, inform and mitigate the risks of developing AD in cognitively-healthy persons aged 40-65 based on best available medical and epidemiological evidence, (ii) conduct scientific research on midlife dementia risk and prevention in this population and (iii) provide instruction in dementia risk assessment and management to health professionals, clinical/research fellows, medical residents and students. ARAC infrastructure, evaluation protocol, risk profile classification scheme, interventions, knowledge dissemination program, case vignettes, and seminal research projects are described.

Conclusions:

It is hoped that ARAC and similar initiatives will help prevent or delay dementia by innovating effective interventions based on increasingly nuanced estimation of modifiable AD risk in presymptomatic persons.

Reacting to genetic risk: an experimental survey of life between health and disease

Medical sociologists contend that we are living in an era of surveillance medicine, in which the emphasis on risk blurs the lines between health and disease. Yet, data to examine these claims are generally drawn from patients, raising questions about whether this modern experience of medical risk extends beyond the clinic to healthy people in the larger population. We use the specific case of genetic risk to construct a survey experiment designed to induce the conditions theorized by surveillance medicine. Each respondent in a nationally representative sample (N = 2,100) was assigned a genetic risk (20%, 30% . . . 80%) for a disease (colon cancer, heart disease, Alzheimer's disease) and asked about many potential reactions. We find that people in the general population-regardless of health status or family history-respond to hypothetical genetic risk information by wanting to take action, and their reactions are stronger in domains related to self and family than to community and polity.

Development of a communication protocol for telephone disclosure of genetic test results for cancer predisposition

Background

Dissemination of genetic testing for disease susceptibility, one application of “personalized medicine”, holds the potential to empower patients and providers through informed risk reduction and prevention recommendations. Genetic testing has become a standard practice in cancer prevention for high-risk populations. Heightened consumer awareness of “cancer genes” and genes for other diseases (eg, cardiovascular and Alzheimer’s disease), as well as the burgeoning availability of increasingly complex genomic tests (ie, multi-gene, whole-exome and -genome sequencing), has escalated interest in and demand for genetic risk assessment and the specialists who provide it. Increasing demand is expected to surpass access to genetic specialists. Thus, there is urgent need to develop effective and efficient models of delivery of genetic information that comparably balance the risks and benefits to the current standard of in-person communication.

Objective

The aim of this pilot study was to develop and evaluate a theoretically grounded and rigorously developed protocol for telephone communication of BRCA1/2 (breast cancer) test results that might be generalizable to genetic testing for other hereditary cancer and noncancer syndromes.

Methods

Stakeholder data, health communication literature, and our theoretical model grounded in Self-Regulation Theory of Health Behavior were used to develop a telephone communication protocol for the communication of BRCA1/2 genetic test results. Framework analysis of selected audiotapes of disclosure sessions and stakeholders’ feedback were utilized to evaluate the efficacy and inform refinements to this protocol.

Results

Stakeholder feedback (n=86) and audiotapes (38%, 33/86) of telephone disclosures revealed perceived disadvantages and challenges including environmental factors (eg, non-private environment), patient-related factors (eg, low health literacy), testing-related factors (eg, additional testing needed), and communication factors (eg, no visual cues). Resulting modifications to the communication protocol for BRCA1/2 test results included clarified patient instructions, scheduled appointments, refined visual aids, expanded disclosure checklist items, and enhanced provider training.

Conclusions

Analyses of stakeholders’ experiences and audiotapes of telephone disclosure of BRCA1/2 test results informed revisions to communication strategies and a protocol to enhance patient outcomes when utilizing telephone to disclose genetic test results.

Public beliefs and knowledge about risk and protective factors for Alzheimer's disease

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this study was to assess public beliefs and knowledge about risk and protective factors for Alzheimer's disease (AD).

METHODS

A brief survey module was added to the Health and Retirement Study, a longstanding national panel study of the U.S. population over the age of 50.

RESULTS

Respondents were 1641 adults (mean age=64.4 years, 53.6% female, 81.7% White). Most (60.1%) indicated interest in learning their AD risk, with 29.4% expressing active worry. Many failed to recognize that medications to prevent AD are not available (39.1%) or that having an affected first-degree relative is associated with increased disease risk (32%). Many respondents believed that various actions (e.g., mental activity, eating a healthy diet) would be effective in reducing AD risk.

CONCLUSION

Older and middle-aged adults are interested in their AD risk status and believe that steps can be taken to reduce disease risk. Tailored education efforts are needed to address potential misconceptions about risk and protective factors.

Communicating genetic risk information for common disorders in the era of genomic medicine

Communicating genetic risk information in ways that maximize understanding and promote health is increasingly important given the rapidly expanding availability and capabilities of genomic technologies. A well-developed literature on risk communication in general provides guidance for best practices, including presentation of information in multiple formats, attention to framing effects, use of graphics, sensitivity to the way numbers are presented, parsimony of information, attentiveness to emotions, and interactivity as part of the communication process. Challenges to communicating genetic risk information include deciding how best to tailor it, streamlining the process, deciding what information to disclose, accepting that communications may have limited influence, and understanding the impact of context. Meeting these challenges has great potential for empowering individuals to adopt healthier lifestyles and improve public health, but will require multidisciplinary approaches and collaboration.

Genetic testing and Alzheimer's disease: implications for psychiatric-mental health nursing

Alzheimer's disease (AD), the most common cause of irreversible dementia, continues to grow in prevalence as well as public health impact. Extensive research into the genetic etiology of AD has yielded knowledge of some genetic factors that are causative and other genetic factors that increase risk for disease. Consequently, the possibility of genetic testing in individuals with or at risk for AD is a question that nurses may be asked. Psychiatric-mental health (PMH) professionals are in key positions to influence the care of individuals who are considering the effect of genetic information on their health care decisions. Whether by working within interdisciplinary genetic counseling teams to provide direct specialty services or by developing skills to identify and refer individuals at risk for or concerned about their risk for AD, PMH nurses can play an important role in the health care of individuals and families experiencing AD.

[Alzheimer's disease and genetics]

BACKGROUND

Alzheimer's disease is the most frequent cause of dementia. Recent knowledge reveals several new risk genes. We wish to summarise the knowledge of genetic factors related to Alzheimer's disease.

METHOD

This article is based on findings in Alzgene, a database that summarises genetic association studies in Alzheimer's disease, a literature search in PubMed and the authors' own experience in dementia research.

RESULTS

Several mutations of the genes APP, PSEN1 and PSEN2 are described. These cause around half of all cases of the rare early onset autosomal dominant form of Alzheimer's disease. Heritability, or how much of the development of the disease in an individual that is explained by genetics, is between 60 and 80% in the most common late onset form of Alzheimer's disease. APOE ε4 is the most robust risk gene for the development of this form of the disease, but recently ten new genes that increase the risk of developing Alzheimer's disease were identified by applying genome-wide association studies. These genes code for proteins that are central in the metabolism of cholesterol, activation of the immune system and synaptic cell membrane processes.

INTERPRETATION

New hypotheses on the disease mechanisms for Alzheimer's disease are suggested based on the identification of new risk genes. These hypotheses partly replace and partly supplement the previously dominant amyloid pathway hypothesis. The new risk genes point to the potential for new biomarkers for specific disease processes and to possible new targets for future disease modifying therapies.

Amyloid imaging, risk disclosure and Alzheimer's disease: ethical and practical issues

PET ligands that bind with high specificity to amyloid plaques represent a major breakthrough in Alzheimer's disease (AD) research. Amyloid neuroimaging is now approved by the US FDA to aid in the diagnosis of AD, and is being used to identify amyloid-positive but asymptomatic individuals for secondary AD prevention trials. The use of amyloid neuroimaging in preclinical populations raises important ethical and practical challenges, including determining appropriate uses of this technology, evaluating the potential benefits and harms of disclosing results, and communicating effectively about testing with patients and family members. Emerging policy issues also require consideration (e.g., legal safeguards for biomarker-positive individuals). Further research is needed to inform effective and ethical implementation and regulation of amyloid imaging.

Genetic susceptibility testing for neurodegenerative diseases: ethical and practice issues

As the genetics of neurodegenerative disease become better understood, opportunities for genetic susceptibility testing for at-risk individuals will increase. Such testing raises important ethical and practice issues related to test access, informed consent, risk estimation and communication, return of results, and policies to prevent genetic discrimination. The advent of direct-to-consumer genetic susceptibility testing for various neurodegenerative disorders (including Alzheimer's disease (AD), Parkinson's disease, and certain prion diseases) means that ethical and practical challenges must be faced not only in traditional research and clinical settings, but also in broader society. This review addresses several topics relevant to the development and implementation of genetic susceptibility tests across research, clinical, and consumer settings; these include appropriate indications for testing, the implications of different methods for disclosing test results, clinical versus personal utility of risk information, psychological and behavioral responses to test results, testing of minors, genetic discrimination, and ethical dilemmas posed by whole-genome sequencing. We also identify future areas of likely growth in the field, including pharmacogenomics and genetic screening for individuals considering or engaged in activities that pose elevated risk of brain injury (e.g., football players, military personnel). APOE gene testing for risk of Alzheimer's disease is used throughout as an instructive case example, drawing upon the authors' experience as investigators in a series of multisite randomized clinical trials that have examined the impact of disclosing APOE genotype status to interested individuals (e.g., first-degree relatives of AD patients, persons with mild cognitive impairment).

Impact of genetic risk assessment on nutrition-related lifestyle behaviours

Genetic susceptibility testing for common complex disease is a practice that is currently in clinical use. There are two types of gene mutations, and therefore, two varieties of genotype testing: deterministic and susceptibility. As the term suggests, deterministic genes determine whether or not a person will develop a given trait in mendelian fashion, such as Huntington's disease. Genotype screening for such deterministic mutations has existed for decades, and is commonly used in routine medical practice. In recent years, the sequencing of the human genome has identified several 'susceptibility genes' or genes with incomplete penetrance. Mutations in these genes may increase disease susceptibility, but are not causative for disease. Genetic susceptibility testing allows unaffected individuals to obtain risk information for a variety of common complex diseases and health conditions including Alzheimer's disease (AD), CVD, cancer and diabetes. The availability of genetic susceptibility testing has increased over the past decade, and several studies are now focusing on the impact that genetic testing has on health and other lifestyle behaviours related to nutrition. The aim of this paper is to review the literature and evaluate what, if any, impact genetic risk assessment has on behaviours related to nutrition and physical activity. This paper summarises seven clinical studies that evaluated the impact of disclosing genetic risk information for disease on nutrition-related health behaviour changes. Of these seven studies, only three studies reported that health behaviour change was influenced by genotype disclosure.

Genetics of dementia: update and guidelines for the clinician

With increased frequency, clinical geneticists are asked for genetic advice on the heredity of dementia in families. Alzheimer's disease is in most cases a complex disease, but may be autosomal dominant inherited. Mutations in the PSEN1 gene are the most common genetic cause of early onset Alzheimer's disease, whereas APP and PSEN2 gene mutations are less frequent. Familial frontotemporal dementia may be associated with a mutation in the MAPT or GRN gene, or with a repeat expansion in the C9orf72 gene. All these genes show autosomal dominant inheritance with a high penetrance. Although Alzheimer's disease and frontotemporal dementia are clinically distinguishable entities, phenotypical overlap may occur. Rarely, dementia is caused by mutations in other autosomal dominant genes or by genetic defects with autosomal recessive, X-linked dominant or mitochondrial inheritance. The inherited forms of frontotemporal dementia and Alzheimer's disease show a large phenotypic variability also within families, resulting in many remaining uncertainties for mutation carriers. Therefore, genetic counseling before performing genetic testing is essential in both symptomatic individuals and healthy at risk relatives. This review provides an overview of the genetic causes of dementia and discusses all aspects relevant for genetic counseling and testing. Furthermore, based on current knowledge, we provide algorithms for genetic testing in patients with early onset Alzheimer's disease or frontotemporal dementia.

Using Alzheimer's disease as a model for genetic risk disclosure: implications for personal genomics

Susceptibility testing for common, complex adult-onset diseases is projected to become more commonplace as the rapid pace of genomic discoveries continues, and evidence regarding the potential benefits and harms of such testing is needed to inform medical practice and health policy. Apolipoprotein E (APOE) testing for risk of Alzheimer's disease (AD) provides a paradigm in which to examine the process and impact of disclosing genetic susceptibility for a prevalent, severe and incurable neurological condition. This review summarizes findings from a series of multi-site randomized clinical trials examining psychological and behavioral responses to various methods of genetic risk assessment for AD using APOE disclosure. We discuss challenges involved in disease risk estimation and communication and the extent to which participants comprehend and perceive utility in their genetic risk information. Findings on the psychological impact of test results are presented (e.g. distress), along with data on participants' health behavior and insurance purchasing responses (e.g. long-term care). Finally, we report comparisons of the safety and efficacy of intensive genetic counseling approaches to briefer models that emphasize streamlined processes and educational materials. The implications of these findings for the emerging field of personal genomics are discussed, with directions identified for future research.

Quality assessment of genetic counseling process in the context of presymptomatic testing for late-onset disorders: a thematic analysis of three review articles

Presymptomatic testing (PST) is available for a range of late-onset disorders. Health practitioners generally follow guidelines regarding appropriate number of counseling sessions, involvement of multidisciplinary teams, topics for pretest discussion, and follow-up sessions; however, more understanding is needed about what helps consultands effectively and the impact of amount and quality of genetic counseling on the psychosocial sequelae of PST for late-onset disorders. We conducted a thematic analysis of three review articles on quality of the genetic counseling process, aiming at (1) exploring current evidence; (2) identifying quality assessment indicators; and (3) making recommendations for genetic counseling practice in late-onset disorders. We undertook a systematic search of 6 relevant databases: 38 articles were identified and 3 fitted our inclusion criteria; after quality appraisal, all were included in the review. The number of sessions, time spent, consultation environment, follow-up, and multidisciplinarity were identified as variables for quality assessment. Research on counseling in the context of genetic testing in familial cancer tends to be related to outcomes and indicators for quality assessment, while research concerning other late-onset diseases is mainly focused on the psychological impact of the test results. The quality and content of the overall process in noncancer late-onset diseases is insufficiently articulated. Despite the fact that PST for Huntington disease and other degenerative conditions has been offered for more than 20 years, good methodological approaches to assess quality of genetic counseling in that context remain elusive. This restricts improvement of the protocols for genetic services and, in general, healthcare for the at-risk population.

Genetic counseling and testing for Alzheimer disease: joint practice guidelines of the American College of Medical Genetics and the National Society of Genetic Counselors

Alzheimer disease is the most common cause of dementia. It occurs worldwide and affects all ethnic groups. The incidence of Alzheimer disease is increasing due, in part, to increased life expectancy and the aging baby boomer generation. The average lifetime risk of developing Alzheimer disease is 10-12%. This risk at least doubles with the presence of a first-degree relative with the disorder. Despite its limited utility, patients express concern over their risk and, in some instances, request testing. Furthermore, research has demonstrated that testing individuals for apolipoprotein E can be valuable and safe in certain contexts. However, because of the complicated genetic nature of the disorder, few clinicians are prepared to address the genetic risks of Alzheimer disease with their patients. Given the increased awareness in family history thanks to family history campaigns, the increasing incidence of Alzheimer disease, and the availability of direct to consumer testing, patient requests for information is increasing. This practice guideline provides clinicians with a framework for assessing their patients' genetic risk for Alzheimer disease, identifying which individuals may benefit from genetic testing, and providing the key elements of genetic counseling for AD.

Genetic educational needs and the role of genetics in primary care: a focus group study with multiple perspectives

BACKGROUND

Available evidence suggests that improvements in genetics education are needed to prepare primary care providers for the impact of ongoing rapid advances in genomics. Postgraduate (physician training) and master (midwifery training) programmes in primary care and public health are failing to meet these perceived educational needs. The aim of this study was to explore the role of genetics in primary care (i.e. family medicine and midwifery care) and the need for education in this area as perceived by primary care providers, patient advocacy groups and clinical genetics professionals.

METHODS

Forty-four participants took part in three types of focus groups: mono-disciplinary groups of general practitioners and midwives, respectively and multidisciplinary groups composed of a diverse set of experts. The focus group sessions were audio-taped, transcribed verbatim and analysed using content analysis. Recurrent themes were identified.

RESULTS

Four themes emerged regarding the educational needs and the role of genetics in primary care: (1) genetics knowledge, (2) family history, (3) ethical dilemmas and psychosocial effects in relation to genetics and (4) insight into the organisation and role of clinical genetics services. These themes reflect a shift in the role of genetics in primary care with implications for education. Although all focus group participants acknowledged the importance of genetics education, general practitioners felt this need more urgently than midwives and more strongly emphasized their perceived knowledge deficiencies.

CONCLUSION

The responsibilities of primary care providers with regard to genetics require further study. The results of this study will help to develop effective genetics education strategies to improve primary care providers' competencies in this area. More research into the educational priorities in genetics is needed to design courses that are suitable for postgraduate and master programmes for general practitioners and midwives.