Avoiding Over-Reliance on Multi-Domain Interventions for Dementia Prevention

Dementia Prevention Guidelines Should Explicitly Mention Deprivation

The brain requires sustained interaction with a rich physical and social environment to stay healthy. Individuals without access to such enabling environments and who instead live and grow in disabling environments tend to have greater risk of developing dementia. But research and policymaking as regards dementia risk reduction have so far focused almost exclusively on the role of how individuals' health behaviors change their risk profile. This exclusive focus on "lifestyle" is both ethically problematic and therapeutically inadequate. I highlight a growing literature on three different kinds of deprivation, an independent and overlooked risk factor for dementia that invites upstream action against inequalities. Future prevention guidelines should include explicit mention of deprivation as a risk factor and be developed around the need to make society fairer. Meanwhile, interventions and discourse based on lifestyle modification should respect the principle of "no ought without support."

JAD: A Forum for Philosophy in Science

The Journal of Alzheimer's Disease (JAD) is already an established forum for cutting-edge science as well as ethical reflection. But I argue that beyond science and ethics, JAD is also a forum for philosophy in science, and that interdisciplinary researchers asking innovative questions about AD should publish their reflections and findings in JAD.

The Advisory Group on Risk Evidence Education for Dementia: Multidisciplinary and Open to All

The brain changes of Alzheimer's disease and other degenerative dementias begin long before cognitive dysfunction develops, and in people with subtle cognitive complaints, clinicians often struggle to predict who will develop dementia. The public increasingly sees benefits to accessing dementia risk evidence (DRE) such as biomarkers, predictive algorithms, and genetic information, particularly as this information moves from research to demonstrated usefulness in guiding diagnosis and clinical management. For example, the knowledge that one has high levels of amyloid in the brain may lead one to seek amyloid reducing medications, plan for disability, or engage in health promoting behaviors to fight cognitive decline. Researchers often hesitate to share DRE data, either because they are insufficiently validated or reliable for use in individuals, or there are concerns about assuring responsible use and ensuring adequate understanding of potential problems when one's biomarker status is known. Concerns include warning people receiving DRE about situations in which they might be compelled to disclose their risk status potentially leading to discrimination or stigma. The Advisory Group on Risk Evidence Education for Dementia (AGREEDementia) welcomes all concerned with how best to share and use DRE. Supporting understanding in clinicians, stakeholders, and people with or at risk for dementia and clearly delineating risks, benefits, and gaps in knowledge is vital. This brief overview describes elements that made this group effective as a model for other health conditions where there is interest in unfettered collaboration to discuss diagnostic uncertainty and the appropriate use and communication of health-related risk information.

Communicating and Using Dementia Risk Evidence

Advances in biomarkers, genetics, and other data used as dementia risk evidence (DRE) are increasingly informing clinical diagnosis and management. The purpose of this Mini-Forum is to provide a solutions-based discussion of the ethical and legal gaps and practical questions about how to use and communicate these data. Investigators often use DRE in research. When participants ask for their personal results, investigators have concerns. Will data that was intended to study groups be valid for individuals? Will sharing data cause distress? Debates around sharing DRE became heated when blood-based amyloid tests and amyloid reducing drugs appeared poised to enable clinicians easily to identify people with elevated brain amyloid and reduce it with a drug. Such an approach would transform the traditional role of DRE from investigational to foundational; however, then the high costs, uncertain clinical benefits and risks of the therapy led to an urgent need for education to support clinical decision making. Further complicating DRE use are direct to consumer genetic testing and increasingly available biomarker testing. Withholding DRE becomes less feasible and public education around responsible use and understanding become vital. A critical answer to these legal and ethical issues is supporting education that clearly delineates known risks, benefits, and gaps in knowledge, and communication to promote understanding among researchers, clinicians, patients, and all stakeholders. This paper provides an overview and identifies general concepts and resource documents that support more informed discussions for individuals and interdisciplinary groups.