Caregiver Accounts of Lucid Episodes in Persons With Advanced Dementia

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Paradoxical lucidity is defined as an instance of unexpected lucid behavior in a person who is assumed to be noncommunicative due to a progressive and pathophysiologic dementing process. To inform studies of the prevalence, characteristics, and impact of these behaviors, this interview study examined caregivers' experiences of witnessing paradoxical lucidity.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

Participants were family caregivers of persons living with advanced dementia caused by a neurodegenerative disease producing significant impairments in communication. Semistructured interviews elicited the caregivers' experiences of plausible lucid episodes. Data analysis used a thematic analysis approach.

RESULTS

Most caregivers reported at least 1 episode of lucidity. Episodes were typically brief. Most involved utterances, but nonverbal behaviors were also common. The mental capacities associated with these behaviors included recognition, awareness of surroundings, recognizing others' emotions, and goal-directed behavior. Most caregivers' reactions were positive. Episodes did not lead to changes in major medical decisions but instead to efforts to either modify or reinforce daily caregiving efforts.

DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS

Episodes of lucidity were common, a finding seen in other studies. If prevalence studies confirm this, the qualifier "paradoxical" should be eliminated. The caregivers' familiarity with the person living with dementia allowed them to attribute meaning to subtle behaviors that might not otherwise be detected or considered lucid. Clinicians who care for persons with advanced-stage dementia should routinely ask caregivers about episodes of lucid communication and their emotional reactions.

Bioethicists Today: Results of the Views in Bioethics Survey

Bioethicists influence practices and policies in medicine, science, and public health. However, little is known about bioethicists' views. We recently surveyed 824 U.S. bioethicists on a wide range of ethical issues, including topics related to abortion, medical aid in dying, and resource allocation, among others. We also asked bioethicists about their demographic, religious, academic, and professional backgrounds. We find that bioethicists' normative commitments predict their views on bioethical issues. We also find that, in important ways, bioethicists' views do not align with those of the U.S. public: for instance, bioethicists are more likely than members of the public to think abortion is ethically permissible but are less likely to believe compensating organ donors is. Our demographic results indicate the field of bioethics is far less diverse than the U.S. population-less diverse even than other academic disciplines-suggesting far more work needs to be done to build an inclusive field.

Diagnosing Preclinical and Prodromal Neurodegenerative Diseases-The Clinical Is Political

This Viewpoint describes clinical and political considerations for individuals diagnosed with neurodegenerative conditions during the preclinical or prodromal stage.

How reactions to a brain scan result differ for adults based on self-identified Black and White race

INTRODUCTION

How do reactions to a brain scan result differ between Black and White adults? The answer may inform efforts to reduce disparities in Alzheimer's disease (AD) diagnosis and treatment.

METHODS

Self-identified Black (n = 1055) and White (n = 1451) adults were randomized to a vignette of a fictional patient at a memory center who was told a brain scan result. Measures of stigma and diagnosis confidence were compared between-groups.

RESULTS

Black participants reported more stigma than White participants on four of seven domains in reaction to the patient at a memory center visit. Black participants' confidence in an AD diagnosis informed by a brain scan and other assessments was 72.2 points (95% confidence interval [CI] 70.4 to 73.5), which was lower than the respective rating for White participants [78.1 points (95%CI 77.0 to 79.3)].

DISCUSSION

Equitable access to early AD diagnosis will require public outreach and education that address AD stigma associated with a memory center visit.

Algorithmic identification of persons with dementia for research recruitment: ethical considerations

Underdiagnosis, misdiagnosis, and patterns of social inequality that translate into unequal access to health systems all pose barriers to identifying and recruiting diverse and representative populations into research on Alzheimer's disease and Alzheimer's disease related dementias. In response, some have turned to algorithms to identify patients living with dementia using information that is associated with this condition but that is not as specific as a diagnosis. This paper explains six ethical issues associated with the use of such algorithms including the generation of new, sensitive, identifiable medical information for research purposes without participant consent, issues of justice and equity, risk, and ethical communication. It concludes with a discussion of strategies for addressing these issues and prompting valuable research.

Alzheimer's in the modern age: Ethical challenges in the use of digital monitoring to identify cognitive changes

Pushes toward earlier detection of Alzheimer's disease (AD)-related cognitive changes are creating interest in leveraging technologies, like cellphones, that are already widespread and well-equipped for data collection to facilitate digital monitoring for AD. Studies are ongoing to identify and validate potential "digital biomarkers" that might indicate someone has or is at risk of developing AD dementia. Digital biomarkers for AD have potential as a tool in aiding more timely diagnosis, though more robust research is needed to support their validity and utility. While there are grounds for optimism, leveraging digital monitoring and informatics for cognitive changes also poses ethical challenges, related to topics such as algorithmic bias, consent, and data privacy and security. As we confront the modern era of Alzheimer's disease, individuals, companies, regulators and policymakers alike must prepare for a future in which our day-to-day interactions with technology in our daily life may identify AD-related cognitive changes.

What Makes a Better Life for People Facing Dementia? Toward Dementia-Friendly Health and Social Policy, Medical Care, and Community Support in the United States

Taking steps to build a more dementia-friendly society is essential for addressing the needs of people experiencing dementia. Initiatives that improve the quality of life for those living with dementia are needed to lessen controllable factors that can negatively influence how people envision a future trajectory of dementia for themselves. Programs that provide better funding and better coordination for care support would lessen caregiver burden and make it more possible to imagine more people being able to live what they might consider a "good life" with dementia. Specific proposals, such as payment for dementia care managers and new systems to support high-quality, symptom-based palliative care beyond the hospice benefit of only six months, would improve and reframe how many people in the United States experience a dementia illness. Such changes should be incorporated into discussions about improving and respecting preferences in the later stages of dementia.

When People Facing Dementia Choose to Hasten Death: The Landscape of Current Ethical, Legal, Medical, and Social Considerations in the United States

Some individuals facing dementia contemplate hastening their own death: weighing the possibility of living longer with dementia against the alternative of dying sooner but avoiding the later stages of cognitive and functional impairment. This weighing resonates with an ethical and legal consensus in the United States that individuals can voluntarily choose to forgo life-sustaining interventions and also that medical professionals can support these choices even when they will result in an earlier death. For these reasons, whether and how a terminally ill individual can choose to control the timing of their death is a topic that cannot be avoided when considering the dementia trajectory. With a focus on the U.S. context, this landscape review considers the status of provisions that would legally permit people facing dementia to hasten death with appropriate support from medical professionals. This review can be used to plan and guide clinical and legal practitioner discussion and policy development concerning evolving questions not fully covered by existing medical decision-making provisions.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Development of a Lived Experience Panel to inform the design of embedded pragmatic trials of dementia care interventions

BACKGROUND

The National Institute on Aging (NIA) Imbedded Pragmatic Alzheimer's Disease and Alzheimer's Related Dementia Clinical Trials (IMPACT) Collaboratory convened a Lived Experience Panel (LEP) to inform the development of research priorities and provide input on conducting embedded pragmatic clinical trials (ePCTs) of dementia care interventions. Given the importance of people with lived experience to dementia research, and the unique considerations of engaging people with dementia, we report on our process for the recruitment, selection, and initial convening of the IMPACT LEP.

METHODS

The IMPACT Engaging Partners Team, in partnership with the Alzheimer's Association, sought nominations of individuals with mild cognitive impairment or early-stage dementia, care partners of other people living with dementia (PLWD), and proxy representatives for individuals with mid-to-late stage dementia. The 11-member LEP was composed of individuals with diverse personal experiences in part due to their age, race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, geography, disability, or type of dementia. In its first year, the LEP met with IMPACT's Patient and Caregiver Relevant Outcomes Core and Ethics and Regulation Core.

RESULTS

LEP members provided valuable insights and nuanced discussion of issues relevant to ePCTs in dementia care from a broad range of personal experience. Panelists identified key research priorities and provided insight on outcomes often studied by researchers. The LEP also informed investigators' approaches to waivers and modifications of written informed consent and evaluation of minimal risk. Summary reports of the LEP meetings with each Core are available on the IMPACT website. At the end of the first year, changes were made to the composition of the LEP, and opportunities were identified for expanding panelist engagement with IMPACT investigators, as were priorities and scope for future input.

CONCLUSIONS

The IMPACT LEP provides a model for engaging PLWD and care partners in the research process as collaborators.

Choice in the Context of Dementia: Emerging Issues for Health Care Practice in Aging Societies

This introduction to the special report "Facing Dementia: Clarifying End-of-Life Choices, Supporting Better Lives" explains why focused attention to dementia is needed in bioethics and in health care practice in a range of settings. It explains how this strongly age-associated condition shapes individual lives over years, revealing inequities in how dementia care is financed. The introduction explains the structure of the report, which consists of five essays, a consolidated set of recommendations from these essays, bibliographies, and other resources. The first essay is a landscape review written for health care professionals to support discussion, debate, and deliberation within professional societies and networks concerning a patient's voluntary choice to hasten their own death in the context of a dementia diagnosis. The landscape review is followed by three essays that suggest how several familiar concepts within care for persons with serious illness should be rethought to better support advance care planning, physician-patient conversations, and access to community-based palliative care and hospice when a person is facing dementia. The final essay presents a bold, practical argument for supporting better lives for people facing dementia, and for dementia caregivers, through primary care, the usual source of care for people with dementia.

"A Raw Blessing" - Caregivers' Experiences Providing Care to Persons Living with Dementia in the COVID-19 Pandemic

The COVID-19 pandemic has been devastating for people living with dementia (PLWD) and their caregivers. While prior research has documented these effects, it has not delved into their specific causes or how they are modified by contextual variation in caregiving circumstances.

Supported decision making: Facilitating the self-determination of persons living with Alzheimer's and related diseases

Decision-making capacity describes the ability to make a particular decision at a given time. People with Mild Cognitive Impairment (MCI) and mild stage dementia typically experience an associated erosion of their decisional abilities. Many could be said to have marginal capacity. These individuals are in a liminal space between adequate and inadequate capacity. Too often, marginal capacity is overlooked as a category: individuals are classified either as having capacity and being able to make decisions independently or as lacking capacity and needing a surrogate to make decisions for them. These approaches can, respectively, result in under- or overprotection of individuals with marginal capacity. A promising alternative approach is supported decision making. In supported decision making, a person with marginal capacity identifies a trusted person or network of persons to aid them in making their own decisions. Supported decision making is recognized by law in a growing number of states; it is important for geriatricians to be familiar with the concept, as they are increasingly likely to encounter it in their practice. Even in states where supported decision making is not formally recognized, it can be practiced informally, helping patients, care partners, and clinicians strike an appropriate balance between respecting autonomy and recognizing vulnerability. In this article, we describe supported decision making, discuss its ethical and legal foundations, and identify steps by which geriatricians can incorporate it into their practice.

Gender of Study Partners and Research Participants Associated With Differences in Study Partner Ratings of Cognition and Activity Level

OBJECTIVES

Studies of Alzheimer's disease typically include "study partners" (SPs) who report on participants' cognition and function. Prior studies show SP reports differ depending on the relationship between the SP and participant, that is, spouse or adult child. Adult children SPs are typically female. Could differing reports be due to gender? Knowing this may help explain variability in measurement.

METHODS

The Aging, Demographics, and Memory Study enrolled a subset of participants from the Health and Retirement Study. Each participant had an SP. Bivariate and multivariable regression models compared 718 SP-participant dyads.

RESULTS

In analyses of 4 groups defined by SP and participant gender, dyads composed of 2 women were less likely to identify as White (75.8%, 95% confidence interval [CI], 70.4-80.5) than dyads composed of 2 men (93.3%, 95% CI, 81.2-97.8). In analyses adjusted for the severity of cognitive and functional impairment, women SPs rated women participants as more active than they rated men, mean 2.15 (95% CI, 2.07-2.22) versus mean 2.30 (95% CI, 2.24-2.37), respectively, on a 4-point scale. Similarly, men SPs rated women participants as more active than they rated men, mean 2.1 (95% CI, 2.0-2.2) and mean 2.4 (95% CI, 2.3-2.5), respectively. In an analysis of cognitively unimpaired participants, women SPs rated participants' memory worse than men SPs did (p < .05).

DISCUSSION

SP and participant gender influence SPs' reports of another person's cognition and activity level. Our findings expand what is understood about how nondisease factors influence measures of disease severity.

Physician-Investigator, Research Coordinator, and Patient Perspectives on Dual-Role Consent in Oncology: A Qualitative Study

Importance

Classic statements of research ethics generally advise against dual-role consent in which physician-investigators seek consent for research participation from patients with whom they have preexisting treatment relationships. Yet dual-role consent is common in clinical oncology research, as studies are often conducted in close relationship with clinical care.

Objective

To explore key stakeholders' perspectives on dual-role consent in clinical oncology trials.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This qualitative study with 43 participants was conducted at a National Cancer Institute-designated comprehensive cancer center from 2018 to 2022. Semistructured qualitative interviews of physician-investigators, research coordinators, and patients were performed. Respondents were recruited from 3 populations: (1) physician-investigators engaged in clinical oncology research; (2) research coordinators engaged in clinical oncology research; and (3) patients, with and without prior clinical trial experience, who had received a new cancer diagnosis at least 2 months prior to enrollment in this study.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Interviews were audio recorded and professionally transcribed. A thematic analysis approach was used to develop a codebook that included both theory-driven, a priori codes and emergent, inductive codes. Two authors double-coded all transcripts and met regularly to compare coding, discuss discrepancies, refine the codebook, and draft memos describing relevant themes and their frequency.

Results

Among the 43 respondents, 28 (65.1%) were female; 9 (20.9%) were African American, 8 (18.6%) were Asian, 6 (14.0%) were Hispanic, and 21 (48.8%) were White; 15 were physician-investigators (6 [40.0%] with 6-10 years of experience, 4 [26.7%] with at least 20 years of experience), 13 were research coordinators (5 [38.5%] with 0-5 years of experience, 5 [38.5%] with 6-10 years of experience), and 15 were patients (9 [60.0%] aged 46-64 years). Four main themes were found: interviewees (1) perceived greater potential for role synergy than for role conflict; (2) reported dual-role consent as having mixed effects on the consent process, increasing prospective participants' understanding and likelihood of agreement while also challenging voluntariness; (3) preferred a team-based approach to the consent process in which physician-investigators and research coordinators share responsibility for communicating with prospective participants and safeguarding voluntariness; and (4) offered strategies for managing tensions in dual-role consent.

Conclusions and Relevance

This qualitative study found that concerns about dual-role consent in clinical oncology, while valid, may be outweighed by corresponding advantages, particularly if appropriate mitigation strategies are in place. These findings support a team-based approach to informed consent, in which physician-investigators and research coordinators promote both the understanding and voluntariness of prospective participants.

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

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

Journeying to Ixtlan: Ethics of Psychedelic Medicine and Research for Alzheimer's Disease and Related Dementias

In this paper, we examine the case of psychedelic medicine for Alzheimer's disease and related dementias (AD/ADRD). These "mind-altering" drugs are not currently offered as treatments to persons with AD/ADRD, though there is growing interest in their use to treat underlying causes and associated psychiatric symptoms. We present a research agenda for examining the ethics of psychedelic medicine and research involving persons living with AD/ADRD, and offer preliminary analyses of six ethical issues: the impact of psychedelics on autonomy and consent; the impact of "ego dissolution" on persons experiencing a pathology of self; how psychedelics might impact caregiving; the potential exploitation of patient desperation; institutional review boards' orientation to psychedelic research; and methods to mitigate inequity. These ethical issues are magnified for AD/ADRD but bear broader relevance to psychedelic medicine and research in other clinical populations.

Ethical analysis of vulnerabilities in cluster randomized trials involving people living with dementia in long-term care homes

Cluster randomized trials (CRT) of non-pharmacological interventions are an important means of improving the quality of care and quality of life of people living with dementia (PLWD) in long-term care (LTC) homes. PLWD in LTC homes are, however, vulnerable in manifold ways. Therefore, researchers require guidance to ensure that the rights and welfare of PLWD are protected in the course of this valuable research. In this article, we introduce a framework for identifying vulnerabilities in randomized trials and apply it to three CRTs involving PLWD in LTC homes. CRTs may render PLWD in LTC homes vulnerable to three autonomy wrongs: inadequately informed consent, inadequately voluntary consent, and invasions of privacy; two welfare wrongs: risks of therapeutic procedure exceed potential benefits, and excessive risk of non-therapeutic procedures; and one justice wrong: unjust impact of research activities on care. We then discuss appropriate, feasible additional protections that can be implemented to mitigate vulnerability while preserving the scientific validity of the CRT. Corresponding additional protections that can be feasibly implemented include capacity assessments, substitute decision-makers, assent, insulation from LTC home employees during the consent process, patient advocates, utilizing LTC home employees for data collection, stakeholder engagement, additional supervision during study procedures, using caregivers to complete questionnaires by proxy, and gatekeeper permission. Reassuringly, many of these additional protections promote, rather than imperil, the scientific validity of these trials.

Design Considerations for Embedded Pragmatic Clinical Trials of Advance Care Planning Interventions for Persons Living With Dementia

Advance care planning (ACP) is an important part of comprehensive care for persons living with dementia (PLWD). While many trials have established the efficacy of ACP in improving end-of-life communication and documentation of care preferences, there remains a gap in clinical usage. Embedded pragmatic clinical trials (ePCTs) may facilitate the uptake of evidence-based care into existing healthcare by deploying efficacious ACP interventions into real-world settings. However rigorous conduct of ePCTs of ACP for PLWD presents several unique methodological considerations. Here we describe a framework for the construction of these research studies, with a focus on distinguishing between the target of study: the PLWD, their care partners, or both. We outline specific considerations at each step of the research study process including 1) participant identification/eligibility, 2) participant recruitment/enrollment, 3) intervention implementation, and 4) outcome selection/ascertainment. These considerations are weighed in further detail by describing the approaches from three published trials. Specifically, we consider how potential challenges were overcome by tradeoffs in study design. Finally, we offer directions for future growth to advance ePCTs for ACP among PLWD and catalyze future research.

Putting participants and study partners FIRST when clinical trials end early

Between 2018 and 2019, multiple clinical trials ended earlier than planned, resulting in calls to improve communication with and support for participants and their study partners ("dyads"). The multidisciplinary Participant Follow-Up Improvement in Research Studies and Trials (Participant FIRST) Work Group met throughout 2021. Its goals were to identify best practices for communicating with and supporting dyads affected by early trial stoppage. The Participant FIRST Work Group identified 17 key recommendations spanning the pre-trial, mid-trial, and post-trial periods. These focus on prospectively allocating sufficient resources for orderly closeout; developing dyad-centered communication plans; helping dyads build and maintain support networks; and, if a trial stops, informing dyads rapidly. Participants and study partners invest time, effort, and hope in their research participation. The research community should take intentional steps toward better communicating with and supporting participants when clinical trials end early. The Participant FIRST recommendations are a practical guide for embarking on that journey.

Deciding with Others: Interdependent Decision-Making

Over the course of human life, health care decision-making is often interdependent. In this article, we use "interdependence" to refer to patients' engagement of nonclinicians-for example, family members or trusted friends-to reach health care decisions. Interdependence, we suggest, is common for patients in all stages of life, from early childhood to late adulthood. This view contrasts with the common bioethical assumption that medical decisions are either wholly independent or dependent and that independence or dependence is tightly coupled with a person's decision-making capacity. In this article, we array various approaches to decision-making along a continuum of interdependence. An appreciation of this continuum can empower patients and elucidate ethical challenges that arise when people transition between different kinds of interdependence across the life span.

Participants' Perspectives on Payment for Research Participation: A Qualitative Study

Investigators commonly offer payments to research participants to promote recruitment and retention. Yet the ethics of offering monetary incentives to research participants continues to be debated. Prior conceptual work has addressed some of these concerns; there is, however, also a need for empirical evidence to understand the effects of payment on participants. Here, we report the results of a qualitative study comprising (1) discourse analysis of recruitment conversations between study coordinators and potential participants for an actual clinical trial and (2) semistructured interviews with participants addressing the effects of an incentive on their decision-making. Many participants reported that money had been a motivation for enrolling in the clinical trial but did not use reasoning that suggested undue influence or unjust inducement. These findings add to a growing body of literature suggesting that payment is an ethically acceptable tool for promoting recruitment and retention in clinical trials.

Home-delivered meals for people with dementia: Which model delays nursing home placement? - Protocol for a feasibility pilot

BACKGROUND

Home-delivered meals promote food security, socialization, and independence among homebound older adults. However, it is unclear which of the two predominant modes of meal delivery, daily-delivered vs. drop-shipped, frozen meals, promotes community living for homebound older adults with dementia. Our objective is to present the protocol for a pilot multisite, two-arm, pragmatic feasibility trial comparing the effect of two modes of meal delivery on nursing home placement among people with dementia. We include justifications for individual randomization with different consent processes and waivers for specific elements of the trial.

METHODS

236 individuals with dementia on waiting lists at three Meals on Wheels programs' in Florida and Texas will be randomized to receive either: 1) meals delivered multiple times per week by a Meals on Wheels volunteer or paid driver who may socialize with and provide an informal wellness check or 2) frozen meals that are mailed to participants' homes every two weeks. We will evaluate and refine processes for recruitment and randomization; assess adherence to the intervention; identify common themes in participant experience; and test processes for linking participant data with Medicare records and nursing home assessment data. We will conduct exploratory analyses examining time to nursing home placement, the primary outcome for the larger trial.

CONCLUSION

This pilot will inform the follow-on large-scale, definitive pragmatic trial. In addition, the justifications for individual randomization with differing consent procedures for elements of a pragmatic trial provide a model for future trialists looking to develop ethical and feasible pragmatic studies enrolling people with dementia.

Predictors of who Serves as an Alzheimer's Disease Research Participant's Study Partner and the Impact of their Relationship on Study Partners' Reports on Participants

Background: Alzheimer's disease and Alzheimer's disease related dementias (AD/ADRD) research typically requires participants to enroll with a "study partner" (SP). Little is known about what predicts who steps into the SP role or whether the SP's relationship to the participant affects their reports of disease severity.Methods: Health and Retirement Study data (HRS), collected prior to the Aging, Demographics and Memory Study (ADAMS), was used to identify sociocultural factors that predict who serves as a SP in ADAMS. SP-reported outcomes were compared between three types of participant-SP relationships: spousal, adult child, and other.Results: Spouses (35%) and adult children (39%) were similarly likely to serve as SPs. Factors predicting who served differed. In multivariable analyses, adult children rated participants less impaired than spouses on measures of memory, judgment, and organizational abilities (p < .05). Conclusions: The participant-SP relationship has independent effects on the SP's reports of the severity of cognitive impairments.

Diversity in IRB Membership: Views of IRB Chairpersons at U.S. Universities and Academic Medical Centers

BACKGROUND

Diversity in Institutional Review Board (IRB) membership is important for both intrinsic and instrumental reasons, including fairness, promoting trust, improving decision quality, and responding to systemic racism. Yet U.S. IRBs remain racially and ethnically homogeneous, even as gender diversity has improved. Little is known about IRB chairpersons' perspectives on membership diversity and barriers to increasing it, as well as current institutional efforts to promote diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) within IRB membership.

METHODS

We surveyed IRB chairpersons leading U.S. boards registered with the Office for Human Research Protections. Here, we focus exclusively on responses from a subset of 388 chairpersons of IRBs at universities and academic medical centers (AMCs).

RESULTS

Board chairs were predominantly white and evenly split between men and women. Only about half reported that their boards had at least one member who is Black or African American (51%), Asian (56%), or Hispanic (48%), with 85% of university/AMC boards comprised entirely (15%) or mostly (70%) of white members. Most IRB chairpersons (64%) reported satisfaction with the current diversity of their membership. Participants largely agreed that considering diversity in the selection of IRB members is important (91%), including to improve the quality of IRB deliberation (80%), with an emphasis on racial/ethnic (85%) and gender diversity (74%). Most participants (80%) reported some type of active DEI effort regarding board membership at their university/AMC and just over half (57%) expressed satisfaction with these efforts.

CONCLUSIONS

Our national survey found that although university/AMC IRB chairpersons report valuing diversity in board membership, it may be lacking in key areas. Going forward, it will be important to specify clear reasons for diversity in the IRB context, as well to establish targets for acceptable levels of board diversity and to match DEI efforts to those targets.

Implications of preclinical Alzheimer's disease biomarker disclosure for US policy and society

Disclosure of Alzheimer's disease (AD) biomarkers to cognitively unimpaired adults are currently conducted only in research settings. Yet, US Food and Drug Administration approval of a disease-modifying treatment for symptomatic individuals, improved understanding of the "preclinical" phase of disease, and advancements toward more accessible biomarker tests suggest such disclosure will increase in frequency, eventually becoming routine in clinical practice. The changing landscape in AD research to focus on biomarkers has generated debate on the validity and clinical utility of disclosure to cognitively unimpaired adults. This article explores the broader social implications of more widespread AD biomarker disclosure-that is, of individuals learning their risk for developing dementia caused by AD. We identify 10 challenges and offer preliminary solutions. As the field continues to evolve, it is essential to anticipate and address these broader ethical, legal, and social implications of disclosure.

Measures of Utility Among Studies of Genomic Medicine for Critically Ill Infants: A Systematic Review

IMPORTANCE

Genomic medicine holds promise to revolutionize care for critically ill infants by tailoring treatments for patients and providing additional prognostic information to families. However, measuring the utility of genomic medicine is not straightforward and has important clinical and ethical implications.

OBJECTIVE

To review the ways that researchers measure or neglect to measure the utility of genomic medicine for critically ill infants.

EVIDENCE REVIEW

This systematic review included prospective full-text studies of genomic medicine of both whole exome and genome sequencing in critically ill infants younger than 1 year. PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Cochrane Library databases, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and the ClinicalTrials.gov register were searched with an English language restriction for articles published from the inception of each database through May 2022. Search terms included variations of the following: gene, sequencing, intensive care, critical care, and infant. From the included articles, information on how utility was defined and measured was extracted and synthesized. Information was also extracted from patient cases that authors highlighted by providing additional information. Spearman rank-order correlation was used to evaluate the association between study size and utility.

FINDINGS

Synthesized data from the 21 included studies reflected results from 1654 patients. A mean of 46% (range, 15%-72%) of patients had a positive genetic test result, and a mean of 37% (range, 13%-61%) met the criteria for experiencing utility. Despite heterogeneity in how studies measured and reported utility, a standardized framework was created with 5 categories of utility: treatment change, redirection of care, prognostic information, reproductive information, and screening or subspecialty referral. Most studies omitted important categories of utility, notably personal utility (patient-reported benefits) (20 studies [95%]), utility of negative or uncertain results (15 [71%]), and disutility (harms) (20 [95%]). Studies disproportionally highlighted patient cases that resulted in treatment change. Larger studies reported substantially lower utility (r = -0.65; P = .002).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

This systematic review found that genomic medicine offered various categories of utility for a substantial proportion of critically ill infants. Studies measured utility in heterogeneous ways and focused more on documenting change than assessing meaningful benefit. Authors' decisions about which cases to highlight suggest that some categories of utility may be more important than others. A more complete definition of utility that is used consistently may improve understanding of potential benefits and harms of genetic medicine.

Aspiring to Reasonableness in Accelerated Approval: Anticipating and Avoiding the Next Aducanumab

The US Food and Drug Administration's decisions about drug approval-though guided by science, as well as relevant statutes, regulations, and guidance documents-reflect normative judgments about how the agency should exercise its discretion. This is particularly true in the context of the "accelerated approval" pathway, where the agency must balance speeding to market drugs for patients with unmet needs before they have been proven to work and ensuring confidence about the benefits and risks of those drugs. A key challenge in evaluating normative judgments such as these is that reasonable people can disagree, rendering it difficult to proclaim with certainty that a particular decision is right or wrong. Therefore, we propose that it is preferable to ask whether a decision is reasonable. A decision is reasonable when it transparently, comprehensively, and fairly balances the interests of affected parties, within the parameters of the decision maker's legal authority. If a decision achieves these three qualities, it can be viewed as legitimate and worthy of trust and confidence, regardless of whether one agrees with the particular outcome. We recommend that the Food and Drug Administration adopt procedural protections to promote reasonableness in four domains affecting accelerated approval decisions: pathway gatekeeping, endpoint selection, stakeholder engagement, and deliberation. This should aid the agency in minimizing controversies, such as that surrounding the 2021 approval of aducanumab (Aduhelm; Biogen).

What is paradoxical lucidity? The answer begins with its definition

Paradoxical lucidity in dementia is a clinically significant but understudied phenomenon. A provisional definition was proposed by the 2018 National Institute on Aging expert workshop and published in Alzheimer's and Dementia. However, several conceptual features of this definition remain vague, creating barriers to robust clinical research. Here, we critically analyze the provisional definition and present a refined definition that can be applied in clinical research. The refined definition is based on an analytic process our research group recently undertook to operationalize paradoxical lucidity for our own study protocol. Our goal is to facilitate debate and potentially harmonize interpretations of paradoxical lucidity among research groups.

The relative contributions of biomarkers, disease modifying treatment, and dementia severity to Alzheimer's stigma: A vignette-based experiment

OBJECTIVE

The symptoms and prognosis of Alzheimer's disease (AD) dementia contribute to the public's negative reactions toward individuals with AD dementia and their families. But what if, using AD biomarker tests, diagnosis was made before the onset of dementia, and a disease-modifying treatment was available? This study tests the hypotheses that a "preclinical" diagnosis of AD and treatment that improves prognosis will mitigate stigmatizing reactions.

METHODS

A sample of U.S. adults were randomized to receive one vignette created by a 3 × 2 × 2 vignette-based experiment that described a person with varied clinical symptom severity (Clinical Dementia Rating stages 0 (no dementia), 1 (mild), or 2 (moderate)), AD biomarker test results (positive vs negative), and disease-modifying treatment (available vs not available). Between-group comparisons were conducted of scores on the Modified Family Stigma in Alzheimer's Disease Scale (FS-ADS).

RESULTS

The sample of 1,817 adults had a mean age two years younger than that of U.S. adults but was otherwise similar to the general adult population. The response rate was 63% and the completion rate was 96%. In comparisons of randomized groups, mild and moderate symptoms of dementia evoked stronger reactions on all FS-ADS domains compared to no dementia (all p < 0.001). A positive biomarker test result evoked stronger reactions on all but one FS-ADS domain (negative aesthetic attributions) compared to a negative biomarker result (all p < 0.001). Disease-modifying treatment had no measurable influence on stigma (all p > 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

The stigmas of dementia spill over into preclinical AD, and availability of treatment does not alter that stigma. Translation of the preclinical AD construct from research into practice will require interventions that mitigate AD stigma to preserve the dignity and identity of individuals living with AD.

You've Got a Friend in Me: How Cognitively Unimpaired Older Adults Select a Study Partner to Participate with Them in Alzheimer's Disease Research

BACKGROUND

Participants in Alzheimer's disease (AD) prevention studies are generally required to enroll with a study partner; this requirement constitutes a barrier to enrollment for some otherwise interested individuals. Analysis of dyads enrolled in actual AD trials suggests that the study partner requirement shapes the population under study.

OBJECTIVE

To understand if individuals can identify someone to serve as their study partner and whether they would be willing to ask that individual.

METHODS

We conducted semi-structured interviews with cognitively unimpaired, English-speaking older adults who had previously expressed interest in AD research by signing up for a research registry. We also interviewed their likely study partners. Audio-recorded interviews were transcribed and coded in an iterative, team-based process guided by a content analysis approach.

RESULTS

We interviewed 60 potential research participants and 17 likely study partners. Most potential participants identified one or two individuals they would be willing to ask to serve as their study partner. Interviewees saw value in the study partner role but also understood it to entail burdens that could make participation as a study partner difficult. The role was seen as relatively more burdensome for individuals still in the workforce or with family responsibilities. Calls from the researcher to discuss the importance of the role and the possibility of virtual visits were identified as potential strategies for increasing study partner availability.

CONCLUSION

Efforts to increase recruitment, particularly representative recruitment, of participants for AD prevention studies should reduce barriers to participation by thoughtfully designing the study partner role.

Preliminary results from the COVID caregiving project

Background

Method

Results

Conclusion

Family members' perspectives on learning cognitively unimpaired older adults' amyloid-β PET scan results

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES

Disclosure of Alzheimer's disease (AD) risk information to cognitively unimpaired older adults may become more common if preclinical AD is shown to be identifiable and amenable to treatment. Little, however, is known about how families will react to this information.

DESIGN AND SETTING

Semi-structured telephonic interviews.

PARTICIPANTS

Seventy study partners (mean age = 68 [±11]; 50% female; 70% spouses/significant others; 18% children, siblings; 12% friends) of cognitively unimpaired adults who learned a personalized AD dementia risk estimate and an amyloid-β PET scan result through their participation in preclinical AD research.

MEASUREMENT

Interviewees were asked about their desire for information regarding their family member's AD dementia risk, baseline expectations of risk, understanding of amyloid-β PET scan results, and the impact of AD dementia risk information on emotions, health behaviors, and future plans, as well as on perceptions of their family member's or friend's memory.

RESULTS

Interviewees generally understood the AD dementia risk information (83%) and considered it valuable (75%). Risk information perceived as favorable elicited feelings of happiness and relief; unfavorable information elicited disappointment, as well as increased awareness of the participants' memory and monitoring for incipient changes in cognition. While noting that AD dementia risk information was not medically actionable at this time due to the lack of disease-modifying therapies, some interviewees described changes to their family members' and their own health behaviors and future plans.

CONCLUSION

Guidelines for the disclosure of AD dementia risk estimates and biomarker results to cognitively unimpaired adults should account for the needs and interests of individuals and their family members, who may step into a pre-caregiver role.

Ethical and Regulatory Issues for Embedded Pragmatic Trials Involving People Living with Dementia

Embedded pragmatic clinical trials (ePCTs) present an opportunity to improve care for people living with dementia (PLWD) and their care partners, but they also generate a complex constellation of ethical and regulatory challenges. These challenges begin with participant identification. Interventions may be delivered in ways that make it difficult to identify who is a human subject and therefore who needs ethical and regulatory protections. The need for informed consent, a core human subjects protection, must be considered but can be in tension with the goals of pragmatic research design. Thus it is essential to consider whether a waiver or alteration of informed consent is justifiable. If informed consent is needed, the question arises of how it should be obtained because researchers must acknowledge the vulnerability of PLWD due in part to diminished capacity and also to increased dependence on others. Further, researchers should recognize that many sites where ePCTs are conducted will be unfamiliar with human subjects research regulations and ethics. In this report, the Regulation and Ethics Core of the National Institute on Aging Imbedded Pragmatic Alzheimer's disease (AD) and AD-related dementias (AD/ADRD) Clinical Trials (IMPACT) Collaboratory discusses key ethical and regulatory challenges for ePCTs in PLWD. A central thesis is that researchers should strive to anticipate and address these challenges early in the design of their ePCTs as a means of both ensuring compliance and advancing science. J Am Geriatr Soc 68:S37-S42, 2020.

Incorporating Health Equity Into COVID-19 Reopening Plans: Policy Experimentation in California

California has focused on health equity in the state's COVID-19 reopening plan. The Blueprint for a Safer Economy assigns each of California's 58 counties into 1 of 4 tiers based on 2 metrics: test positivity rate and adjusted case rate. To advance to the next less-restrictive tier, counties must meet that tier's test positivity and adjusted case rate thresholds. In addition, counties must have a plan for targeted investments within disadvantaged communities, and counties with more than 106 000 residents must meet an equity metric. California's explicit incorporation of health equity into its reopening plan underscores the interrelated fate of its residents during the COVID-19 pandemic and creates incentives for action. This article evaluates the benefits and challenges of this novel health equity focus, and outlines recommendations for other US states to address disparities in their reopening plans.