The ethics of innovation for Alzheimer's disease: the risk of overstating evidence for metabolic enhancement protocols

Beyond disclaimers: the need for a curation-based model of PubMed

According to its own description, the biomedical meta-database PubMed exists "with the aim of improving health-both globally and personally." Unfortunately, PubMed contains an increasing amount of low-quality research that may detract from this goal. Currently, PubMed warns its users and protects itself from such problems with a disclaimer stating that the presence of any article, book, or document in PubMed does not imply an endorsement of, or concurrence with, its contents by the NLM, the National Institutes of Health (NIH), or the U.S. Federal Government. However, we are critical of a "disclaimer-only" stance and encourage PubMed to take further action against low-quality research being found and indexed in its database, and thus available for use. To address this problem, we offer two lines of reasoning to argue that PubMed should not function merely as a passive index of health-related research. Instead, we first argue that only trustworthy published research is able to further PubMed's goal of health improvement. Secondly, on the basis of surveys, we argue that researchers place a high level of trust in articles that are referenced in this meta-database. We cannot expect any one set of actors to ensure trustworthy content on PubMed, which requires collective responsibility among authors, peer reviewers, editors, and indexers alike. Instead, we propose a curation-based model that incorporates three mechanisms of collaborative content curation: open expert feedback on indexed content, journal auditing, and constant transparent reassessment of indexed entities.

The Return of Biomarker Results in Research: Balancing Complexity, Precision, and Ethical Responsibility

Recent research aimed at the discovery, integration, and communication of health outcome measures (or "biomarkers") in Alzheimer's disease has raised challenging questions related to whether, how and when results from these investigations should be disclosed to research participants. Reflecting the apparent heterogeneity of many neurodegenerative diseases, biomarker or other risk factor results are often probabilistic, interactive, multi-modal, and selective. Such characteristics make it very complex to summarize and communicate to clinicians, researchers, and research participants. Whereas the format and content of academic literature is well-managed by the peer-review process, reporting individualized results to participants involves complex, sensitive, and ethical considerations. This paper describes three key factors to consider in decisions about the return of results to research participants: complexity, precision, and responsibility. The paper also presents six practical recommendations for implementing meaningful and ethical communication with research participants.

Improving Clinical Trials of Antioxidants in Alzheimer's Disease

Maintaining diversity in drug development in research into Alzheimer's disease (AD) is necessary to avoid over-reliance on targeting AD neuropathology. Treatments that reduce or prevent the generation of oxidative stress, frequently cited for its causal role in the aging process and AD, could be useful in at-risk populations or diagnosed AD patients. However, in this review, it is argued that clinical research into antioxidants in AD could provide more useful feedback as to the therapeutic value of the oxidative stress theory of AD. Improving comparability between randomized controlled trials (RCTs) is vital from a waste-reduction and priority-setting point of view for AD clinical research. For as well as attempting to improve meaningful outcomes for patients, RCTs of antioxidants in AD should strive to maximize the extraction of clinically useful information and actionable feedback from trial outcomes. Solutions to maximize information flow from RCTs of antioxidants in AD are offered here in the form of checklist questions to improve ongoing and future trials centered around the following dimensions: adhesion to reporting guidelines like CONSORT, biomarker enrichment, simple tests of treatment, and innovative trial design.

Telehealth Literacy as a Social Determinant of Health: A Novel Screening Tool to Support Vulnerable Patient Equity

Background:

Telehealth has evolved as a solution to COVID-19 isolation precautions and remote care with well-established health, socioeconomic, and practical benefits. However, there are many gaps in the current literature regarding telehealth use among older, low health literate, and resource-limited populations. There are ethical considerations that warrant understanding this digital divide.

Objective:

The objective of this review is to propose the Telehealth Literacy Screening Tool (TLST) for use in older adults and support the future inclusion of telehealth literacy as an important social determinant of health (SDOH).

Methods:

Initially a four-week outreach was performed that targeted older adults and low-health literate patients at the MedVantage Clinic (MVC) within Ochsner Health (OH) to identify common barriers to patient engagement with the OH Epic MyChart telehealth platform. Themes from those barriers directed a meta-synthetic review of the methods and ethical considerations of current, validated technological and telehealth literacy screening tools. Those findings were reported based on the standards of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) Statement.

Results:

Based on the barriers identified during our MVC patient outreach, PRISMA-reported review of telehealth literacy screening research, and evaluation of the MyChart platform and the technological resources required for its use; we developed a multidimensional questionnaire for telehealth literacy screening of older adults.

Conclusion:

The TLST is designed to identify patients in need of additional interventions for successful connection to telehealth services. This is an important step towards addressing the ethical obligation to decrease disparities in telehealth literacy for vulnerable populations and identifying telehealth literacy as a SDOH.

An Argument for Simple Tests of Treatment of Alzheimer's Disease

Two potential disease-modifying approaches for dementia are being vigorously tested: the early targeting of the neuropathology of Alzheimer's disease (AD) and multi-domain lifestyle interventions to promote resilience to neuropathology. We apply the "web of information" model of clinical translation to both approaches to argue firstly that tests of treatments aiming to achieve clinically meaningful outcomes should remain simple, and secondly, that building clinically-meaningful treatments should be kept separate from public health policy which means promoting wide-reaching action against risk factors now with available information.