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

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.

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.