Addressing the Ethical, Legal, and Social Issues Raised by Voting by Persons with Dementia

This article addresses an emerging policy problem in the United States participation in the electoral process by citizens with dementia. At present, health care professionals, family caregivers, and long-term care staff lack adequate guidance to decide whether individuals with dementia should be precluded from or assisted in casting a ballot. Voting by persons with dementia raises a series of important questions about the autonomy of individuals with dementia, the integrity of the electoral process, and the prevention of fraud. Three subsidiary issues warrant special attention: development of a method to assess capacity to vote; identification of appropriate kinds of assistance to enable persons with cognitive impairment to vote; and formulation of uniform and workable policies for voting in long-term care settings. In some instances, extrapolation from existing policies and research permits reasonable recommendations to guide policy and practice. However, in other instances, additional research is necessary

Alzheimer’s Prevention Initiative Generation Program: Development of an APOE genetic counseling and disclosure process in the context of clinical trials

IntroductionAs the number of Alzheimer’s disease (AD) prevention studies grows, many individuals will need to learn their genetic and/or biomarker risk for the disease to determine trial eligibility. An alternative to traditional models of genetic counseling and disclosure is needed to provide comprehensive standardized counseling and disclosure of apolipoprotein E (APOE) results efficiently, safely, and effectively in the context of AD prevention trials.MethodsA multidisciplinary Genetic Testing, Counseling, and Disclosure Committee was established and charged with operationalizing the Alzheimer’s Prevention Initiative (API) Genetic Counseling and Disclosure Process for use in the API Generation Program trials. The objective was to provide consistent information to research participants before and during the APOE counseling and disclosure session using standardized educational and session materials.ResultsThe Genetic Testing, Counseling, and Disclosure Committee created a process consisting of eight components: requirements of APOE testing and reports, psychological readiness assessment, determination of AD risk estimates, guidance for identifying providers of disclosure, predisclosure education, APOE counseling and disclosure session materials, APOE counseling and disclosure session flow, and assessing APOE disclosure impact.DiscussionThe API Genetic Counseling and Disclosure Process provides a framework for largeâ scale disclosure of APOE genotype results to study participants and serves as a model for disclosure of biomarker results. The process provides education to participants about the meaning and implication(s) of their APOE results while also incorporating a comprehensive assessment of disclosure impact. Data assessing participant safety and psychological wellâ being before and after APOE disclosure are still being collected and will be presented in a future publication.Highlightsâ ¢Participants may need to learn their risk for Alzheimer’s disease to enroll in studies.â ¢Alternatives to traditional models of apolipoprotein E counseling and disclosure are needed.â ¢An alternative process was developed by the Alzheimer’s Prevention Initiative.â ¢This process has been implemented by the Alzheimer’s Prevention Initiative Generation Program.Peer Reviewedhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/153071/1/trc2jtrci201909013.pd

F4‐02‐04: The Alzheimer’s Prevention Initiative (API) Program: Genetic Testing and Disclosure Strategies

Peer Reviewedhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/152610/1/alzjjalz201606595.pd

Dependence as a Unifying Construct in Defining Alzheimer's Disease Severity

This article reviews measures of Alzheimer's disease (AD) progression in relation to patient dependence and offers a unifying conceptual framework for dependence in AD. Clinicians typically characterize AD by symptomatic impairments in three domains: cognition, function, and behavior. From a patient's perspective, changes in these domains, individually and in concert, ultimately lead to increased dependence and loss of autonomy. Examples of dependence in AD range from a need for reminders (early AD) to requiring safety supervision and assistance with basic functions (late AD). Published literature has focused on the clinical domains as somewhat separate constructs and has given limited attention to the concept of patient dependence as a descriptor of AD progression. This article presents the concept of dependence on others for care needs as a potential method for translating the effect of changes in cognition, function, and behavior into a more holistic, transparent description of AD progression

GeneMatch: A novel recruitment registry using at‐home APOE genotyping to enhance referrals to Alzheimer’s prevention studies

IntroductionRecruitment for Alzheimer’s disease (AD) prevention research studies is challenging because of lack of awareness among cognitively healthy adults coupled with the high screen fail rate due to participants not having a genetic risk factor or biomarker evidence of the disease. Participant recruitment registries offer one solution for efficiently and effectively identifying, characterizing, and connecting potential eligible volunteers to studies.MethodsIndividuals aged 55‐75 years who live in the United States and self‐report not having a diagnosis of cognitive impairment such as MCI or dementia are eligible to join GeneMatch. Participants enroll online and are provided a cheek swab kit for DNA extraction and apolipoprotein E (APOE) genotyping. Participants are not told their APOE results, although the results may be used in part to help match participants to AD prevention studies.ResultsAs of August 2018, 75,351 participants had joined GeneMatch. Nearly 30% of participants have one APOE4 allele, and approximately 3% have two APOE4 alleles. The percentages of APOE4 heterozygotes and homozygotes are inversely associated with age (P < .001).DiscussionGeneMatch, the first trial‐independent research enrollment program designed to recruit and refer cognitively healthy adults to AD prevention studies based in part on APOE test results, provides a novel mechanism to accelerate prescreening and enrollment for AD prevention trials.Peer Reviewedhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/152681/1/alzjjalz201812007.pd

NIA-AA Research Framework: Toward a Biological Definition of Alzheimer\u27s Disease

In 2011, the National Institute on Aging and Alzheimer\u27s Association created separate diagnostic recommendations for the preclinical, mild cognitive impairment, and dementia stages of Alzheimer\u27s disease. Scientific progress in the interim led to an initiative by the National Institute on Aging and Alzheimer\u27s Association to update and unify the 2011 guidelines. This unifying update is labeled a “research framework” because its intended use is for observational and interventional research, not routine clinical care. In the National Institute on Aging and Alzheimer\u27s Association Research Framework, Alzheimer\u27s disease (AD) is defined by its underlying pathologic processes that can be documented by postmortem examination or in vivo by biomarkers. The diagnosis is not based on the clinical consequences of the disease (i.e., symptoms/signs) in this research framework, which shifts the definition of AD in living people from a syndromal to a biological construct. The research framework focuses on the diagnosis of AD with biomarkers in living persons. Biomarkers are grouped into those of β amyloid deposition, pathologic tau, and neurodegeneration [AT(N)]. This ATN classification system groups different biomarkers (imaging and biofluids) by the pathologic process each measures. The AT(N) system is flexible in that new biomarkers can be added to the three existing AT(N) groups, and new biomarker groups beyond AT(N) can be added when they become available. We focus on AD as a continuum, and cognitive staging may be accomplished using continuous measures. However, we also outline two different categorical cognitive schemes for staging the severity of cognitive impairment: a scheme using three traditional syndromal categories and a six-stage numeric scheme. It is important to stress that this framework seeks to create a common language with which investigators can generate and test hypotheses about the interactions among different pathologic processes (denoted by biomarkers) and cognitive symptoms. We appreciate the concern that this biomarker-based research framework has the potential to be misused. Therefore, we emphasize, first, it is premature and inappropriate to use this research framework in general medical practice. Second, this research framework should not be used to restrict alternative approaches to hypothesis testing that do not use biomarkers. There will be situations where biomarkers are not available or requiring them would be counterproductive to the specific research goals (discussed in more detail later in the document). Thus, biomarker-based research should not be considered a template for all research into age-related cognitive impairment and dementia; rather, it should be applied when it is fit for the purpose of the specific research goals of a study. Importantly, this framework should be examined in diverse populations. Although it is possible that β-amyloid plaques and neurofibrillary tau deposits are not causal in AD pathogenesis, it is these abnormal protein deposits that define AD as a unique neurodegenerative diseaseamong different disorders that can lead to dementia. We envision that defining AD as a biological construct will enable a more accurate characterization and understanding of the sequence of events that lead to cognitive impairment that is associated with AD, as well as the multifactorial etiology of dementia. This approach also will enable a more precise approach to interventional trials where specific pathways can be targeted in the disease process and in the appropriate people

Disclosing genetic risk for Alzheimer’s dementia to individuals with mild cognitive impairment

IntroductionThe safety of predicting conversion from mild cognitive impairment (MCI) to Alzheimer’s disease (AD) dementia using apolipoprotein E (APOE) genotyping is unknown.MethodsWe randomized 114 individuals with MCI to receive estimates of 3‐year risk of conversion to AD dementia informed by APOE genotyping (disclosure arm) or not (non‐disclosure arm) in a non‐inferiority clinical trial. Primary outcomes were anxiety and depression scores. Secondary outcomes included other psychological measures.ResultsUpper confidence limits for randomization arm differences were 2.3 on the State Trait Anxiety Index and 0.5 on the Geriatric Depression Scale, below non‐inferiority margins of 3.3 and 1.0. Moreover, mean scores were lower in the disclosure arm than non‐disclosure arm for test‐related positive impact (difference: ‐1.9, indicating more positive feelings) and AD concern (difference: ‐0.3).DiscussionProviding genetic information to individuals with MCI about imminent risk for AD does not increase risks of anxiety or depression and may provide psychological benefits.Peer Reviewedhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/154645/1/trc212002_am.pdfhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/154645/2/trc212002.pd