Richard J Caselli1, Jessica Langbaum2, Gary E Marchant3, Rachel A Lindor3, Katherine S Hunt4, Bruce R Henslin5, Amylou C Dueck6, Jason S Robert7. 1. Department of Neurology, Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, AZ; Center for Individualized Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, AZ. Electronic address: Caselli.richard@mayo.edu. 2. Banner Alzheimer Institute, Phoenix, AZ. 3. Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law, Arizona State University, Tempe. 4. Center for Individualized Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, AZ. 5. Clinical Studies Unit, Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, AZ. 6. Biomedical Statistics, Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, AZ. 7. Center for Biology and Society and School of Life Sciences, Arizona State University, Tempe.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To explore the self-expressed desire for, envisioned reaction to, and basic understanding of presymptomatic Alzheimer disease (AD)-related genetic and biomarker tests. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The Alzheimer's Prevention Registry is an online community of people at least 18 years of age who are interested in AD prevention research for purely informational purposes or to be considered for possible research participation in future studies. Information about presymptomatic testing and an online multiple choice format survey were posted from November 1, 2012, through June 20, 2013, on the registry website. RESULTS: Of 4036 respondents, 80.8% (3195/3952) wanted genetic testing if paid by insurance and 58.7% (2261/3851) if it would cost them at least $100. A total of 80.2% (3112/3879) wanted biomarker testing. If at high risk for AD, 90.5% (3478/3841) endorsed that they would "pursue a healthier lifestyle," but 11.6% (427/3706) endorsed "seriously consider suicide." The implication of a positive genetic test result was incorrectly understood by 13.1% (500/3812) and 32.6% (1255/3848) failed to view a positive biomarker test result as evidence of increased risk for or the presence of AD. CONCLUSION: Despite efforts to increase public awareness of AD, our survey results suggest that greater education of the public is needed. Interested patients should probably undergo psychological screening to identify those at high risk of adverse psychological outcomes, and disclosure of presymptomatic test results should be anchored to tangible constructive action plans, such as healthy lifestyle changes, long-term care planning, and, when available and appropriate, participation in research trials.
OBJECTIVE: To explore the self-expressed desire for, envisioned reaction to, and basic understanding of presymptomatic Alzheimer disease (AD)-related genetic and biomarker tests. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The Alzheimer's Prevention Registry is an online community of people at least 18 years of age who are interested in AD prevention research for purely informational purposes or to be considered for possible research participation in future studies. Information about presymptomatic testing and an online multiple choice format survey were posted from November 1, 2012, through June 20, 2013, on the registry website. RESULTS: Of 4036 respondents, 80.8% (3195/3952) wanted genetic testing if paid by insurance and 58.7% (2261/3851) if it would cost them at least $100. A total of 80.2% (3112/3879) wanted biomarker testing. If at high risk for AD, 90.5% (3478/3841) endorsed that they would "pursue a healthier lifestyle," but 11.6% (427/3706) endorsed "seriously consider suicide." The implication of a positive genetic test result was incorrectly understood by 13.1% (500/3812) and 32.6% (1255/3848) failed to view a positive biomarker test result as evidence of increased risk for or the presence of AD. CONCLUSION: Despite efforts to increase public awareness of AD, our survey results suggest that greater education of the public is needed. Interested patients should probably undergo psychological screening to identify those at high risk of adverse psychological outcomes, and disclosure of presymptomatic test results should be anchored to tangible constructive action plans, such as healthy lifestyle changes, long-term care planning, and, when available and appropriate, participation in research trials.
Authors: S Wedderburn; P K Panegyres; S Andrew; J Goldblatt; T Liebeck; F McGrath; M Wiltshire; C Pestell; J Lee; J Beilby Journal: Intern Med J Date: 2013-12 Impact factor: 2.048
Authors: E H Corder; A M Saunders; W J Strittmatter; D E Schmechel; P C Gaskell; G W Small; A D Roses; J L Haines; M A Pericak-Vance Journal: Science Date: 1993-08-13 Impact factor: 47.728
Authors: A M Saunders; W J Strittmatter; D Schmechel; P H George-Hyslop; M A Pericak-Vance; S H Joo; B L Rosi; J F Gusella; D R Crapper-MacLachlan; M J Alberts Journal: Neurology Date: 1993-08 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: Susan M Wolf; Frances P Lawrenz; Charles A Nelson; Jeffrey P Kahn; Mildred K Cho; Ellen Wright Clayton; Joel G Fletcher; Michael K Georgieff; Dale Hammerschmidt; Kathy Hudson; Judy Illes; Vivek Kapur; Moira A Keane; Barbara A Koenig; Bonnie S Leroy; Elizabeth G McFarland; Jordan Paradise; Lisa S Parker; Sharon F Terry; Brian Van Ness; Benjamin S Wilfond Journal: J Law Med Ethics Date: 2008 Impact factor: 1.718
Authors: Serena Chao; J Scott Roberts; Theresa M Marteau; Rebecca Silliman; L Adrienne Cupples; Robert C Green Journal: Alzheimer Dis Assoc Disord Date: 2008 Jan-Mar Impact factor: 2.703
Authors: Susan LaRusse Eckert; Heather Katzen; J Scott Roberts; Melissa Barber; Lisa D Ravdin; Norman R Relkin; Peter J Whitehouse; Robert C Green Journal: Genet Med Date: 2006-12 Impact factor: 8.822
Authors: Cynthia M Stonnington; Brian Harel; Dona E C Locke; Joseph G Hentz; Nan Zhang; Paul Maruff; Richard J Caselli Journal: Alzheimer Dis Assoc Disord Date: 2017 Oct-Dec Impact factor: 2.703
Authors: Richard J Caselli; Gary E Marchant; Katherine S Hunt; Bruce R Henslin; Heidi E Kosiorek; Jessica Langbaum; Jason S Robert; Amylou C Dueck Journal: Alzheimer Dis Assoc Disord Date: 2015 Jul-Sep Impact factor: 2.703
Authors: Mary M Ryan; Chelsea G Cox; Megan Witbracht; Dan Hoang; Daniel L Gillen; Joshua D Grill Journal: Alzheimer Dis Assoc Disord Date: 2021 Apr-Jun 01 Impact factor: 2.703