Scott Y H Kim1, Jason Karlawish2, Benjamin E Berkman2. 1. From the Department of Bioethics, Clinical Center (S.Y.H.K., B.E.B.), National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD; and the Departments of Medicine and Medical Ethics and Health Policy (J.K.), University of Pennsylvania, Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia. scott.kim@nih.gov. 2. From the Department of Bioethics, Clinical Center (S.Y.H.K., B.E.B.), National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD; and the Departments of Medicine and Medical Ethics and Health Policy (J.K.), University of Pennsylvania, Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Prevention trials for neurodegenerative diseases use genetic or other risk marker tests to select participants but there is concern that this could involve coercive disclosure of unwanted information. This has led some trials to use blinded enrollment (participants are tested but not told of their risk marker status). We examined the ethics of blinded vs transparent enrollment using well-established criteria for assessing the ethics of clinical research. METHODS: Normative analysis applying 4 key ethical criteria-favorable risk-benefit ratio, informed consent, fair subject selection, and scientific validity-to blinded vs transparent enrollment, using current evidence and state of Alzheimer disease (AD) and other prevention trials. RESULTS: Current evidence on the psychosocial impact of risk marker disclosure and considerations of scientific benefit do not support an obligation to use blinded enrollment in prevention trials. Nor does transparent enrollment coerce or involve undue influence of potential participants. Transparent enrollment does not unfairly exploit vulnerable participants or limit generalizability of scientific findings of prevention trials. However, if the preferences of a community of potential participants would affect the rigor or feasibility of a prevention trial using transparent enrollment, then investigators are required by considerations of scientific validity to use blinded enrollment. CONCLUSIONS: Considerations of risks and benefits, informed consent, and fair subject selection do not require the use of blinded enrollment for AD prevention trials. Blinded enrollment in AD prevention trials may sometimes be necessary because of the need for scientific validity, not because it prevents coercion or undue influence.
OBJECTIVE: Prevention trials for neurodegenerative diseases use genetic or other risk marker tests to select participants but there is concern that this could involve coercive disclosure of unwanted information. This has led some trials to use blinded enrollment (participants are tested but not told of their risk marker status). We examined the ethics of blinded vs transparent enrollment using well-established criteria for assessing the ethics of clinical research. METHODS: Normative analysis applying 4 key ethical criteria-favorable risk-benefit ratio, informed consent, fair subject selection, and scientific validity-to blinded vs transparent enrollment, using current evidence and state of Alzheimer disease (AD) and other prevention trials. RESULTS: Current evidence on the psychosocial impact of risk marker disclosure and considerations of scientific benefit do not support an obligation to use blinded enrollment in prevention trials. Nor does transparent enrollment coerce or involve undue influence of potential participants. Transparent enrollment does not unfairly exploit vulnerable participants or limit generalizability of scientific findings of prevention trials. However, if the preferences of a community of potential participants would affect the rigor or feasibility of a prevention trial using transparent enrollment, then investigators are required by considerations of scientific validity to use blinded enrollment. CONCLUSIONS: Considerations of risks and benefits, informed consent, and fair subject selection do not require the use of blinded enrollment for AD prevention trials. Blinded enrollment in AD prevention trials may sometimes be necessary because of the need for scientific validity, not because it prevents coercion or undue influence.
Authors: Eric M Reiman; Jessica B S Langbaum; Adam S Fleisher; Richard J Caselli; Kewei Chen; Napatkamon Ayutyanont; Yakeel T Quiroz; Kenneth S Kosik; Francisco Lopera; Pierre N Tariot Journal: J Alzheimers Dis Date: 2011 Impact factor: 4.472
Authors: Yvonne Bombard; Elizabeth Penziner; Oksana Suchowersky; Mark Guttman; Jane S Paulsen; Joan L Bottorff; Michael R Hayden Journal: Eur J Hum Genet Date: 2007-10-24 Impact factor: 4.246
Authors: Herminia D Rosas; Gheorghe Doros; Sona Gevorkian; Keith Malarick; Martin Reuter; Jean-Philippe Coutu; Tyler D Triggs; Paul J Wilkens; Wayne Matson; David H Salat; Steven M Hersch Journal: Neurology Date: 2014-02-07 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: Jane S Paulsen; Martha Nance; Ji-In Kim; Noelle E Carlozzi; Peter K Panegyres; Cheryl Erwin; Anita Goh; Elizabeth McCusker; Janet K Williams Journal: Prog Neurobiol Date: 2013-09-11 Impact factor: 11.685
Authors: José L Molinuevo; Jordi Cami; Xavier Carné; Maria C Carrillo; Jean Georges; Maria B Isaac; Zaven Khachaturian; Scott Y H Kim; John C Morris; Florence Pasquier; Craig Ritchie; Reisa Sperling; Jason Karlawish Journal: Alzheimers Dement Date: 2016-03-15 Impact factor: 21.566
Authors: Piotr Lewczuk; Peter Riederer; Sid E O'Bryant; Marcel M Verbeek; Bruno Dubois; Pieter Jelle Visser; Kurt A Jellinger; Sebastiaan Engelborghs; Alfredo Ramirez; Lucilla Parnetti; Clifford R Jack; Charlotte E Teunissen; Harald Hampel; Alberto Lleó; Frank Jessen; Lidia Glodzik; Mony J de Leon; Anne M Fagan; José Luis Molinuevo; Willemijn J Jansen; Bengt Winblad; Leslie M Shaw; Ulf Andreasson; Markus Otto; Brit Mollenhauer; Jens Wiltfang; Martin R Turner; Inga Zerr; Ron Handels; Alexander G Thompson; Gunilla Johansson; Natalia Ermann; John Q Trojanowski; Ilker Karaca; Holger Wagner; Patrick Oeckl; Linda van Waalwijk van Doorn; Maria Bjerke; Dimitrios Kapogiannis; H Bea Kuiperij; Lucia Farotti; Yi Li; Brian A Gordon; Stéphane Epelbaum; Stephanie J B Vos; Catharina J M Klijn; William E Van Nostrand; Carolina Minguillon; Matthias Schmitz; Carla Gallo; Andrea Lopez Mato; Florence Thibaut; Simone Lista; Daniel Alcolea; Henrik Zetterberg; Kaj Blennow; Johannes Kornhuber Journal: World J Biol Psychiatry Date: 2017-10-27 Impact factor: 4.132
Authors: Max A Feinstein; Richard R Sharp; David J Sandness; John C Feemster; Mithri Junna; Suresh Kotagal; Melissa C Lipford; Maja Tippmann-Peikert; Bradley F Boeve; Michael H Silber; Erik K St Louis Journal: Sleep Med Date: 2019-03-22 Impact factor: 3.492
Authors: Emily A Largent; Maramawit Abera; Kristin Harkins; Sara J Feldman; Wendy R Uhlmann; J Scott Roberts; Jason Karlawish Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2021-07-12 Impact factor: 5.562