Jessica Mozersky1,2, Pamela Sankar1, Kristin Harkins3, Sara Hachey3,4, Jason Karlawish1,3,5,6. 1. Department of Medical Ethics and Health Policy, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. 2. Now with the Division of General Medical Sciences, John T. Milliken Department of Medicine, Washington University School of Medicine, St Louis, Missouri. 3. Penn Memory Center at the Penn Neuroscience Center, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 4. Now with the Lewis Katz School of Medicine at Temple University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 5. Department of Medicine, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. 6. Department of Neurology, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.
Abstract
Importance: The goal of Alzheimer disease (AD) prevention together with advances in understanding the pathophysiology of AD have led to clinical trials testing drugs in cognitively unimpaired persons who show evidence of AD biomarkers. Data are needed to inform the processes of describing AD biomarkers to cognitively normal adults and assessing their understanding of this knowledge. Objective: To determine the comprehension of an elevated amyloid positron emission tomographic (PET) biomarker result by cognitively unimpaired adults. Design, Setting, and Participants: The Study of Knowledge and Reactions to Amyloid Testing, a substudy of an AD prevention trial, involved 2 semistructured telephone interviews with 80 participants recruited from 9 study sites: 50 received elevated and 30 received not elevated amyloid PET scan results. Interviews were conducted 4 to 12 weeks after result disclosure and again 1 year later. Data presented here were collected from November 5, 2014, through December 10, 2015. The 50 participants included in this study were cognitively normal, aged 65 to 85 years, evenly distributed by gender, and had elevated amyloid PET results. Subsequent reports will examine persons with "not elevated" results and compare the influence of the different results. Main Outcomes and Measures: Participant comprehension of an elevated amyloid result was assessed by analyzing their responses to the following questions: "What was the result of your amyloid PET scan?" (followed by "Can you tell me in your own words what that means?" or "How would you explain it to a friend?"), "Was it the result you expected?" and "Did the result teach you anything or clarify anything for you?" Results: Of the 50 participants aged 65 to 85 years, 49 (98%) were white, 40 (80%) reported a family history of AD, and 30 (60%) had a postgraduate educational level. Most participants (31 [62%]) understood that elevated amyloid conferred an increased but uncertain risk of developing AD. Some desired understanding of the term elevated other than its being a categorical result enabling trial entry eligibility; they wanted information regarding how elevated their amyloid was, how close to the study threshold they were, or percentages, numbers, or a scale to help them make sense of the result. Conclusions and Relevance: Including an explanation of how and why a dimensional biomarker is converted to a categorical classification would enhance future AD biomarker clinical trials and educational materials.
Importance: The goal of Alzheimer disease (AD) prevention together with advances in understanding the pathophysiology of AD have led to clinical trials testing drugs in cognitively unimpaired persons who show evidence of AD biomarkers. Data are needed to inform the processes of describing AD biomarkers to cognitively normal adults and assessing their understanding of this knowledge. Objective: To determine the comprehension of an elevated amyloid positron emission tomographic (PET) biomarker result by cognitively unimpaired adults. Design, Setting, and Participants: The Study of Knowledge and Reactions to Amyloid Testing, a substudy of an AD prevention trial, involved 2 semistructured telephone interviews with 80 participants recruited from 9 study sites: 50 received elevated and 30 received not elevated amyloid PET scan results. Interviews were conducted 4 to 12 weeks after result disclosure and again 1 year later. Data presented here were collected from November 5, 2014, through December 10, 2015. The 50 participants included in this study were cognitively normal, aged 65 to 85 years, evenly distributed by gender, and had elevated amyloid PET results. Subsequent reports will examine persons with "not elevated" results and compare the influence of the different results. Main Outcomes and Measures: Participant comprehension of an elevated amyloid result was assessed by analyzing their responses to the following questions: "What was the result of your amyloid PET scan?" (followed by "Can you tell me in your own words what that means?" or "How would you explain it to a friend?"), "Was it the result you expected?" and "Did the result teach you anything or clarify anything for you?" Results: Of the 50 participants aged 65 to 85 years, 49 (98%) were white, 40 (80%) reported a family history of AD, and 30 (60%) had a postgraduate educational level. Most participants (31 [62%]) understood that elevated amyloid conferred an increased but uncertain risk of developing AD. Some desired understanding of the term elevated other than its being a categorical result enabling trial entry eligibility; they wanted information regarding how elevated their amyloid was, how close to the study threshold they were, or percentages, numbers, or a scale to help them make sense of the result. Conclusions and Relevance: Including an explanation of how and why a dimensional biomarker is converted to a categorical classification would enhance future AD biomarker clinical trials and educational materials.
Authors: Jeffrey M Burns; David K Johnson; Edward P Liebmann; Rebecca J Bothwell; Jill K Morris; Eric D Vidoni Journal: Alzheimers Dement Date: 2017-03-03 Impact factor: 21.566
Authors: Robert C Green; J Scott Roberts; L Adrienne Cupples; Norman R Relkin; Peter J Whitehouse; Tamsen Brown; Susan LaRusse Eckert; Melissa Butson; A Dessa Sadovnick; Kimberly A Quaid; Clara Chen; Robert Cook-Deegan; Lindsay A Farrer Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2009-07-16 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Kristin Harkins; Pamela Sankar; Reisa Sperling; Joshua D Grill; Robert C Green; Keith A Johnson; Megan Healy; Jason Karlawish Journal: Alzheimers Res Ther Date: 2015-05-12 Impact factor: 6.982
Authors: David S Knopman; Samantha Budd Haeberlein; Maria C Carrillo; James A Hendrix; Geoff Kerchner; Richard Margolin; Paul Maruff; David S Miller; Gary Tong; Maria B Tome; Melissa E Murray; Peter T Nelson; Mary Sano; Niklas Mattsson; David L Sultzer; Thomas J Montine; Clifford R Jack; Hartmuth Kolb; Ronald C Petersen; Prashanthi Vemuri; Megan Zoschg Canniere; Julie A Schneider; Susan M Resnick; Gary Romano; Argonde Corien van Harten; David A Wolk; Lisa J Bain; Eric Siemers Journal: Alzheimers Dement Date: 2018-04 Impact factor: 21.566
Authors: Hailey J James; Courtney Harold Van Houtven; Steven Lippmann; James R Burke; Megan Shepherd-Banigan; Emmanuelle Belanger; Terrie Fox Wetle; Brenda L Plassman Journal: J Alzheimers Dis Date: 2020 Impact factor: 4.472
Authors: Melissa J Armstrong; Gary S Gronseth; Gregory S Day; Carol Rheaume; Slande Alliance; C D Mullins Journal: Alzheimer Dis Assoc Disord Date: 2019 Jul-Sep Impact factor: 2.703
Authors: Bruno Dubois; Nicolas Villain; Giovanni B Frisoni; Gil D Rabinovici; Marwan Sabbagh; Stefano Cappa; Alexandre Bejanin; Stéphanie Bombois; Stéphane Epelbaum; Marc Teichmann; Marie-Odile Habert; Agneta Nordberg; Kaj Blennow; Douglas Galasko; Yaakov Stern; Christopher C Rowe; Stephen Salloway; Lon S Schneider; Jeffrey L Cummings; Howard H Feldman Journal: Lancet Neurol Date: 2021-04-29 Impact factor: 59.935
Authors: Fred B Ketchum; Claire M Erickson; Nathaniel A Chin; Carey E Gleason; Nickolas H Lambrou; Susan Flowers Benton; Lindsay R Clark Journal: J Alzheimers Dis Date: 2022 Impact factor: 4.160
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