Determinants of Plasma Alzheimer's Disease Biomarker Use by Primary Care Providers and Dementia Specialists.

BACKGROUND: The efficiencies of plasma Alzheimer's disease (AD) biomarkers could facilitate early AD diagnosis. Unfortunately, limited knowledge exists about whether and how they would be used by clinicians. OBJECTIVE: To identify and compare determinants of plasma AD biomarker use reported by primary care providers and dementia specialists. DESIGN: Semi-structured interviews with clinicians organized using Rogers' Diffusion of Innovations theory and analyzed using an iterative coding approach. PARTICIPANTS: The subjects were internal and family medicine, neurology, and geriatrics providers with varying degrees of expertise in dementia diagnosis and care. MAIN MEASURES: Factors influencing a clinician's decision to use or not use plasma AD biomarkers in clinical practice. KEY RESULTS: We interviewed 30 clinicians (16 family or internal medicine providers, 8 geriatricians, and 6 neurologists). Fifteen were dementia specialists. Hesitance to use plasma AD biomarkers was due to perceived lack of effective treatments for AD, limited access to supports, and stigma. Plasma AD biomarkers would be more readily adopted by clinicians with dementia expertise. CONCLUSIONS: Several factors will influence clinical use of plasma AD biomarkers. Some of them may inform the design of interventions to promote the effective and appropriate clinical translation of these tests.

Effect of gamification with a support partner to increase physical activity in older adults at risk for Alzheimer's disease: The STEP 4Life randomized clinical trial.

INTRODUCTION: Physical activity is associated with reduced risk of cognitive and functional decline but scalable, sustainable interventions for populations at risk for Alzheimer's disease (AD) and AD and related dementias (ADRD) are lacking. METHODS: A 12-week randomized-controlled trial was conducted with a 3-week follow-up using a national AD prevention registry (GeneMatch). The control group (n = 50) set step goals and received daily feedback. The intervention group (n = 44) also received a behaviorally designed game based on achieving step goals and reinforced by a support partner. RESULTS: Intervention participants (94 participants, mean age 70, 78% female) had greater change in mean daily step count than control of 1699 steps/day (95% confidence interval [CI], 1149-2249), P < 0.0001, which was sustained in the follow-up period at 1219 steps/day (95% CI, 455-1983), P = 0.0018. Carriers of the apolipoprotein E ε4 gene (high risk) did not perform differently than non-carriers; however, high self-reported risk perception was associated with higher activity. DISCUSSION: A gamified intervention was effective in promoting and sustaining higher physical activity in older adults at genetic risk for AD/ADRD. HIGHLIGHTS: A simple game played with a support partner increased walking in older adults at risk for Alzheimer's disease (AD). The game also increased minutes of moderate-to-vigorous physical activity per day. Perception of lifelong AD risk was associated with increased activity but genetic risk (apolipoprotein E ε4+) was not. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT05069155.

Artificial Intelligence and Technology Collaboratories: Innovating aging research and Alzheimer's care.

This perspective outlines the Artificial Intelligence and Technology Collaboratories (AITC) at Johns Hopkins University, University of Pennsylvania, and University of Massachusetts, highlighting their roles in developing AI-based technologies for older adult care, particularly targeting Alzheimer's disease (AD). These National Institute on Aging (NIA) centers foster collaboration among clinicians, gerontologists, ethicists, business professionals, and engineers to create AI solutions. Key activities include identifying technology needs, stakeholder engagement, training, mentoring, data integration, and navigating ethical challenges. The objective is to apply these innovations effectively in real-world scenarios, including in rural settings. In addition, the AITC focuses on developing best practices for AI application in the care of older adults, facilitating pilot studies, and addressing ethical concerns related to technology development for older adults with cognitive impairment, with the ultimate aim of improving the lives of older adults and their caregivers. HIGHLIGHTS: Addressing the complex needs of older adults with Alzheimer's disease (AD) requires a comprehensive approach, integrating medical and social support. Current gaps in training, techniques, tools, and expertise hinder uniform access across communities and health care settings. Artificial intelligence (AI) and digital technologies hold promise in transforming care for this demographic. Yet, transitioning these innovations from concept to marketable products presents significant challenges, often stalling promising advancements in the developmental phase. The Artificial Intelligence and Technology Collaboratories (AITC) program, funded by the National Institute on Aging (NIA), presents a viable model. These Collaboratories foster the development and implementation of AI methods and technologies through projects aimed at improving care for older Americans, particularly those with AD, and promote the sharing of best practices in AI and technology integration. Why Does This Matter? The National Institute on Aging (NIA) Artificial Intelligence and Technology Collaboratories (AITC) program's mission is to accelerate the adoption of artificial intelligence (AI) and new technologies for the betterment of older adults, especially those with dementia. By bridging scientific and technological expertise, fostering clinical and industry partnerships, and enhancing the sharing of best practices, this program can significantly improve the health and quality of life for older adults with Alzheimer's disease (AD).

From an idea to the marketplace: Identifying and addressing ethical and regulatory considerations across the digital health product-development lifecycle.

Widespread adoption of digital health tools has the potential to improve health and health care for individuals and their communities, but realizing this potential requires anticipating and addressing numerous ethical and regulatory challenges. Here, we help digital health tool developers identify ethical and regulatory considerations - and opportunities to advance desirable outcomes - by organizing them within a general product-development lifecycle that spans generation of ideas to commercialization of a product.

Algorithmic identification of persons with dementia for research recruitment: ethical considerations.

Underdiagnosis, misdiagnosis, and patterns of social inequality that translate into unequal access to health systems all pose barriers to identifying and recruiting diverse and representative populations into research on Alzheimer's disease and Alzheimer's disease related dementias. In response, some have turned to algorithms to identify patients living with dementia using information that is associated with this condition but that is not as specific as a diagnosis. This paper explains six ethical issues associated with the use of such algorithms including the generation of new, sensitive, identifiable medical information for research purposes without participant consent, issues of justice and equity, risk, and ethical communication. It concludes with a discussion of strategies for addressing these issues and prompting valuable research.

Prevalence and Impact of Bypassing or Overriding Phase 2 Trials in Neurologic Drug Development.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Pivotal trials for neurologic drugs in clinical development are often initiated without a phase 2 trial ("bypass") or despite a negative phase 2 efficacy result ("override"). Such practices may degrade the risk/benefit ratio of phase 3 trials. The aim of this study is to estimate the proportion of phase 3 trials for 10 neurologic diseases started without a positive phase 2 trial, to identify factors associated with this practice, and to investigate any association with unfavorable phase 3 trial outcomes. METHODS: We searched ClinicalTrials.gov for phase 3 trials completed during 2011-2021, with at least 1 research site in the United States, Canada, the European Union, the United Kingdom, or Australia, and investigating drugs or biologics for treatment of 10 neurologic conditions. Our primary objective was to assess the prevalence of phase 2 bypass/override by searching for preceding phase 2 trials. We used Fisher exact tests to determine whether phase 3 trial characteristics and trial results were associated with phase 2 bypass/override. RESULTS: Of the 1,188 phase 3 trials captured in our search, 113 met eligibility for inclusion. Of these, 46% were not preceded by a phase 2 trial that was positive on an efficacy endpoint (31% bypassed and 15% overrode phase 2 trial). Phase 2 bypass/override was not associated with industry funding (77% vs 89%, 95% CI 0.75-7.55, p = 0.13) or testing already approved interventions (23% vs 15%, 95% CI 0.60-5.14, p = 0.33). Overall, phase 3 trials based on phase 2 bypassed/override were statistically significantly less likely to be positive on their primary outcome (31% vs 57%, respectively, 95% CI 1.21-6.92, p = 0.01). This effect disappeared when indications characterized by nearly universal positive or negative results were excluded. Trials that bypassed/overrode phase 2 trials were not statistically significantly more likely to be terminated early because of safety or futility (29% vs 15%, respectively, 95% CI 0.15-1.18, p = 0.11) and did not show increased risk of adverse events in experimental arms (RR = 1.46, 95% CI 1.19-1.79, vs RR = 1.36, 95% CI 1.10-1.69, respectively, p = 0.65). DISCUSSION: Almost half of the neurologic disease phase 3 trials were initiated without the support of a positive phase 2 trial. Although our analysis does not establish harm with bypass/override, its prevalence and the scientific rationale for phase 2 trial testing favor development of criteria defining when phase 2 bypass/override is justified.

Caregiver Accounts of Lucid Episodes in Persons With Advanced Dementia.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Paradoxical lucidity is defined as an instance of unexpected lucid behavior in a person who is assumed to be noncommunicative due to a progressive and pathophysiologic dementing process. To inform studies of the prevalence, characteristics, and impact of these behaviors, this interview study examined caregivers' experiences of witnessing paradoxical lucidity. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Participants were family caregivers of persons living with advanced dementia caused by a neurodegenerative disease producing significant impairments in communication. Semistructured interviews elicited the caregivers' experiences of plausible lucid episodes. Data analysis used a thematic analysis approach. RESULTS: Most caregivers reported at least 1 episode of lucidity. Episodes were typically brief. Most involved utterances, but nonverbal behaviors were also common. The mental capacities associated with these behaviors included recognition, awareness of surroundings, recognizing others' emotions, and goal-directed behavior. Most caregivers' reactions were positive. Episodes did not lead to changes in major medical decisions but instead to efforts to either modify or reinforce daily caregiving efforts. DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS: Episodes of lucidity were common, a finding seen in other studies. If prevalence studies confirm this, the qualifier "paradoxical" should be eliminated. The caregivers' familiarity with the person living with dementia allowed them to attribute meaning to subtle behaviors that might not otherwise be detected or considered lucid. Clinicians who care for persons with advanced-stage dementia should routinely ask caregivers about episodes of lucid communication and their emotional reactions.

"What choice do we have?" Reactive and proactive decision-making for aging in place with dementia.

BACKGROUND: Promoting options for aging in place (AIP) has broad appeal to policymakers and professionals providing services to persons living with dementia (PWD). However, the benefits or burdens of AIP likely vary among individuals and families. We sought to describe factors influencing decision-making to age in place versus seek a higher level of residential care for PWD. METHODS: A qualitative study was undertaken as part of a larger mixed-methods study utilizing semi-structured interviews with PWD, family care partners, and dementia clinicians. Interview transcripts were analyzed using qualitative content analysis with constant comparison. Sample size was determined by thematic saturation within subgroups. RESULTS: We conducted 74 interviews among 14 PWD, 36 care partners, and 24 clinicians. Preferences for AIP were driven by (1) desire to preserve independence, (2) a sense that the "best care" is delivered by loved ones and in a familiar environment, (3) distrust and fear of care facilities, and (4) caregiver guilt. PWD and care partners frequently considered moving from home as a "last resort" and wanted to avoid planning for future care needs. Many decisions to move were reactive and triggered by patient safety events, physical dependency, or the loss of caregiver. Proactive decision-making was facilitated by (1) prior experience witnessing the challenges of caring for a person with advanced dementia in the home; and (2) having substantial financial resources such that participants could seek major home adaptations or avoid "lower quality" institutions. CONCLUSIONS: Decisions regarding care setting for PWD frequently do not feel like a choice and are made under imperfect conditions. Programs using AIP as an outcome measure should recognize the various patient-centered and non-patient-centered factors that influence such choices, and interventions should be designed to promote more informed and equitable decision-making for care setting in dementia.

Immediate Reactions to Alzheimer Biomarker Disclosure in Cognitively Unimpaired Individuals in a Global Truncated Randomized Trial.

Background and Objectives: Preclinical Alzheimer disease (AD) trials simultaneously test candidate treatments and the implications of disclosing biomarker information to cognitively unimpaired individuals. Methods: The EARLY trial was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 2b/3 study conducted in 143 centers across 14 countries from November 2015 to December 2018 after being stopped prematurely because of treatment-related hepatotoxicity. Participants age 60-85 years deemed cognitively unimpaired were disclosed an elevated or not elevated brain amyloid result by a certified clinician. Among 3,686 participants, 2,066 underwent amyloid imaging, 1,394 underwent CSF biomarker assessment, and 226 underwent both. Among biomarker-tested participants with at least one change score on an outcome of interest, 680 with elevated and 2,698 with not elevated amyloid were included in this analysis. We compared the Geriatric Depression Scale (GDS), the State-Trait Anxiety Scale (STAI), and the Columbia Suicide Severity Rating Scale (CSSRS) before disclosure between amyloid groups. After disclosure, we assessed for differences in the Impact of Events Scale (IES, collected 24-72 hours after disclosure), a measure of intrusive thoughts. Additional scales included the Concerns for AD scale. Results: Among 3378 included participants, the mean (SD) age was 69.0 (5.3); most were female (60%) and White race (84%). No differences were observed before disclosure between participants with elevated and not elevated amyloid for the GDS, STAI, or CSSRS. Participants with elevated amyloid demonstrated higher Concerns for AD scores compared with participants with not elevated amyloid before disclosure. Participants with elevated amyloid demonstrated higher IES scores (9.6 [10.8] vs 5.1 [8.0]) after disclosure and increased Concerns about AD. Patterns of reactions (elevated vs not elevated) were similar for biomarker modalities, although scores were lower among those undergoing CSF compared with PET testing. Although score differences were apparent comparing geographical regions, patterns of group differences were similar. Discussion: Although sample bias must be considered, these results suggest that amyloid disclosure resulted in increased perceived risk and mild distress in those learning an elevated result. Although this study did not assess psychological safety, observed associations intrusive thoughts and distress could be important considerations in the future clinical practice.