Article

Using Alzheimer's disease as a model for genetic risk disclosure: implications for personal genomics

Department of Health Behavior and Health Education, University of Michigan School of Public Health, Ann Arbor, 48109, USA.
Clinical Genetics (Impact Factor: 3.65). 06/2011; 80(5):407-14. DOI: 10.1111/j.1399-0004.2011.01739.x
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Susceptibility testing for common, complex adult-onset diseases is projected to become more commonplace as the rapid pace of genomic discoveries continues, and evidence regarding the potential benefits and harms of such testing is needed to inform medical practice and health policy. Apolipoprotein E (APOE) testing for risk of Alzheimer's disease (AD) provides a paradigm in which to examine the process and impact of disclosing genetic susceptibility for a prevalent, severe and incurable neurological condition. This review summarizes findings from a series of multi-site randomized clinical trials examining psychological and behavioral responses to various methods of genetic risk assessment for AD using APOE disclosure. We discuss challenges involved in disease risk estimation and communication and the extent to which participants comprehend and perceive utility in their genetic risk information. Findings on the psychological impact of test results are presented (e.g. distress), along with data on participants' health behavior and insurance purchasing responses (e.g. long-term care). Finally, we report comparisons of the safety and efficacy of intensive genetic counseling approaches to briefer models that emphasize streamlined processes and educational materials. The implications of these findings for the emerging field of personal genomics are discussed, with directions identified for future research.

Download full-text

Full-text

Available from: J. Scott Roberts, Jun 19, 2015
0 Followers
 · 
92 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Objective: Our goal was to evaluate the association of APOE with amyloid deposition, cerebrospinal fluid levels (CSF) of Aβ, tau, and p-tau, brain atrophy, cognition and cognitive complaints in E-MCI patients and cognitively healthy older adults (HC) in the ADNI-2 cohort. Methods: Two-hundred and nine E-MCI and 123 HC participants from the ADNI-2 cohort were included. We evaluated the impact of diagnostic status (E-MCI vs. HC) and APOE ε4 status (ε4 positive vs. ε4 negative) on cortical amyloid deposition (AV-45/Florbetapir SUVR PET scans), brain atrophy (structural MRI scans processed using voxel-based morphometry and Freesurfer version 5.1), CSF levels of Aβ, tau, and p-tau, and cognitive performance and complaints. Results: E-MCI participants showed significantly impaired cognition, higher levels of cognitive complaints, greater levels of tau and p-tau, and subcortical and cortical atrophy relative to HC participants (p < 0.05). Cortical amyloid deposition and CSF levels of Aβ were significantly associated with APOE ε4 status but not E-MCI diagnosis, with ε4 positive participants showing more amyloid deposition and lower levels of CSF Aβ than ε4 negative participants. Other effects of APOE ε4 status on cognition and CSF tau levels were also observed. Conclusions: APOE ε4 status is associated with amyloid accumulation and lower CSF Aβ, as well as increased CSF tau levels in early prodromal stages of AD (E-MCI) and HC. Alternatively, neurodegeneration, cognitive impairment, and increased complaints are primarily associated with a diagnosis of E-MCI. These findings underscore the importance of considering APOE genotype when evaluating biomarkers in early stages of disease.
    Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience 01/2013; 5:11. DOI:10.3389/fnagi.2013.00011 · 2.84 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Introduction The objective of this study was to develop a process to maximize the safety and effectiveness of disclosing Positron Emission Tomography (PET) amyloid imaging results to cognitively normal older adults participating in Alzheimer’s disease secondary prevention studies such as the Anti-Amyloid Treatment in Asymptomatic Alzheimer’s Disease (A4) Study. Methods Using a modified Delphi Method to develop consensus on best practices, we gathered and analyzed data over three rounds from experts in two relevant fields: informed consent for genetic testing or human amyloid imaging. Results Experts reached consensus on (1) text for a brochure that describes amyloid imaging to a person who is considering whether to undergo such imaging in the context of a clinical trial, and (2) a process for amyloid PET result disclosure within such trials. Recommendations included: During consent, potential participants should complete an educational session, where they receive verbal and written information covering what is known and unknown about amyloid imaging, including possible results and their meaning, implications of results for risk of future cognitive decline, and information about Alzheimer’s and risk factors. Participants should be screened for anxiety and depression to determine suitability to receive amyloid imaging information. The person conducting the sessions should check comprehension and be skilled in communication and recognizing distress. Imaging should occur on a separate day from consent, and disclosure on a separate day from imaging. Disclosure should occur in person, with time for questions. At disclosure, investigators should assess mood and willingness to receive results, and provide a written results report. Telephone follow-up within a few days should assess the impact of disclosure, and periodic scheduled assessments of depression and anxiety, with additional monitoring and follow-up for participants showing distress, should be performed. Conclusions We developed a document for use with potential study participants to describe the process of amyloid imaging and the implications of amyloid imaging results; and a disclosure process with attention to ongoing monitoring of both mood and safety to receive this information. This document and process will be used in the A4 Study and can be adapted for other research settings.
    Alzheimer's and Dementia 07/2014; 10(4):P808. DOI:10.1016/j.jalz.2014.05.1584 · 17.47 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Methods: Data were obtained through a multisite clinical trial in which different types of genetic risk-related information were disclosed to individuals (n = 246) seeking a risk assessment for Alzheimer's disease. Results: Six weeks after disclosure, 83% of participants correctly recalled the number of risk-increasing APOE alleles they possessed, and 74% correctly recalled their APOE genotype. While 84% of participants recalled their lifetime risk estimate to within 5 percentage points, only 51% correctly recalled their lifetime risk estimate exactly. Correct recall of the number of APOE risk-increasing alleles was independently associated with higher education (p < 0.001), greater numeracy (p < 0.05) and stronger family history of Alzheimer's disease (p < 0.05). Before adjustments for confounding, correct recall of APOE genotype was also associated with higher education, greater numeracy and stronger family history of Alzheimer's disease, as well as with higher comfort with numbers and European American ethnicity (all p < 0.05). Correct recall of the lifetime risk estimate was independently associated only with younger age (p < 0.05). Conclusions: Recall of genotype-specific information is high, but recall of exact risk estimates is lower. Incorrect recall of numeric risk may lead to distortions in understanding risk. Further research is needed to determine how best to communicate different types of genetic risk information to patients, particularly to those with lower educational levels and lower numeracy. Health-care professionals should be aware that each type of genetic risk information may be differentially interpreted and retained by patients and that some patient subgroups may have more problems with recall than others. © 2015 S. Karger AG, Basel.
    Public Health Genomics 01/2015; 18(2). DOI:10.1159/000368888 · 2.46 Impact Factor