Skip to main content

Table 1 Clinical, personal, and societal considerations

From: Considerations regarding a diagnosis of Alzheimer’s disease before dementia: a systematic review

 

Consideration

Refs

Arguments

 

Clinical

1

Validity

[14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28]

• Clinical criteria have limited validity

• Biomarkers enhance diagnostic certainty and accuracy

• Validity is strong or sufficient (in selected cohorts)

• Predictive value for progression is demonstrated (in selected cohorts)

2

Lack of validity

[14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39]

• Validity is uncertain and insufficient or needs further research

• Predictive value is uncertain and limited or needs further research

• Discerning normal aging from latent disease is difficult or impossible

• Many individuals with AD biomarkers never develop dementia

• Abnormal biomarkers are not the sole cause of AD

• Procedures may be burdensome or risky

• Consequences of misdiagnosis are severe

3

Utility

[14, 16,17,18,19, 21,22,23,24, 26,27,28,29,30,31,32, 34,35,36, 40]

• Drugs can suppress symptoms in some patients

• Lifestyle changes or interventions may be beneficial

• Early diagnosis may lead to better healthcare

4

Lack of utility

[14,15,16,17,18, 20,21,22,23,24, 26,27,28,29,30,31,32, 34,35,36, 38, 40]

• Utility is absent and uncertain or needs further research

• There is no disease-modifying therapy

• Lifestyle changes or interventions have uncertain or modest effect at best

• Lifestyle changes should be done regardless

5

Protocols and training

[14, 16,17,18, 20,21,22,23, 25, 26, 28, 30,31,32, 36,37,38,39,40]

• Protocols, methods, and materials are scarce or required

• Knowledge of genetic or oncological markers may offer a starting point

• Healthcare professionals need to develop knowledge and skills

6

Disclosure

[14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25, 27,28,29,30,31,32, 34,35,36,37,38,39,40]

• There is growing consensus toward the use of biomarkers and sharing of results

• Disclosure is difficult, especially to a person with (full) insight

• Safety may be improved by informed consent, pre-test counseling, post-disclosure support, take-home materials, time for reflection, involvement of a relative, and tailoring the approach to the individual’s needs

• Research into the impact of disclosure is scarce or required

 

Personal

7

Certainty

[14, 16, 17, 20, 23, 24, 28, 34, 37, 39]

• An in vivo (biomarker) diagnosis of AD is inherently uncertain

• Individuals may appreciate an uncertain risk prediction

• Individuals may understand uncertainty

8

Uncertainty

[14, 15, 17, 20, 22,23,24,25, 28, 31, 32, 34,35,36]

• Early detection may lead to more or longer uncertainty

• Individuals may expect a certain diagnosis

• Individuals may misinterpret test results

• It is hard to deal and live with uncertainty

9

Actionability (personal utility)

[14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25, 27, 28, 31, 32, 34,35,36,37,38,39]

• Individuals and relatives can prepare for the future

• Individuals can advance plans or improve quality of life

• Individuals can contribute to or profit from prevention trials

10

Lack of actionability (personal utility)

[15, 16, 23, 25, 28, 32, 34]

• There is no actionability

• Results may be too uncertain for decisions

• Preparing for the future should be done regardless

11

Positive psychological impact

[14,15,16,17,18,19,20, 22,23,24, 27, 32, 36]

• Result may lead to positive emotions, e.g., relief, solace, or social exoneration (by providing an explanation for behavior or functioning)

• There is value in knowing, understanding, and accepting the situation

12

Negative psychological impact

[14, 16,17,18, 20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32, 34,35,36,37,38,39,40]

• Result may lead to negative emotions, e.g., fear, anxiety, and depression

• There is risk of catastrophic reactions (euthanasia or suicide)

• Negative reactions may be over-rated, limited, or preventable

• Early detection may increase (subjective) cognitive decline (stereotype threat)

13

Right to (not) know

[14, 15, 17, 19,20,21,22,23,24,25, 27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35, 39]

• Individuals have a right to know their status in research and the clinic

• Individuals have a right to not know their status in research and the clinic

• Right to (not) know may be overruled by the principle of primum non nocere (first, do no harm)

14

Wish to (not) know

[14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22, 24, 25, 28, 29, 31, 32, 35, 36, 38, 39]

• Many individuals wish to know

• Some individuals do not wish to know

• Individual’s preference should be included in the informed consent

 

Societal

15

Share

[14, 16, 19,20,21, 23, 24, 28, 30,31,32,33, 35, 37,38,39]

• Patients have the right to privacy and confidentiality

• Fear of stigma and discrimination may prevent individuals from seeking help

• A predementia diagnosis may lead to support

16

Support

[14, 20, 22, 28, 30, 32, 37]

• Services are needed to help individuals cope with predementia AD

17

Stigma

[14, 16, 20,21,22,23,24,25,26, 28,29,30, 32, 34, 35, 37, 38, 40]

• Label of AD may lead to loss of status, identity, or personhood

• Label of AD may lead to public stigma, e.g., pity, patronizing, and distancing

• Label of AD may lead to self-stigma

• Label of AD may lead to spillover stigma (extends to relatives)

• Predementia detection may increase the stigma of AD

• Predementia detection may decrease the stigma of AD

18

Discrimination

[14, 16, 17, 20,21,22,23,24, 27,28,29,30,31,32,33, 35, 37,38,39,40]

• Predementia detection may lead to discrimination in employment, insurance, rights (voting and driving), health care, legal status

19

Policy and law

[14, 20,21,22,23,24,25, 28, 30,31,32,33, 35, 37,38,39]

• Current laws do not protect individuals from biomarker discrimination

• Regulation and law should regulate confidentiality and privacy

• Regulation and law should regulate obligation to (not) disclose

• Regulation and law should regulate forced screening or testing

20

Misconception

[14,15,16,17, 19,20,21,22,23,24,25, 27,28,29,30,31,32, 34,35,36,37,38]

• The concept of predementia AD is difficult to explain and understand

• (Re) conceptualization of AD may lead to misconceptions

• At-risk individuals are prone to (therapeutic) misconceptions

• Healthcare professionals are prone to misinterpretation

• The general public is prone to misconceptions

21

Engagement and education

[14, 16, 20,21,22, 24,25,26, 28, 30,31,32, 35, 37,38,39]

• Patients and the public should be involved in the design of protocols and policy

• Education may improve awareness, acceptance, and attitudes

22

Advance research

[14,15,16, 18, 20, 22, 23, 27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35, 37, 38, 40]

• Therapies are more likely to prevent than cure AD

• Predementia phase offer opportunities to stop, delay, or slow symptom onset

• Potential interventions will target patients in early stages of the disease

23

Medicalization

[14, 20, 23, 28, 32, 34, 35, 37]

• Predementia detection may lead to medicalization and overdiagnosis

• Predementia detection may increase urgency or treating AD

• Predementia detection may decrease urgency or treating AD

24

Resources

[14, 16,17,18, 20, 22,23,24, 27, 28, 30,31,32,33, 35, 37, 39]

• Tests and treatment may not be affordable or accessible for all

• Predementia detection may exhaust healthcare and overwhelm current systems

• Predementia detection may prioritize prevention over care or other research

• Early detection may lead to higher cost

• Early detection may lead to lower cost

25

Hope

[23, 28, 34]

• Research (participation) should not be motivated by false hope

26

Fear

[14, 16, 23, 24, 26, 29, 31, 32, 34, 35, 37, 39]

• There is a lot of fear for (the implications) of AD

• Predementia detection may increase fear

  1. Considerations according to context. By inductively analyzing the literature presenting theoretical data on disclosing the presence of AD pathology to individuals without dementia, we extracted 26 unique considerations from 25 articles. We categorized these considerations according to the context they primarily related to, i.e., clinical, personal, and societal context, and collected the underlying arguments as stated by the authors