Biomarkers for predicting Alzheimer’s disease (AD) are advancing and their implementation in various healthcare systems is imminent. There is a need for ethical standards addressing information needs, socio-ethical concerns, and expectations of healthy and at-risk persons. We present an ethical approach that integrates different existing ethical frameworks and discussion of our empirical, cross-cultural findings in a multi-layered perspective by addressing three levels. The micro-level focuses on the communication between counseling professionals, persons at risk or in an early stage of dementia, and family members. The meso-level addresses interprofessional cooperation and exchange as a key element for best person-centered care. The macro-level considers public health promotion, the media, and public-funded research. This approach allows to address key ethical concepts including beneficence, non-maleficence, autonomy, informational self-determination, empowerment, and justice. Our contribution specifically examines the ethical challenges associated with AD prediction by means of biomarkers, based on insights from a German-Israeli comparison, and promotes a transdisciplinary discussion across different healthcare contexts. We propose a reflection on three levels to go beyond the clinical counseling context and to consider the rapidly evolving field of biomarkers in the coming years. Our ethical-practical recommendations should not be considered final, but rather procedural and will require continuous adaptation regarding culturally varying practices, new algorithms, meta-analyses, and re-evaluation of established recommendations.
LeibingA and SchicktanzS. Preventing dementia? Critical perspectives on a new paradigm of preparing for old age. New York/Oxford: Berghahn Books, 2020.
3.
DuboisB. The emergence of a new conceptual framework for Alzheimer’s disease. J Alzheimers Dis2018; 62: 1059–1066.
4.
ScharreDW. Preclinical, prodromal, and dementia stages of Alzheimer’s disease. Pract Neurol2019; 2: 36–47.
5.
TeunissenCE, VerberkIMW, ThijssenEH, et al. Blood-based biomarkers for Alzheimer’s disease: Towards clinical implementation. Lancet Neurol2022; 21: 66–67.
6.
VillaC and StoccoroA.
Epigenetic peripheral biomarkers for early diagnosis of Alzheimer’s disease. Genes (Basel)2022; 13: 1308.
7.
SchindlerSE and BatemanRJ. Combining blood-based biomarkers to predict risk for Alzheimer’s disease dementia. Nat Aging2021; 1: 26–28.
8.
PalmqvistS, TidemanP, CullenN, et al. Prediction of future Alzheimer’s disease dementia using plasma phospho-tau combined with other accessible measures. Nat Med2021; 27: 1034–1042.
9.
CummingsJ and KinneyJ. Biomarkers for Alzheimer’s disease: Context of use, qualification, and roadmap for clinical implementation. Medicina (Kaunas)2022; 58: 952.
10.
WinchesterL, HarshfieldE, ShiL, et al. Artificial intelligence for biomarker discovery in Alzheimer’s disease and dementia. Alzheimers Dement2023; 19: 5860–5871.
11.
AqeelA, HassanA, KhanMA, et al. A long short-term memory biomarker-based prediction framework for Alzheimer’s disease. Sensors2022; 22: 1475.
LivingstonG, HuntleyJ, SommerladA, et al. Dementia prevention, intervention, and care: 2020 report of the Lancet commission. Lancet2020; 396: 413–446.
15.
World Health Organization. Risk Reduction of Cognitive Decline and Dementia: WHO Guidelines. Geneva: World Health Organization, 2019.
16.
IsaacsonR, GanzerC, HristovH, et al. The clinical practice of risk reduction for Alzheimer’s disease: A precision medicine approach. Alzheimers Dement2018; 14: 1663–1673.
17.
DuboisB, VillainN, FrisoniGB, et al. Clinical diagnosis of Alzheimer’s disease: Recommendations of the International Working Group. Lancet Neurol2021; 20: 484–496.
18.
HansenN, RauterC and WiltfangJ. Blutbasierte Biomarker zur Optimierung der Früh- und Differentialdiagnostik der Alzheimer-Demenz. Fortschr Neurol Psychiatr2022; 90: 326–335.
19.
DelabyC, TeunissenCE, BlennowK, et al. Clinical reporting following the quantification of cerebrospinal fluid biomarkers in Alzheimer’s disease: An international overview. Alzheimers Dement2022; 18: 1868–1879.
20.
EricksonCM, ClarkLR, KetchumFB, et al. Implications of preclinical Alzheimer's disease biomarker disclosure for US policy and society. Alzheimers Dement2022; 14: e12339.
21.
EricksonCM, ChinNA, JohnsonSC, et al. Disclosure of preclinical Alzheimer’s disease biomarker results in research and clinical settings: Why, how, and what we still need to know. Alzheimers Dement2021; 13: e12150.
22.
UrsinF, TimmermannCand StegerF. Ethical implications of Alzheimer’s disease prediction in asymptomatic individuals through artificial intelligence. Diagnostics2021; 11: 440.
23.
LargentEA, AberaM, HarkinsK, et al. Family members’ perspectives on learning cognitively unimpaired older adults’ amyloid-β PET scan results. J Am Geriatr Soc2021; 69: 3203–3211.
24.
VisserLNC, MinguillonC, Sánchez-BenavidesG, et al. Dementia risk communication. A user manual for brain health services—part 3 of 6. Alzheimers Res Ther2021; 13: 1–2.
25.
RostamzadehA, SchweglerC, Gil-NavarroS, et al. Biomarker-based risk prediction of Alzheimer’s disease dementia in mild cognitive impairment: Psychosocial, ethical, and legal aspects. J Alzheimers Dis2021; 80: 601–617.
26.
RenteríaME, MitchellBLand de LaraAM. Genetic testing for Alzheimer’s disease: Trends, challenges and ethical considerations. Curr Opin Psychiatry2020; 33: 136–140.
27.
NurmiSM, HalkoahoA, MoilanenJ, et al. The ethical implications of genetic testing in neurodegenerative diseases: A systematic review. Scand J Caring Sci2021; 35: 1057–1074.
28.
LargentEA, GrillJD, O’BrienK, et al. Testing for Alzheimer’s disease biomarkers and disclosing results across the disease continuum. Neurology2023; 100: 1010–1019.
29.
BunnikEM, SmedingaM, MilneRJ, et al. Ethical frameworks for disclosure of Alzheimer’s disease biomarkers to research participants: Conflicting norms and a nuanced policy. Ethics Hum Res2022; 44: 2–13.
30.
FrederiksenKS, NielsenTR, AppollonioI, et al. Biomarker counseling, disclosure of diagnosis and follow-up in patients with mild cognitive impairment: A European Alzheimer’s disease consortium survey. Int J Geriatr Psychiatry2021; 36: 324–333.
31.
JessenF and DodelR. S3-Leitlinie Demenzenin AWMF online Deutsche Gesellschaft für Psychiatrie und Psychotherapie, Psychosomatik und Nervenheilkunde e. V. (DGPPN), Deutsche Gesellschaft für Neurologie e.V. (DGN), 2023.
32.
PillaiD, NarayanJ, Gentry-MaharajA, et al. Co-creation of breast cancer risk communication tools and an assessment of risk factor awareness: A Qualitative study of patients and the public in India. Cancers2023; 15: 2973.
33.
KeaneH, HuilgolYS,
ShiehY, et al. Development and pilot of an online, personalized risk assessment tool for a breast cancer precision medicine trial. Breast Cancer2021; 7: 78.
34.
van DyckCH, SwansonCJ, AisenP, et al. Lecanemab in early Alzheimer’s disease. N Engl J Med2023; 388: 9–21.
35.
CaprioglioC, GaribottoV, JessenF, et al. The clinical use of Alzheimer’s disease biomarkers in patients with mild cognitive impairment: A European Alzheimer’s disease consortium survey. J Alzheimers Dis2022; 89: 535–551.
36.
Nuffield Council on Bioethics. Dementia: Ethical Issues. Cambridge: Cambridge Publisher, 2009.
37.
Budin-LjøsneI. A review of ethical frameworks for the disclosure of individual research results in population-based genetic and genomic research. Res Ethics2012; 8: 25–42.
38.
MarckmannG, SchmidtH, SofaerN, et al. Putting public health ethics into practice: A systematic framework. Front Public Health2015; 3: 125749.
39.
StrechD, PersadG, MarckmannG, et al. Are physicians willing to ration health care? Conflicting findings in a systematic review of survey research. Health Policy2009; 90: 113–124.
40.
WernerP, UlitsaN, Alpinar-SencanZ, et al. Identifying stigmatizing language used by Israelis and Germans with a Mild Neurocognitive Disorder, their relatives, and caregivers of people with Alzheimer’s disease. Alzheimer Dis Assoc Disord2024; 38: 42–50.
41.
Alpinar-SencanZ. Provision of healthcare for culturally diverse populations: Insights from a qualitative study on dementia care with the Turkish immigrant community in Germany. In: RamsakM, LukowP, MuzurA, et al. (eds) Social Diversity and Access to Healthcare for Minority Groups in the Context of Hospital and Clinical Healthcare. Freiburg: Karl Alber Verlag, 2023, pp. 155–177.
42.
Alpinar-SencanZ, SchicktanzS, UlitsaN, et al. Moral motivation regarding dementia risk testing among affected persons in Germany and Israel. J Med Ethics2022; 48: 861–867.
43.
WernerP, UlitsaN, ShephetD, et al. Fear about Alzheimer’s disease among Israeli and German laypersons, persons with mild neurocognitive disorder and their relatives: A qualitative study. Int Psychogeriatr2021; 33: 1019–1034.
44.
LohmeyerJL, Alpinar-SencanZ and SchicktanzS. Attitudes towards prediction and early diagnosis of late-onset dementia: A comparison of tested persons and family caregivers. Aging Ment Health2021; 25: 832–843.
45.
Alpinar-SencanZ, LohmeyerL and SchicktanzS. Planning later life with dementia: Comparing family caregivers’ perspectives on biomarkers with laypersons’ attitudes towards genetic testing of dementia prediction. New Genet Soc2020; 39: 52–79.
SheffrinM, Stijacic CenzerI and SteinmanMA. Desire for predictive testing for Alzheimer’s disease and impact on advance care planning: A cross-sectional study. Alzheimers Res Ther2016; 8: 1–7.
48.
VanderschaegheG, VandenbergheR and DierickxK. Stakeholder’s views on early diagnosis for Alzheimer’s disease, clinical trial participation and Amyloid PET disclosure: A Focus group study. Bioethical Inquiry2019; 16: 45–59.
49.
MilneR, BunnikE, DiazA, et al. Perspectives on communicating biomarker-based assessments of Alzheimer’s disease to cognitively healthy individuals. J Alzheimers Dis2018; 62: 487–498.
50.
de WildeA, van BuchemMM, OttenRHJ, et al. Disclosure of amyloid positron emission tomography results to individuals without dementia: A systematic review. Alzheimers Res Ther2018; 10: 72.
51.
LinglerJH, SereikaSM, ButtersMA, et al. A randomized controlled trial of amyloid positron emission tomography results disclosure in mild cognitive impairment. Alzheimers Dement2020; 16: 1330–1337.
52.
KimH and LinglerJH.
Disclosure of amyloid PET scan results: A systematic review. In: BeckerJT, CohenAD, (eds) Brain Imaging. Amsterdam: Elsevier, 2019, pp. 401–414.
53.
LinglerJH, RobertsJS, KimH, et al. Amyloid positron emission tomography candidates may focus more on benefits than risks of results disclosure. Alzheimers Dement2018; 10: 413–420.
54.
HawC, HarwoodD and HawtonK. Dementia and suicidal behavior: A review of the literature. Int Psychogeriatr2009; 21: 440–453.
55.
DraperB, PeisahC, SnowdonJ, et al. Early dementia diagnosis and the risk of suicide and euthanasia. Alzheimers Dement2010; 6: 75–82.
56.
DraperBM. Suicidal behavior and assisted suicide in dementia. Int Psychogeriatr2015; 27: 1601–1611.
57.
UlitsaN, WernerP, ShefetD, et al. Early diagnosis of Alzheimer’s disease and the use of biomarkers: The views of Israeli experts in the field (Hebrew). Gerontol Geriatr J Aging Stud2021; 48: 61–81.
58.
RabinoviciGD, GatsonisC, ApgarC, et al. Association of Amyloid Positron Emission Tomography with subsequent change in clinical management among Medicare beneficiaries with mild cognitive impairment or dementia. JAMA2019; 321: 1286–1294.
59.
RazAE and SchicktanzS. Comparative empirical bioethics: Dilemmas of genetic testing and euthanasia in Israel and Germany. Springer, 2016.
60.
DavisDS. Alzheimer’s disease and pre-emptive suicide. J Med Ethics2014; 40: 543–549.
61.
DresserR. Pre-emptive suicide, precedent autonomy and preclinical Alzheimer’s disease. J Med Ethics2014; 40: 550–551.
62.
UlitsaN, WernerP and AboJabelH. What do Israeli Arabs and immigrants from the Soviet Union think about Alzheimer’s disease: A comparative study of minority groups in Israel (23rd Annual Conference of the Israeli Society of Gerontology), Tel-Aviv, 2020.
KihlbomU, HanssonM and SchicktanzS. Introduction. In: Ethical, Social and Psychological Impacts of Genomic Risk Communication]Abingdon, Oxford: Routledge, 2021, pp.1–9.
65.
AkabayashiA and HayashiY. Informed Consent Revisited: A Global Perspective. In: AkabayashiA. (ed.) The Future of Bioethics: International Dialogues. Oxford: Oxford Academic, 2014, pp.735–749.
66.
HoA. Whose interest is it anyway? Autonomy and family-facilitated approach to decision-making. In: The Future of Bioethics: International Dialogues. Oxford: Oxford Academic, 2014.
67.
BeckerC. Medical practice and cultural myth. In: The Future of Bioethics: International Dialogues. Oxford, Oxford Academic, 2014; pp. 750–756.
68.
SchermerM and RichardE. On the reconceptualization of Alzheimer’s disease. Bioethics2019; 33: 138–145.
69.
AkabayashiA, FettersMD and ElwynTS. Family consent, communication, and advance directives for cancer disclosure: A Japanese case and discussion. J Med Ethics1999; 25: 296–301.
70.
CandibLM. Truth-telling and advance planning at the end of life: Problems with autonomy in a multicultural world. Families Syst Health2002; 20: 213–228.
71.
LargentEA, StitesSD, HarkinsK, et al. ‘That would be dreadful’: The ethical, legal, and social challenges of sharing your Alzheimer’s disease biomarker and genetic testing results with others. J Law Biosci2021; 8: lsab004.
72.
FrederiksenKS, NielsenTR, WindbladB, et al. European Academy of Neurology/European Alzheimer’s Disease Consortium position statement on diagnostic disclosure, biomarker counseling, and management of patients with mild cognitive impairment. Eur J Neurol2021; 28: 2147–2155.
73.
TurnerL. Bioethics in a multicultural World: Medicine and morality in pluralistic settings. Health Care Anal2003; 1: 99–117.
74.
BetschC, BöhmR, AirhihenbuwaCO, et al. Improving medical decision making and health promotion through culture-sensitive health communication: An agenda for science and practice. Med Decis Making2016; 36: 811–833.
75.
LouwB. Cultural competence and ethical decision making for health care professionals. Humanities Soc Sci2016; 4: 41–52.
76.
TillmannJ, JustJ, SchnakenbergR, et al. Challenges in diagnosing dementia in patients with a migrant background – a cross-sectional study among German general practitioners. BMC Fam Pract2019; 20: 34.
77.
Tezcan-GüntekinH and SternA. Kultursensible Pflege in Deutschland–Ein Blick auf die professionelle Pflege. Sozialer Fortschritt2020; 69: 147–162.
78.
MonseesJ, SchmachtenbergT and ThyrianRJ. Intercultural care for people of migrant origin with dementia – A literature analysis. Dementia2022; 21: 1753–1770.
79.
PerryJ, BroseJ and RadenbachK. Well advised: The need for counseling in early stages of Alzheimer’s disease. J Gerontopsychol Geriatr Psychiatry2023; 36: 189–202.
Deutsche Alzheimer Gesellschaft, Universitätsmedizin Göttingen, IEGUS. Project “Well Advised: New Multi-Mode and Standardized Counseling Models for Early Stages of Alzheimer’s Disease or in the Context of Dementia Prediction”, https://beratung-demenz.de (2020-2022, accessed 16 February 2024).
82.
HendriksenHMA, van GilsAM, van HartenAC, et al. Communication about diagnosis, prognosis, and prevention in the memory clinic: Perspectives of European memory clinic professionals. Alzheimers Res Ther2023; 15: 131.
83.
SchicktanzS, SchwedaM, BallengerJF, et al. Before it is too late: Professional responsibilities in late-onset Alzheimer’s research and pre-symptomatic prediction. Front Hum Neurosci2014; 8: 1–6.
SchicktanzS, SchwedaM, WynneB. The ethics of ‘public understanding of ethics’ – why and how bioethics expertise should include public and patients’ voices. Med Health Care Philos2012; 15: 129–139.
86.
StitesSD, GillJ, LargentEA, et al. The relative contributions of biomarkers, disease-modifying treatment, and dementia severity to Alzheimer’s stigma: A vignette-based experiment. Soc Sci Med2022; 292: 114620.
87.
StitesSD, LargentEA, SchumannR, et al. How reactions to a brain scan result differ for adults based on self-identified Black and White race. Alzheimers Dement2024; 20: 1527–1537.
88.
SchmachtenbergT, MonseesJ, HoffmannW, et al. Comparing national dementia plans and strategies in Europe – is there a focus of care for people with dementia from a migration background?BMC Public Health2020; 20: 1–10.
89.
GoveD, NielsenTR, SmitsC, et al. The challenges of achieving timely diagnosis and culturally appropriate care of people with dementia from minority ethnic groups in Europe. Int J Geriatr Psychiatry2021; 36: 1823–1828.
90.
ScheppersE, van DongenE, DekkerJ, et al. Potential barriers to the use of health services among ethnic minorities: A review. Fam Pract2006; 23: 325–348.
91.
NielsenTR, VogelA, RiepeMW, et al. Assessment of dementia in ethnic minority patients in Europe: European Alzheimer’s disease consortium survey. Int Psychogeriatr2011; 23: 86–95.
92.
SagbakkenM, SpilkerRS, NielsenTR. Dementia and immigrant groups: A qualitative study of challenges related to identifying, assessing, and diagnosing dementia. BMC Health Serv Res2018; 18: 1–14.
von BoseA. Interkulturelle Kommunikation in der Pflege – Patienten aus anderen Kulturen verstehen und beraten. In: BonackerM, GeigerG, (eds) Migration in der Pflege. Berlin, Heidelberg, Springer, 2021.
95.
SchmidhuberM. Interkulturelle Kompetenz im Krankenhaus: Arzt-Patienten-Kommunikation mit Menschen mit Demenz und ihren Angehörigen im interkulturellen Setting. Baden-Baden: Nomos Verlag, 2022.
96.
Van GorpB and VercruysseT. Frames and counter-frames giving meaning to dementia: A framing analysis of media content. Soc Sci Med2012; 74: 1274–1281.
97.
PetersenN and SchicktanzS. The Experts’ advice: Prevention and responsibility in German media and scientific discourses on dementia. Qual Health Res2021; 31: 2005–2018.
98.
Lloyd-WilliamsF, HyseniL, Guzman-CastilloM, et al. Evaluating stakeholder involvement in building a decision support tool for NHS health checks: Co-producing the WorkHORSE study. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak2020; 20: 182.
99.
BoazA, HanneyS, BorstR, et al. How to engage stakeholders in research: Design principles to support improvement. Health Res Policy Syst2018; 16: 1–9.
100.
PeelE. ‘The living death of Alzheimer’s’ versus ‘Take a walk to keep dementia at bay’: Representations of dementia in print media and carer discourse. Sociol Health Illn2014; 36: 885–901.
101.
WernerP, SchiffmanI, DavidD, et al. Newspaper coverage of Alzheimer’s disease: Comparing online newspapers in Hebrew and Arabic across time. Dementia2019; 18: 1554–1567.
102.
GigerenzerG, GaissmaierW, Kurz-MilckeE, et al. Helping doctors and patients make sense of health statistics. Psychol Sci Public Interest2007; 8: 53–96.
