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.

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.

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.

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).

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.

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.

Development of a Lived Experience Panel to inform the design of embedded pragmatic trials of dementia care interventions.

BACKGROUND: The National Institute on Aging (NIA) Imbedded Pragmatic Alzheimer's Disease and Alzheimer's Related Dementia Clinical Trials (IMPACT) Collaboratory convened a Lived Experience Panel (LEP) to inform the development of research priorities and provide input on conducting embedded pragmatic clinical trials (ePCTs) of dementia care interventions. Given the importance of people with lived experience to dementia research, and the unique considerations of engaging people with dementia, we report on our process for the recruitment, selection, and initial convening of the IMPACT LEP. METHODS: The IMPACT Engaging Partners Team, in partnership with the Alzheimer's Association, sought nominations of individuals with mild cognitive impairment or early-stage dementia, care partners of other people living with dementia (PLWD), and proxy representatives for individuals with mid-to-late stage dementia. The 11-member LEP was composed of individuals with diverse personal experiences in part due to their age, race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, geography, disability, or type of dementia. In its first year, the LEP met with IMPACT's Patient and Caregiver Relevant Outcomes Core and Ethics and Regulation Core. RESULTS: LEP members provided valuable insights and nuanced discussion of issues relevant to ePCTs in dementia care from a broad range of personal experience. Panelists identified key research priorities and provided insight on outcomes often studied by researchers. The LEP also informed investigators' approaches to waivers and modifications of written informed consent and evaluation of minimal risk. Summary reports of the LEP meetings with each Core are available on the IMPACT website. At the end of the first year, changes were made to the composition of the LEP, and opportunities were identified for expanding panelist engagement with IMPACT investigators, as were priorities and scope for future input. CONCLUSIONS: The IMPACT LEP provides a model for engaging PLWD and care partners in the research process as collaborators.

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.

"A Raw Blessing" - Caregivers' Experiences Providing Care to Persons Living with Dementia in the COVID-19 Pandemic.

The COVID-19 pandemic has been devastating for people living with dementia (PLWD) and their caregivers. While prior research has documented these effects, it has not delved into their specific causes or how they are modified by contextual variation in caregiving circumstances.

A New Framework for Dementia Nomenclature.

Importance: Nomenclature in the field of neurodegenerative diseases presents a challenging problem. Inconsistent use of terms such as Alzheimer disease and dementia has compromised progress in clinical care, research, and development of therapeutics. Dementia-associated stigma further contributes to inconsistent and imprecise language. The result is a lack of clarity that produces confusion with patients and the general public and presents communication challenges among researchers. Therefore, the Advisory Council on Research, Care, and Services of the National Plan to Address Alzheimer's Disease authorized a committee to make recommendations for improvement. Objective: To establish a systematic neurodegenerative disease framework for information collection and communication to standardize language usage for research, clinical, and public health purposes. Evidence Review: The Dementia Nomenclature Initiative organized into 3 major stakeholder working groups: clinicians, researchers, and the public (including individuals living with dementia and family caregivers). To inform the work, the initiative completed a narrative literature review of dementia nomenclature evolution over the last century across the PubMed, CINAHL, PsycInfo, and Scopus databases (January 1, 2000, through July 31, 2020). Initiative working groups used the results as a foundation for understanding current challenges with dementia nomenclature and implications for research, clinical practice, and public understanding. The initiative obtained additional input via focus groups with individuals living with dementia and caregivers, with separate groups for race and ethnicity (American Indian or Alaska Native, Asian or Pacific Islander, Black or African American, Hispanic or Latino, and White) as an initial assessment of the meaning of dementia-related terms to these groups. Findings: From working group deliberations, the literature review, and focus group input, the initiative developed a framework clearly separating the clinical syndromic presentation experienced by affected individuals from possible underlying pathophysiologies. In the framework, domains of clinical impairment, such as cognitive, behavioral, motor, and other neurologic features, are graded by level of impairment between none and severe. Next, biomarker information describes underlying disease processes, explains the syndrome, and identifies possible disease labels: Alzheimer disease, frontotemporal degeneration, dementia with Lewy bodies, or vascular cognitive impairment dementia. Conclusions and Relevance: The Dementia Nomenclature Initiative established a framework to guide communication about cognitive impairment among older adults. Wider testing and refinement of the framework will subsequently improve the information used in communicating about cognitive impairment and the way in which the information is used in clinical, research, and public settings.

Supported decision making: Facilitating the self-determination of persons living with Alzheimer's and related diseases.

Decision-making capacity describes the ability to make a particular decision at a given time. People with Mild Cognitive Impairment (MCI) and mild stage dementia typically experience an associated erosion of their decisional abilities. Many could be said to have marginal capacity. These individuals are in a liminal space between adequate and inadequate capacity. Too often, marginal capacity is overlooked as a category: individuals are classified either as having capacity and being able to make decisions independently or as lacking capacity and needing a surrogate to make decisions for them. These approaches can, respectively, result in under- or overprotection of individuals with marginal capacity. A promising alternative approach is supported decision making. In supported decision making, a person with marginal capacity identifies a trusted person or network of persons to aid them in making their own decisions. Supported decision making is recognized by law in a growing number of states; it is important for geriatricians to be familiar with the concept, as they are increasingly likely to encounter it in their practice. Even in states where supported decision making is not formally recognized, it can be practiced informally, helping patients, care partners, and clinicians strike an appropriate balance between respecting autonomy and recognizing vulnerability. In this article, we describe supported decision making, discuss its ethical and legal foundations, and identify steps by which geriatricians can incorporate it into their practice.

Mild Cognitive Impairment is Associated with Poorer Everyday Decision Making.

BACKGROUND: Older adults are faced with many unique and highly consequential decisions such as those related to finances, healthcare, and everyday functioning (e.g., driving cessation). Given the significant impact of these decisions on independence, wellbeing, and safety, an understanding of how cognitive impairment may impact decision making in older age is important. OBJECTIVE: To examine the impact of mild cognitive impairment (MCI) on responses to a modified version of the Short Portable Assessment of Capacity for Everyday Decision making (SPACED). METHODS: Participants were community-dwelling, actively driving older adults (N = 301; M age = 77.1 years, SD = 5.1; 69.4% with a college degree or higher; 51.2% female; 95.3% White) enrolled in the Advancing Understanding of Transportation Options (AUTO) study. A generalized linear model adjusted for age, education, sex, randomization group, cognitive assessment method, and study site was used to examine the relationship between MCI status and decision making. RESULTS: MCI status was associated with poorer decision making; participants with MCI missed an average of 2.17 times more points on the SPACED than those without MCI (adjusted mean ratio: 2.17, 95% CI: 1.02, 4.61, p = 0.044). CONCLUSION: This finding supports the idea that older adults with MCI exhibit poorer decision-making abilities than cognitively normal older adults. It also suggests that older adults with MCI may exhibit poorer decision making across a wide range of decision contexts.

Awareness of diagnosis predicts changes in quality of life in individuals with mild cognitive impairment and mild stage dementia.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: This observational study examined how awareness of diagnosis predicted changes in cognition and quality of life (QOL) 1 year later in older adults with normal cognition and dementia diagnoses. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Older adults (n = 259) with normal cognition, mild cognitive impairment (MCI), or mild stage Alzheimer's disease (AD) completed measures of diagnostic awareness, cognition, and multiple domains of QOL. We compared 1-year change in cognition and QOL by diagnostic group and diagnostic awareness. RESULTS: Patients who were unaware of their diagnosis at baseline showed average decreases in both satisfaction with daily life (QOL-AD; paired mean difference (PMD) = -0.9, p < 0.05) and physical functioning (SF-12 PCS; PMD = -2.5, p < 0.05). In contrast, patients aware of their diagnosis at baseline showed no statistically discernable changes in most QOL domains (all p > 0.05). Of patients aware of their diagnosis at baseline (n = 111), those who were still aware (n = 84) showed a decrease in mental functioning at follow up (n = 27; SF-12 MCS). Change in MoCA scores in patients unaware of their diagnosis was similar to that in patients aware of their diagnosis, -1.4 points (95% CI -2.6 to -0.6) and -1.7 points (95% CI -2.4 to -1.1) respectively. DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS: Awareness of one's diagnosis of MCI or AD, not the severity of cognitive impairment, may predict changes in patients' mental functioning, expectations of their memory, satisfaction with daily life, and physical functioning. The findings may help clinicians anticipate the types of threats to wellbeing that a patient might encounter and identify key domains for monitoring.

How intention to join an Alzheimer's participant recruitment registry differs by race, ethnicity, sex, and family history: Results from a national survey of US adults.

INTRODUCTION: Alzheimer's-focused participant recruitment registries are tools for accelerating enrollment into studies, however, registry members are primarily White women. METHODS: We conducted a national online survey of 1501 adults ages 50-80, oversampling for Black and Hispanic/Latino respondents, assessing intention to join a generic "brain health" registry and to join a registry that required specific tasks. RESULTS: Intention to join a registry was low (M 3.48, SD 1.77), and lower than intention to join a registry requiring specific tasks. Intention was greatest for registries requiring completing surveys (M 4.70, SD 1.77). Differences in intention were primarily between White women and Black women; differences between other groups were limited to specific tasks required. DISCUSSION: The results indicate uncertainty about what a registry is, its purpose, and/or the concept of "brain health." Using the Reasoned Action Approach (RAA) to develop evidence-based outreach messages describing a registry and required tasks may increase diversity.

Outcomes with spinal versus general anesthesia for patients with and without preoperative cognitive impairment: Secondary analysis of a randomized clinical trial.

INTRODUCTION: The effect of spinal versus general anesthesia on the risk of postoperative delirium or other outcomes for patients with or without cognitive impairment (including dementia) is unknown. METHODS: Post hoc secondary analysis of a multicenter pragmatic trial comparing spinal versus general anesthesia for adults aged 50 years or older undergoing hip fracture surgery. RESULTS: Among patients randomized to spinal versus general anesthesia, new or worsened delirium occurred in 100/295 (33.9%) versus 107/283 (37.8%; odds ratio [OR] 0.85; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.60 to 1.19) among persons with cognitive impairment and 70/432 (16.2%) versus 71/445 (16.0%) among persons without cognitive impairment (OR 1.02; 95% CI 0.71 to 1.47, p = 0.46 for interaction). Delirium severity, in-hospital complications, and 60-day functional recovery did not differ by anesthesia type in patients with or without cognitive impairment. DISCUSSION: Anesthesia type is not associated with differences in delirium and functional outcomes among persons with or without cognitive impairment.

Gender of Study Partners and Research Participants Associated With Differences in Study Partner Ratings of Cognition and Activity Level.

OBJECTIVES: Studies of Alzheimer's disease typically include "study partners" (SPs) who report on participants' cognition and function. Prior studies show SP reports differ depending on the relationship between the SP and participant, that is, spouse or adult child. Adult children SPs are typically female. Could differing reports be due to gender? Knowing this may help explain variability in measurement. METHODS: The Aging, Demographics, and Memory Study enrolled a subset of participants from the Health and Retirement Study. Each participant had an SP. Bivariate and multivariable regression models compared 718 SP-participant dyads. RESULTS: In analyses of 4 groups defined by SP and participant gender, dyads composed of 2 women were less likely to identify as White (75.8%, 95% confidence interval [CI], 70.4-80.5) than dyads composed of 2 men (93.3%, 95% CI, 81.2-97.8). In analyses adjusted for the severity of cognitive and functional impairment, women SPs rated women participants as more active than they rated men, mean 2.15 (95% CI, 2.07-2.22) versus mean 2.30 (95% CI, 2.24-2.37), respectively, on a 4-point scale. Similarly, men SPs rated women participants as more active than they rated men, mean 2.1 (95% CI, 2.0-2.2) and mean 2.4 (95% CI, 2.3-2.5), respectively. In an analysis of cognitively unimpaired participants, women SPs rated participants' memory worse than men SPs did (p < .05). DISCUSSION: SP and participant gender influence SPs' reports of another person's cognition and activity level. Our findings expand what is understood about how nondisease factors influence measures of disease severity.