Ethics of genetic and biomarker test disclosures in neurodegenerative disease prevention trials
Citation Manager Formats
Make Comment
See Comments
![Loading Loading](https://n.neurology.org/sites/all/modules/contrib/panels_ajax_tab/images/loading.gif)
This article requires a subscription to view the full text. If you have a subscription you may use the login form below to view the article. Access to this article can also be purchased.
Abstract
Objective: Prevention trials for neurodegenerative diseases use genetic or other risk marker tests to select participants but there is concern that this could involve coercive disclosure of unwanted information. This has led some trials to use blinded enrollment (participants are tested but not told of their risk marker status). We examined the ethics of blinded vs transparent enrollment using well-established criteria for assessing the ethics of clinical research.
Methods: Normative analysis applying 4 key ethical criteria—favorable risk-benefit ratio, informed consent, fair subject selection, and scientific validity—to blinded vs transparent enrollment, using current evidence and state of Alzheimer disease (AD) and other prevention trials.
Results: Current evidence on the psychosocial impact of risk marker disclosure and considerations of scientific benefit do not support an obligation to use blinded enrollment in prevention trials. Nor does transparent enrollment coerce or involve undue influence of potential participants. Transparent enrollment does not unfairly exploit vulnerable participants or limit generalizability of scientific findings of prevention trials. However, if the preferences of a community of potential participants would affect the rigor or feasibility of a prevention trial using transparent enrollment, then investigators are required by considerations of scientific validity to use blinded enrollment.
Conclusions: Considerations of risks and benefits, informed consent, and fair subject selection do not require the use of blinded enrollment for AD prevention trials. Blinded enrollment in AD prevention trials may sometimes be necessary because of the need for scientific validity, not because it prevents coercion or undue influence.
GLOSSARY
- AD=
- Alzheimer disease;
- IRB=
- institutional review board;
- RCT=
- randomized controlled trial
Footnotes
The views expressed are the authors' and do not represent the positions or policies of the NIH, DHHS, or US government.
Go to Neurology.org for full disclosures. Funding information and disclosures deemed relevant by the authors, if any, are provided at the end of the article.
- Received October 23, 2014.
- Accepted in final form December 18, 2014.
- © 2015 American Academy of Neurology
AAN Members
We have changed the login procedure to improve access between AAN.com and the Neurology journals. If you are experiencing issues, please log out of AAN.com and clear history and cookies. (For instructions by browser, please click the instruction pages below). After clearing, choose preferred Journal and select login for AAN Members. You will be redirected to a login page where you can log in with your AAN ID number and password. When you are returned to the Journal, your name should appear at the top right of the page.
AAN Non-Member Subscribers
Purchase access
For assistance, please contact:
AAN Members (800) 879-1960 or (612) 928-6000 (International)
Non-AAN Member subscribers (800) 638-3030 or (301) 223-2300 option 3, select 1 (international)
Sign Up
Information on how to subscribe to Neurology and Neurology: Clinical Practice can be found here
Purchase
Individual access to articles is available through the Add to Cart option on the article page. Access for 1 day (from the computer you are currently using) is US$ 39.00. Pay-per-view content is for the use of the payee only, and content may not be further distributed by print or electronic means. The payee may view, download, and/or print the article for his/her personal, scholarly, research, and educational use. Distributing copies (electronic or otherwise) of the article is not allowed.
Letters: Rapid online correspondence
REQUIREMENTS
You must ensure that your Disclosures have been updated within the previous six months. Please go to our Submission Site to add or update your Disclosure information.
Your co-authors must send a completed Publishing Agreement Form to Neurology Staff (not necessary for the lead/corresponding author as the form below will suffice) before you upload your comment.
If you are responding to a comment that was written about an article you originally authored:
You (and co-authors) do not need to fill out forms or check disclosures as author forms are still valid
and apply to letter.
Submission specifications:
- Submissions must be < 200 words with < 5 references. Reference 1 must be the article on which you are commenting.
- Submissions should not have more than 5 authors. (Exception: original author replies can include all original authors of the article)
- Submit only on articles published within 6 months of issue date.
- Do not be redundant. Read any comments already posted on the article prior to submission.
- Submitted comments are subject to editing and editor review prior to posting.
You May Also be Interested in
Dr. Deborah Friedman and Dr. Stacy Smith
► Watch
Related Articles
- No related articles found.
Topics Discussed
Alert Me
Recommended articles
-
Articles
Primary prevention trials in Alzheimer diseaseRobert C. Green, Steven T. DeKosky et al.Neurology, November 13, 2006 -
Null Hypothesis
INTREPADA randomized trial of naproxen to slow progress of presymptomatic Alzheimer diseasePierre-François Meyer, Jennifer Tremblay-Mercier, Jeannie Leoutsakos et al.Neurology, April 05, 2019 -
Views & Reviews
Disease-modifying therapies for Alzheimer diseaseChallenges to early interventionJeffrey L. Cummings, Rachelle Doody, Christopher Clark et al.Neurology, October 15, 2007 -
Article
Age at onset in genetic prion disease and the design of preventive clinical trialsEric Vallabh Minikel, Sonia M. Vallabh, Margaret C. Orseth et al.Neurology, June 06, 2019