Browsing by Author "Roberts, J. Scott"

Now showing 1 - 4 of 4
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Clinical use of amyloid-positron emission tomography neuroimaging: Practical and bioethical considerations
    (Elsevier, 2015-09) Witte, Michael M.; Foster, Norman L.; Fleisher, Adam S.; Williams, Monique M.; Quaid, Kimberly; Wasserman, Michael; Hunt, Gail; Roberts, J. Scott; Rabinovici, Gil D.; Levenson, James L.; Hake, Ann Marie; Hunter, Craig A.; Van Campen, Luann E.; Pontecorvo, Michael J.; Hochstetler, Helen M.; Tabas, Linda B.; Trzepacz, Paula T.; Department of Neurology, IU School of Medicine
    Until recently, estimation of β-amyloid plaque density as a key element for identifying Alzheimer's disease (AD) pathology as the cause of cognitive impairment was only possible at autopsy. Now with amyloid-positron emission tomography (amyloid-PET) neuroimaging, this AD hallmark can be detected antemortem. Practitioners and patients need to better understand potential diagnostic benefits and limitations of amyloid-PET and the complex practical, ethical, and social implications surrounding this new technology. To complement the practical considerations, Eli Lilly and Company sponsored a Bioethics Advisory Board to discuss ethical issues that might arise from clinical use of amyloid-PET neuroimaging with patients being evaluated for causes of cognitive decline. To best address the multifaceted issues associated with amyloid-PET neuroimaging, we recommend this technology be used only by experienced imaging and treating physicians in appropriately selected patients and only in the context of a comprehensive clinical evaluation with adequate explanations before and after the scan.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Disclosure of individual research results at federally funded Alzheimer's Disease Research Centers
    (Wiley, 2021-10-14) Roberts, J. Scott; Ferber, Rebecca; Blacker, Deborah; Rumbaugh, Malia; Grill, Joshua D.; Medical and Molecular Genetics, School of Medicine
    Introduction: This study describes practices for disclosing individual research results to participants in Alzheimer's disease research. Methods: An online survey of clinical core leaders at National Institutes of Health-funded Alzheimer's Disease Research Centers in the United States (response rate: 30/31, 97%) examined return of results practices across nine different types of research results. Results: Most centers had returned consensus research diagnoses (83%) and neuropsychological test results (73%), with fewer having shared amyloid positron emission tomography (43%), tau imaging (10%), or apolipoprotein E (APOE) genotype (7%) results. Centers reported having disclosed a mean of 3.1 types of results (standard deviation = 2.1; range 0-8). The most commonly cited reason for disclosure was to inform participants' medical decision-making (88%). Disclosure involved multiple professionals and modalities, with neurologists (87%) and in-person visits (85%) most commonplace. Discussion: Centers varied widely as to whether and how they disclosed research results. Diagnostic and cognitive test results were more commonly returned than genetic or biomarker results.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Spillover: The Approval of New Medications for Alzheimer's Disease Dementia Will Impact Biomarker Disclosure Among Asymptomatic Research Participants
    (IOS Press, 2022) Mozersky, Jessica; Roberts, J. Scott; Rumbaugh, Malia; Chhatwal, Jasmeer; Wijsman, Ellen; Galasko, Douglas; Blacker, Deborah; AGREED; Medical and Molecular Genetics, School of Medicine
    In this article we address how the recent, and anticipated upcoming, FDA approvals of novel anti-amyloid medications to treat individuals with mild Alzheimer’s disease (AD) dementia could impact disclosure of biomarker results among asymptomatic research participants. Currently, research is typically the context where an asymptomatic individual may have the option to learn their amyloid biomarker status. Asymptomatic research participants who learn their amyloid status may have questions regarding the meaning of this result and the implications for accessing a potential intervention. After outlining our rationale, we provide examples of how current educational materials used in research convey messages regarding amyloid positivity and the availability of treatments, or lack thereof. We suggest language to improve messaging, as well as strengths of current materials, in addressing these issues for research participants. Although novel medications are currently only approved for use among symptomatic individuals, their availability may have implications for disclosure among asymptomatic research participants with evidence of amyloid deposition, who may be especially interested in information on these interventions for potential prevention, or future treatment, of mild cognitive impairment or dementia due to AD.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Use of At-Home Medical Tests Among Older US Adults: A Nationally Representative Survey
    (Sage, 2024) Rager, Joshua B.; Kirch, Matthias; Singer, Dianne C.; Solway, Erica; Malani, Preeti N.; Roberts, J. Scott; Kullgren, Jeffrey T.; Medicine, School of Medicine
    The availability of direct-to-consumer, at-home medical tests has grown over the last decade, but it is unknown how frequently older adults purchase at-home tests, how they perceive such tests, and how interested they are in using at-home tests in the future. We conducted a cross-sectional, nationally representative survey of non-institutionalized US adults aged 50 to 80 about their previous use of, perceptions of, and future intentions to use at-home medical tests. We found that nearly half of older adults (48.1%) have purchased an at-home medical test (95% CI 45.2%-51.0%), including 32.0% (95% CI 29.3%-34.8%) who purchased a COVID-19 test, 16.6% (95% CI 14.7%-18.7%) who purchased an at-home DNA or genetic test, 5.6% (95% CI 4.5%-7.0%) who purchased a screening test for cancer, and 4.4% (95% CI 3.4%-5.6%) who purchased a test for an infection other than COVID-19. Compared with White, non-Hispanic adults, Black, non-Hispanic adults were less likely to have purchased an at-home test (35.5% vs 49.6%, P < .01). Those with a college degree and those with an annual household income greater than $100K were more likely than others to have purchased at-home tests (55.5% vs 42.0%, P < .01; 60.6% vs 39.0%, P < .001, respectively). Most older adults had positive perceptions about at-home tests and expressed interest in using at-home tests in the future. At-home medical testing is now common among older adults. Clinicians should be familiar with different tests that patients can purchase and be prepared to discuss the potential advantages and disadvantages of at-home testing.