Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Opinion
  • Published:

The ethics of informed consent in Alzheimer disease research

Nature Reviews Neurology volume 7, pages 410–414 (2011)Cite this article

Subjects

Abstract

Clinical research on Alzheimer disease (AD) is much needed but requires the participation of patients with substantial cognitive impairment who have difficulty providing informed consent. Despite decades of debate, policies regulating such research are not well-defined. Although numerous studies have underscored the difficulties of obtaining informed consent for clinical research from patients compromised by AD, there is also increasing evidence that such individuals and their surrogates can make decisions about research participation that are consistent with the patients' values. Policy discussions and future research should consider how the ethical reservations about enrolling incapacitated patients in research could be mitigated by developing ways to promote the congruence between surrogates' decisions and patients' values.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Kim, S. Y. H., Caine, E. D., Currier, G. W., Leibovici, A. & Ryan, J. M. Assessing the competence of persons with Alzheimer's disease in providing informed consent for participation in research. Am. J. Psychiatry 158, 712–717 (2001).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Okonkwo, O. et al. Medical decision-making capacity in patients with mild cognitive impairment. Neurology 6 9, 1528–1535 (2007).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Orgogozo, J. M. et al. Subacute meningoencephalitis in a subset of patients with AD after Aβ42 immunization. Neurology 61, 46–54 (2003).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Tuszynski, M. H. et al. A phase 1 clinical trial of nerve growth factor gene therapy for Alzheimer disease. Nat. Med. 11, 551–555 (2005).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Kolata, G. Doubt on tactic in Alzheimer's battle. The New York Times (New York) [online], (2010).

  6. Saks, E. R., Dunn, L. B., Wimer, J., Gonzales, M. & Kim, S. Y. H. Proxy consent to research: the legal landscape. Yale J. Health Policy Law Ethics 8, 37–78 (2008).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Nuffield Council on Bioethics. Dementia: Ethical Issues (Consultation Paper) [online], (2009).

  8. Cahill, M. & Wichman, A. Research involving persons with cognitive impairments: results of a survey of Alzheimer disease research centers in the United States. Alzheimer Dis. Assoc. Disord. 14, 20–27 (2000).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Karlawish, J. H. T. et al. Informed consent for Alzheimer's disease clinical trials: a survey of clinical investigators. IRB 24, 1–5 (2002).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Gong, M. N., Winkel, G., Rhodes, R., Richardson, L. D. & Silverstein, J. H. Surrogate consent for research involving adults with impaired decision making: survey of Institutional Review Board practices. Crit. Care Med. 38, 2146–2154 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Bravo, G. et al. Research with decisionally incapacitated older adults: practices of Canadian research ethics boards. IRB 32, 1–8 (2010).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. National Bioethics Advisory Commission. Research involving persons with mental disorders that may affect decisionmaking capacity. Bioethics Research Library at Georgetown University [online], (1998).

  13. Brudney, D. Choosing for another: beyond autonomy and best interests. Hastings Cent. Rep. 39, 31–37 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Sulmasy, D. P. & Snyder, L. Substituted interests and best judgments: an integrated model of surrogate decision making. JAMA 304, 1946–1947 (2010).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Wendler, D. & Prasad, K. Core safeguards for clinical research with adults who are unable to consent. Ann. Intern. Med. 135, 514–523 (2001).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Kim, S. Y. H. & Appelbaum, P. S. The capacity to appoint a proxy and the possibility of concurrent proxy directives. Behav. Sci. Law 24, 469–478 (2006).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Shalowitz, D. I., Garrett-Mayer, E. & Wendler, D. The accuracy of surrogate decision makers: a systematic review. Arch. Intern. Med. 166, 493–497 (2006).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Warren, J. W. et al. Informed consent by proxy: an issue in research with elderly patients. N. Engl. J. Med. 315, 1124–1128 (1986).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Muncie, H. L. Jr, Magaziner, J., Hebel, J. R. & Warren, J. W. Proxies' decisions about clinical research participation for their charges. J. Am. Geriatr. Soc. 45, 929–933 (1997).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Karlawish, J. et al. The views of Alzheimer disease patients and their study partners on proxy consent for clinical trial enrollment. Am. J. Geriatr. Psychiatry 16, 240–247 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Jefferson, A. L. et al. Decisional capacity for research participation in individuals with mild cognitive impairment. J. Am. Geriatr. Soc. 56, 1236–1243 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Warner, J., McCarney, R., Griffin, M., Hill, K. & Fisher, P. Participation in dementia research: rates and correlates of capacity to give informed consent. J. Med. Ethics 34, 167–170 (2008).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Kim, S. Y. H. et al. Determining when impairment constitutes incapacity for informed consent in schizophrenia research. Br. J. Psychiatry 191, 38–43 (2007).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Marson, D. C., Hawkins, L., McInturff, B. & Harrell, L. E. Cognitive models that predict physician judgments of capacity to consent in mild Alzheimer's disease. J. Am. Geriatr. Soc. 45, 458–464 (1997).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Marson, D. C., McInturff, B., Hawkins, L., Bartolucci, A. & Harrell, L. E. Consistency of physician judgments of capacity to consent in mild Alzheimer's disease. J. Am. Geriatr. Soc. 45, 453–457 (1997).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Kim, S. Y. H., Caine, E. D., Swan, J. G. & Appelbaum, P. S. Do clinicians follow a risk-sensitive model of capacity determination? An experimental video survey. Psychosomatics 47, 325–329 (2006).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Kim, S. Y. H. et al. Variability of judgments of capacity: experience of capacity evaluators in a study of research consent capacity. Psychosomatics doi: 10.1016/j.psym.2011.01.012.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Kim, S. Y. H. When does decisional impairment become decisional incompetence? Ethical and methodological issues in capacity research in schizophrenia. Schizophr. Bull. 32, 92–97 (2005).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Kim, S. Y. H. Evaluation of Capacity to Consent to Treatment and Research (Oxford University Press, New York, 2010).

    Google Scholar 

  30. Kim, S. Y. H. et al. Preservation of the capacity to appoint a proxy decision maker: implications for dementia research. Arch. Gen. Psychiatry 68, 214–219 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Bravo, G., Dubois, M. & Pâquet, M. Advance directives for health care and research: prevalence and correlates. Alzheimer Dis. Assoc. Disord. 17, 215–222 (2003).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Wendler, D., Martinez, R. A., Fairclough, D., Sunderland, T. & Emanuel, E. Views of potential subjects toward proposed regulations for clinical research with adults unable to consent. Am. J. Psychiatry 159, 585–591 (2002).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Marson, D. C., Ingram, K. K., Cody, H. A. & Harrell, L. E. Assessing the competency of patients with Alzheimer's disease under different legal standards. A prototype instrument. Arch. Neurol. 52, 949–954 (1995).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Kim, S. Y. H., Cox, C. & Caine, E. D. Impaired decision-making ability and willingness to participate in research in persons with Alzheimer's disease. Am. J. Psychiatry 159, 797–802 (2002).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Stocking, C. B. et al. Speaking of research advance directives: planning for future research participation. Neurology 66, 1361–1366 (2006).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Kim, S. Y. H., Kim, H. M., McCallum, C. & Tariot, P. N. What do people at risk for Alzheimer's disease think about surrogate consent for research? Neurology 65, 1395–1401 (2005).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Karlawish, J. et al. Older adults' attitudes toward enrollment of non-competent subjects participating in Alzheimer's research. Am. J. Psychiatry 166, 182–188 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Kim, S. Y. H. et al. Deliberative assessment of surrogate consent in dementia research. Alzheimers Dement. 6, 342–350 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Kim, S. Y. et al. Surrogate consent for dementia research: a national survey of older Americans. Neurology 72, 149–155 (2009).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. Kim, S., Wall, I., Stanczyk, A. & De Vries, R. Assessing the public's views in research ethics controversies: deliberative democracy and bioethics as natural allies. J. Empir. Res. Hum. Res. Ethics 4, 3–16 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Kim, S. Y. H. et al. Effect of public deliberation on attitudes toward surrogate consent for dementia research. Neurology (in press).

  42. Black, B. S., Rabins, P. V., Sugarman, J. & Karlawish, J. H. Seeking assent and respecting dissent in dementia research. Am. J. Geriatr. Psychiatry 18, 77–85 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The author's work is supported in part by grants R01-AG029550 and R01-MH075023 from the NIH, and by the Greenwall Foundation Faculty Scholars in Bioethics Award. The author also thanks Raymond De Vries for critical feedback on earlier drafts of this article, Kerry Ryan for editorial assistance, and the reviewers for excellent suggestions to improve the paper.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Center for Bioethics and Social Sciences in Medicine, University of Michigan, 300 North Ingalls 7C27, Ann Arbor, 48109, Michigan, USA

    Scott Y. H. Kim

Authors
  1. Scott Y. H. Kim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Kim, S. The ethics of informed consent in Alzheimer disease research. Nat Rev Neurol 7, 410–414 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1038/nrneurol.2011.76

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nrneurol.2011.76

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing