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
Subscribe to this journal
Receive 12 print issues and online access
$209.00 per year
only $17.42 per issue
Buy this article
- Purchase on Springer Link
- Instant access to full article PDF
Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout
Similar content being viewed by others
References
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).
Okonkwo, O. et al. Medical decision-making capacity in patients with mild cognitive impairment. Neurology 6 9, 1528–1535 (2007).
Orgogozo, J. M. et al. Subacute meningoencephalitis in a subset of patients with AD after Aβ42 immunization. Neurology 61, 46–54 (2003).
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).
Kolata, G. Doubt on tactic in Alzheimer's battle. The New York Times (New York) [online], (2010).
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).
Nuffield Council on Bioethics. Dementia: Ethical Issues (Consultation Paper) [online], (2009).
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).
Karlawish, J. H. T. et al. Informed consent for Alzheimer's disease clinical trials: a survey of clinical investigators. IRB 24, 1–5 (2002).
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).
Bravo, G. et al. Research with decisionally incapacitated older adults: practices of Canadian research ethics boards. IRB 32, 1–8 (2010).
National Bioethics Advisory Commission. Research involving persons with mental disorders that may affect decisionmaking capacity. Bioethics Research Library at Georgetown University [online], (1998).
Brudney, D. Choosing for another: beyond autonomy and best interests. Hastings Cent. Rep. 39, 31–37 (2009).
Sulmasy, D. P. & Snyder, L. Substituted interests and best judgments: an integrated model of surrogate decision making. JAMA 304, 1946–1947 (2010).
Wendler, D. & Prasad, K. Core safeguards for clinical research with adults who are unable to consent. Ann. Intern. Med. 135, 514–523 (2001).
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).
Shalowitz, D. I., Garrett-Mayer, E. & Wendler, D. The accuracy of surrogate decision makers: a systematic review. Arch. Intern. Med. 166, 493–497 (2006).
Warren, J. W. et al. Informed consent by proxy: an issue in research with elderly patients. N. Engl. J. Med. 315, 1124–1128 (1986).
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).
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).
Jefferson, A. L. et al. Decisional capacity for research participation in individuals with mild cognitive impairment. J. Am. Geriatr. Soc. 56, 1236–1243 (2008).
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).
Kim, S. Y. H. et al. Determining when impairment constitutes incapacity for informed consent in schizophrenia research. Br. J. Psychiatry 191, 38–43 (2007).
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).
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).
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).
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.
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).
Kim, S. Y. H. Evaluation of Capacity to Consent to Treatment and Research (Oxford University Press, New York, 2010).
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).
Bravo, G., Dubois, M. & Pâquet, M. Advance directives for health care and research: prevalence and correlates. Alzheimer Dis. Assoc. Disord. 17, 215–222 (2003).
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).
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).
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).
Stocking, C. B. et al. Speaking of research advance directives: planning for future research participation. Neurology 66, 1361–1366 (2006).
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).
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).
Kim, S. Y. H. et al. Deliberative assessment of surrogate consent in dementia research. Alzheimers Dement. 6, 342–350 (2010).
Kim, S. Y. et al. Surrogate consent for dementia research: a national survey of older Americans. Neurology 72, 149–155 (2009).
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).
Kim, S. Y. H. et al. Effect of public deliberation on attitudes toward surrogate consent for dementia research. Neurology (in press).
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).
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
Rights 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
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nrneurol.2011.76
This article is cited by
-
The full spectrum of ethical issues in dementia research: findings of a systematic qualitative review
BMC Medical Ethics (2021)
-
A systematic review of specialist inpatient dementia care services versus standard inpatient dementia care in acute hospitals
Aging Clinical and Experimental Research (2019)
-
Including People with Dementia in Research: An Analysis of Australian Ethical and Legal Rules and Recommendations for Reform
Journal of Bioethical Inquiry (2017)
-
Ethical Challenges in the Treatment of Cognitive Impairment in Aging
Current Behavioral Neuroscience Reports (2015)