Abstract
Importance People with Alzheimer’s disease (AD) now have access to disease-modifying treatment with anti-amyloid monoclonal antibodies (mAbs). Their perception of risks and benefits and approach to treatment decisions remain unknown.
Objective To understand how people with early AD consider benefits and costs of anti-amyloid mAbs and make decisions about treatment.
Design Qualitative semi-structured interviews
Setting Memory care clinics at two academic medical centers
Participants People with biomarker or imaging-confirmed early AD referred for evaluation for treatment with anti-amyloid mAbs
Main Outcomes and Measures Themes identified through content analysis
Results Among 22 participants, mean age was 70 years, 8 (36%) were women, 22 (100%) were White, 8 (36%) had less than a college degree, 11 (50%) had annual income less than $100,000, and 6 (27%) lived in a rural area. The analysis revealed 3 major themes and associated subthemes: 1) People with AD sought and obtained information from different sources—advocacy organizations, the Internet, and clinicians; 2) hopes, expected benefits, and the existential threat of dementia drove willingness and readiness to start lecanemab—hopes included more time feeling like themselves and doing enjoyable activities; expected benefits included stalling progression, reversing cognitive decline or cure; 3) individual traits and preferences, family factors, and degree of trust in expertise influenced how people balanced risks and benefits— some would accept treatment at any cost; others carefully weighed risks and burdens carefully, but were motivated to pursue treatment by supportive families, insurance coverage, and trust in expertise; for a few, costs decidedly outweighed their personal benefits. People with AD desired more individualized information on risks and benefits and wanted to hear more from patients who took the medication.
Conclusions and Relevance Results from this qualitative analysis inform clinician, health system and policy efforts to promote individualized treatment decisions for anti-amyloid mAb treatment through multimodal education and outreach, evidence-based communication skills, and adaptation of similar care models.
Question How do people with Alzheimer’s disease (AD) decide on treatment with newly available anti-amyloid monoclonal antibodies?
Findings In this qualitative analysis, people with AD considering treatment relied on multiple information sources; were motivated by hope to delay cognitive decline and preserve independence; and worried side effects would impair quality of life. Personality traits, family support, and trust in expertise determined how they balanced these tradeoffs. People with AD wanted more personalized information and to hear from others who had taken the medications.
Meaning As access to treatment expands, these findings inform how clinicians can help people with AD make individualized treatment decisions.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This study was funded by the National Institute on Aging (K76AG074919).
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
The Institutional Review Board of Mass General Brigham gave ethical approval for this work
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
Footnotes
↵* Co-senior authors
COI: The authors have no financial conflicts of interest.
Data Availability
All data produced in the present work are contained in the manuscript
