In the absence of treatments to halt or reverse symptoms of Alzheimer's disease, early detection may extend the window for meaningful treatment, advanced planning, and coping. Positron emission tomography (PET) scans for amyloid and tau are validated biomarkers of AD, yet results are rarely disclosed to participants due to concerns about negative impacts. While prior studies suggest limited anxiety, depression, or suicidality following biomarker disclosure, no study to date has examined broader psychological impacts of PET amyloid/tau disclosure to symptomatic individuals. Therefore, we explored post-disclosure changes in future time perspective (perceptions of limited time or possibilities left in the future), self-efficacy for managing symptoms, and perceived stigma as a function of result received.

Forty-three older adults (age = 72.0±6.2 years; education = 16.5±2.6; 88.4% White Non-Hispanic; 48.8% female) participated in the study, of whom 62.8% were diagnosed with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and the remainder with Dementia of the Alzheimer's type. All participants underwent pre-disclosure biomarker education and decisional capacity assessment, followed by baseline measures. Participants demonstration decisional capacity completed an interactive disclosure session during which they received dichotomous results of their research positron emission tomography (PET) scans for amyloid and tau (elevated versus not elevated for each biomarker). Findings were discussed in relation to presence/absence of Alzheimer's disease, the etiology of their cognitive difficulties, and risk for conversion or further decline. At baseline, immediately following disclosure, and at 1-week follow-up, participants completed several questionnaires: the Future Time Perspective (FTP) scale, a measure of how much the participant sees time as limited, the Self Efficacy for Managing Chronic Disease scale (SECD), and the Stigma Scale for Chronic Illness (SSCI-8), all of which were modified to apply to Alzheimer's disease and associated experiences.

The main effects of time (F=1.10, p=.334, A?p2=.026), biomarker status (F(1)=3.10, p=.086, Ajp2=.070), and the time by biomarker status interaction (F=0.39, p=.661, Ajp2=.009) on FTP score was not significant. Though neither time (F=0.07, p=.933, A?p2=.002) nor the time by biomarker status interaction (F=2.16, p=.122, Ajp2=.050) effect on SECD was significant, being biomarker positive (A+T-/A+T+) was associated with lower self-efficacy (F(1)=5.641, p=.022, Ajp2=.121). Neither main effect for time (F=0.15, p=.853, Ajp2=.004) or biomarker status (F(1)=0.35, p=.558, A?p2=.009) on SSCI-8 was significant. The time by biomarker status interaction was significant (f=4.27, p=.018, =.096), such that biomarker negative participants experience a transient increase in perceived stigma directly after disclosure that resolves one week later, and biomarker negative participants experience the opposite pattern.

Findings suggest that individuals who receive biomarker positive results may feel less competent to manage their symptoms compared to those who are biomarker negative, emphasizing the need for post-disclosure interventions targeting self-efficacy. The effect of disclosure on perceptions of time being limited and on perceived stigma were minimal, even when those results indicate evidence of Alzheimer's disease and risk for clinical progression. These results further support the safety of biomarker disclosure procedures. Future studies should provide longer-term assessment of psychological, behavioral, and clinical outcomes following Alzheimer's disease biomarker disclosure.

There are many potential benefits of early identification of those with Alzheimer’s disease (AD), including more opportunity for early intervention to slow AD progression (e.g., treatment, lifestyle changes, etc.) and to plan for the future. Positron emission tomography (PET) scans for abnormal amyloid and tau are commonly conducted in research settings. Despite strong interest in learning AD biomarker results, participants rarely receive their research data, in part due to concern about the possibility of undue distress based on results. We aimed to explore both positive and negative emotional reactions following PET biomarker disclosure as a function of result received.

Forty-three older adults (age = 72.0±6.21 years, education = 16.5±2.62 years, 49% Female, 88% White Non-Hispanic) completed PET amyloid and tau testing and disclosure. Sixty-three percent were diagnosed with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) while the remainder of participants were diagnosed with Dementia Alzheimer’s type (DAT). Participants completed pre-disclosure biomarker education and a decisional capacity assessment followed by baseline measures. Participants then completed a disclosure session where they received personal PET amyloid and tau results on an elevated vs. not elevated scale for each ligand. Results were discussed in relation to presence/absence of Alzheimer’s disease, how the result relates to their cognitive difficulties, and risk of developing Dementia-Alzheimer’s Type. At baseline (pre-disclosure), immediately post-disclosure, and 1-week post-disclosure, participants completed the Beck Anxiety Inventory (BAI), The Geriatric Depression Scale - 15 Item (GDS-15), Impact of Neuroimaging in AD (INI-AD) Scale, and the Positive and Negative Affective Scale - Short Form (PANAS-SF). All questionnaires were modified to apply to Alzheimer’s disease and related experiences.

Of the 43 participants who participated in disclosure, 74% received biomarker positive results (either A+T- or A+T+); all others were biomarker negative. We conducted a series of mixed analysis of variance (ANOVA) tests to determine the effect of disclosure and biomarker status for each of the outcomes of interest. Neither the effect of time nor the time by biomarker status interaction was significant for any of the outcomes (all p>.05). The main effect of biomarker status was significant for BAI (F(1)=5.12, p=.031, n,p2=.146) and INI-AD Distress (F(1)=12.70, p=.001, np2=.241) and Positive (F(1)=34.57, p<.001, np2=.464) subscale scores with A+T-/A+T+ participants reporting higher negative affect than those who were A-/T-; however, even among biomarker positive individuals, scores did not exceed clinical thresholds. GDS-15, PANAS-Negative and Positive Subscale scores did not differ significantly by biomarker status (all p>.05) and no significant adverse events occurred following disclosure. Additionally, no participants cited regret about receiving their results.

While disclosure of biomarker positivity may result in mild increases in acute anxiety or distress, or fewer positive emotions, it does not result in clinically significant emotional reactions and was not associated with regret. Overall, findings are consistent with literature indicating safety of biomarker disclosure procedures for symptomatic individuals. Future research should follow participants over longer periods to evaluate the impacts of biomarker disclosure.

Women carrying a fetus diagnosed with congenital heart disease often experience significant distress because of their medical diagnosis. Given the well-documented impact associated with elevated prenatal stress and critical importance of developing targeted interventions, this study aims to examine stressors, coping and resilience resources, and mental health treatment preferences in pregnant women receiving a congenital heart disease diagnosis to inform the development of a psychological intervention to reduce maternal distress prenatally.

Three groups of participants were included consisting of two pregnant women carrying a fetus with congenital heart disease, five women of children (4−16 months) with congenital heart disease, and five paediatric cardiology medical providers. Responses were gathered via semi-structured interviews and analysed using qualitative thematic analysis.

Information regarding four broad areas were analysed of emotional distress during pregnancy; experience of initial diagnosis; coping and resilience; and perspectives on a mental health intervention in pregnancy. Anxiety regarding baby’s future, guilt following diagnosis, and various coping strategies emerged as primary themes among the participant sample. Medical staff corroborated mothers’ heightened anxiety and viewed a psychotherapeutic intervention during the prenatal period as essential and complimentary to standard of care.

We identified salient themes and preferred components for a future psychological intervention delivered prenatally.

Patients’ and providers’ perspectives regarding the nature of maternal distress, resilience and treatment preferences can inform the development of interventions to support the emotional well-being of pregnant women carrying a fetus with congenital heart disease to optimise care and potentially improve outcomes for fetal brain development.

Healthcare personnel (HCP) were recruited to provide serum samples, which were tested for antibodies against Ebola or Lassa virus to evaluate for asymptomatic seroconversion.

From 2014 to 2016, 4 patients with Ebola virus disease (EVD) and 1 patient with Lassa fever (LF) were treated in the Serious Communicable Diseases Unit (SCDU) at Emory University Hospital. Strict infection control and clinical biosafety practices were implemented to prevent nosocomial transmission of EVD or LF to HCP.

All personnel who entered the SCDU who were required to measure their temperatures and complete a symptom questionnaire twice daily were eligible.

No employee developed symptomatic EVD or LF. EVD and LF antibody studies were performed on sera samples from 42 HCP. The 6 participants who had received investigational vaccination with a chimpanzee adenovirus type 3 vectored Ebola glycoprotein vaccine had high antibody titers to Ebola glycoprotein, but none had a response to Ebola nucleoprotein or VP40, or a response to LF antigens.

Patients infected with filoviruses and arenaviruses can be managed successfully without causing occupation-related symptomatic or asymptomatic infections. Meticulous attention to infection control and clinical biosafety practices by highly motivated, trained staff is critical to the safe care of patients with an infection from a special pathogen.

Item 9 of the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) queries about thoughts of death and self-harm, but not suicidality. Although it is sometimes used to assess suicide risk, most positive responses are not associated with suicidality. The PHQ-8, which omits Item 9, is thus increasingly used in research. We assessed equivalency of total score correlations and the diagnostic accuracy to detect major depression of the PHQ-8 and PHQ-9.

We conducted an individual patient data meta-analysis. We fit bivariate random-effects models to assess diagnostic accuracy.

16 742 participants (2097 major depression cases) from 54 studies were included. The correlation between PHQ-8 and PHQ-9 scores was 0.996 (95% confidence interval 0.996 to 0.996). The standard cutoff score of 10 for the PHQ-9 maximized sensitivity + specificity for the PHQ-8 among studies that used a semi-structured diagnostic interview reference standard (N = 27). At cutoff 10, the PHQ-8 was less sensitive by 0.02 (−0.06 to 0.00) and more specific by 0.01 (0.00 to 0.01) among those studies (N = 27), with similar results for studies that used other types of interviews (N = 27). For all 54 primary studies combined, across all cutoffs, the PHQ-8 was less sensitive than the PHQ-9 by 0.00 to 0.05 (0.03 at cutoff 10), and specificity was within 0.01 for all cutoffs (0.00 to 0.01).

PHQ-8 and PHQ-9 total scores were similar. Sensitivity may be minimally reduced with the PHQ-8, but specificity is similar.

Different diagnostic interviews are used as reference standards for major depression classification in research. Semi-structured interviews involve clinical judgement, whereas fully structured interviews are completely scripted. The Mini International Neuropsychiatric Interview (MINI), a brief fully structured interview, is also sometimes used. It is not known whether interview method is associated with probability of major depression classification.

To evaluate the association between interview method and odds of major depression classification, controlling for depressive symptom scores and participant characteristics.

Data collected for an individual participant data meta-analysis of Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) diagnostic accuracy were analysed and binomial generalised linear mixed models were fit.

A total of 17 158 participants (2287 with major depression) from 57 primary studies were analysed. Among fully structured interviews, odds of major depression were higher for the MINI compared with the Composite International Diagnostic Interview (CIDI) (odds ratio (OR) = 2.10; 95% CI = 1.15–3.87). Compared with semi-structured interviews, fully structured interviews (MINI excluded) were non-significantly more likely to classify participants with low-level depressive symptoms (PHQ-9 scores ≤6) as having major depression (OR = 3.13; 95% CI = 0.98–10.00), similarly likely for moderate-level symptoms (PHQ-9 scores 7–15) (OR = 0.96; 95% CI = 0.56–1.66) and significantly less likely for high-level symptoms (PHQ-9 scores ≥16) (OR = 0.50; 95% CI = 0.26–0.97).

The MINI may identify more people as depressed than the CIDI, and semi-structured and fully structured interviews may not be interchangeable methods, but these results should be replicated.

Drs Jetté and Patten declare that they received a grant, outside the submitted work, from the Hotchkiss Brain Institute, which was jointly funded by the Institute and Pfizer. Pfizer was the original sponsor of the development of the PHQ-9, which is now in the public domain. Dr Chan is a steering committee member or consultant of Astra Zeneca, Bayer, Lilly, MSD and Pfizer. She has received sponsorships and honorarium for giving lectures and providing consultancy and her affiliated institution has received research grants from these companies. Dr Hegerl declares that within the past 3 years, he was an advisory board member for Lundbeck, Servier and Otsuka Pharma; a consultant for Bayer Pharma; and a speaker for Medice Arzneimittel, Novartis, and Roche Pharma, all outside the submitted work. Dr Inagaki declares that he has received grants from Novartis Pharma, lecture fees from Pfizer, Mochida, Shionogi, Sumitomo Dainippon Pharma, Daiichi-Sankyo, Meiji Seika and Takeda, and royalties from Nippon Hyoron Sha, Nanzando, Seiwa Shoten, Igaku-shoin and Technomics, all outside of the submitted work. Dr Yamada reports personal fees from Meiji Seika Pharma Co., Ltd., MSD K.K., Asahi Kasei Pharma Corporation, Seishin Shobo, Seiwa Shoten Co., Ltd., Igaku-shoin Ltd., Chugai Igakusha and Sentan Igakusha, all outside the submitted work. All other authors declare no competing interests. No funder had any role in the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis and interpretation of the data; preparation, review or approval of the manuscript; and decision to submit the manuscript for publication.