Multimodal lifestyle interventions are proposed approaches to delay or slow progression toward Alzheimer’s disease (AD) in at‑risk older adults. Recent advances in blood‑based biomarkers, notably plasma pTau217, enable scalable stratification of AD risk. The population‑level integration of genetic risk (including APOE), polygenic scores, plasma biomarkers, family history, and participants’ attitudes to receiving risk information remains underexplored, particularly in underrepresented regions such as the deep south of the United States.
This pilot study evaluated a combined screening and personalized coaching model in cognitively normal, high‑risk older adults in north Alabama. The project had two linked aims: (1) to document attitudinal and distress responses to disclosure of individualized AD risk, and (2) to pilot a 6‑month personalized, data‑driven multimodal lifestyle intervention and report short‑term cognitive and biomarker outcomes.
Community‑dwelling adults aged 65–75 with a first‑degree relative affected by AD or dementia were recruited in north Alabama. Participants underwent cognitive screening with the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) and genetic and biomarker assessments that included APOE genotyping, a non‑APOE AD polygenic risk score, and measurement of plasma pTau217.
A composite rubric combined these factors to classify participants as high risk if they had a composite score >5 and/or pTau217 >0.18 pg/mL. High‑risk participants received disclosure of results and were invited to the intervention. The study is registered as NCT07146412.
High‑risk participants entered a 6‑month personalized lifestyle program. The intervention components included dietitian‑led coaching to address nutrition, structured cognitive training, and activity tracking to support physical activity and adherence. The coaching and recommendations were data‑driven and tailored to each participant’s assessed risks and lifestyle.
Attitudinal measures and distress around disclosure were collected pre‑ and post‑disclosure using survey instruments, including the REVEAL IGT‑AD scale for distress. Objective cognitive function was monitored with the MoCA. Biomarker trajectories focused on plasma pTau217 levels. Lifestyle risk indices were also tracked to capture behavioral change during the 6‑month intervention.
A total of 138 individuals were screened. Of these, 52 participants (37.7%) were classified as high risk according to the composite rubric. Among high‑risk participants, most (69.2%) were designated high risk by pTau217 elevation alone rather than by genetic score or family history.
Before disclosure, participants’ subjective perception of dementia risk correlated with the objective composite risk score. Clinically significant distress scores on at least one measurement timepoint were observed in 28% of survey respondents; half of those instances occurred in people with pre‑existing anxiety or depression. Despite measurable distress in a subset, self‑reported worry and perceived dementia risk decreased significantly over the course of disclosure plus the 6‑month intervention.
Objective cognitive scores measured by the MoCA and composite lifestyle risk indices were unchanged over the 6‑month intervention period. Plasma pTau217 continued to rise during the intervention interval, but the increase proceeded at a slower rate compared with the earlier interval between screening and the start of the lifestyle program. The study reports limited short‑term biological change but notes improved self‑reported attitudes toward dementia risk.
This pilot demonstrates feasibility of a genomics‑ and biomarker‑informed screening approach coupled with personalized lifestyle coaching in a high‑risk cohort in the deep south. The majority of high‑risk assignments in this sample were driven by pTau217, highlighting the biomarker’s potential role in scalable risk identification.
Attitudinal outcomes are encouraging: disclosure plus coaching was associated with reduced worry and perceived risk, and distress levels were manageable and frequently linked to prior anxiety or depression. Short‑term objective measures (MoCA and lifestyle risk indices) did not show improvement over six months, and pTau217 rose albeit at a slower pace, indicating that measurable biological effects may require longer follow‑up or larger sample sizes.
These findings support further evaluation in larger, longer, and more diverse cohorts to validate the combined screening and coaching model and to determine whether sustained lifestyle modification can produce durable clinical or biomarker benefits.
As a pilot, the study is limited by short follow‑up (6 months) and by sample size and regional scope. The absence of short‑term cognitive improvement and ongoing biomarker increase underline the need for extended follow‑up to assess whether slowed biomarker progression translates into clinical benefit. Future trials should expand sample diversity, lengthen intervention duration, and include control or comparison arms to evaluate efficacy rigorously.
The study followed ethical guidelines and obtained IRB approval from WCG Institutional Review Board (protocol #20250931). Trial registration is NCT07146412. The authors report no competing interests. All data produced are available on reasonable request to the study authors.