OBJECTIVE: To determine if the addition of delayed recall (DR) assessment adds sensitivity to the cognitive subscale of the Alzheimer Disease Assessment Scale (ADAS-cog) in clinical trials in mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and Alzheimer Disease (AD). BACKGROUND: Memory, particularly DR, is the most sensitive test for early detection of AD and MCI. However, it is not clear that assessment of DR adds benefit for measuring change over time after a diagnosis is made or in clinical trials. The ADAS-cog is the most commonly used tool to assess treatment efficacy in AD clinical trials. In an attempt to improve sensitivity to change, assessment of DR after the 3-trial, 10-word list was added to the standard 11-item ADAS-cog. We examined the added value of the DR in participants with MCI and AD followed for at least 1 year. DESIGN/ METHODS: Data from 111 subjects with AD and 259 subjects with MCI who were randomly assigned to the placebo arm of 2 clinical trials were included. Participants with AD had Mini-Mental State Examination scores of 13 to 27 and those with MCI had 24 to 30. We calculated the ADAS-cog11 score based on the original 11 items (range: best to worse, 0 to 70), the DR item score (range: 0 to 10 words not recalled), and the ADAS-cog12 (range: 0 to 80). We assessed the rate of missing items for DR over time, the change scores, the association between scores and baseline performance, and used longitudinal mixed effects regression models to examine the rate of change. RESULTS: At baseline AD subjects were near floor on DR (8.93 ± 1.6 SD) and showed little change over 1 year (0.12 ± 1.34); the MCI subjects baseline DR was 6.2 ± 2.2 with 1-year change of 0.20±1.7. We compared standardized change (change/SD) for ADAS-cog11, and 12 in MCI and found a 10% improvement with ADAS-cog12; there was no improvement in the AD group. In a subset of MCI and AD cases with matching Mini-Mental State Examination (23 to 27), the ADAS-cog12 provided an 18% improvement in standardized change in MCI subjects, with no benefit in the AD cohort, primarily owing to increased variance. CONCLUSIONS/RELEVANCE: The addition of DR to the ADAS-cog score increased the ability to detect change in subjects with MCI over 1 year compared with the ADAS-cog11 but increased the variance in subjects with AD, even in those with mild impairment These findings speak to the need to tailor outcome measures to the specific study population and diagnosis for maximal efficiency and economy when conducting clinical trials.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: To determine if the addition of delayed recall (DR) assessment adds sensitivity to the cognitive subscale of the Alzheimer Disease Assessment Scale (ADAS-cog) in clinical trials in mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and Alzheimer Disease (AD). BACKGROUND: Memory, particularly DR, is the most sensitive test for early detection of AD and MCI. However, it is not clear that assessment of DR adds benefit for measuring change over time after a diagnosis is made or in clinical trials. The ADAS-cog is the most commonly used tool to assess treatment efficacy in AD clinical trials. In an attempt to improve sensitivity to change, assessment of DR after the 3-trial, 10-word list was added to the standard 11-item ADAS-cog. We examined the added value of the DR in participants with MCI and AD followed for at least 1 year. DESIGN/ METHODS: Data from 111 subjects with AD and 259 subjects with MCI who were randomly assigned to the placebo arm of 2 clinical trials were included. Participants with AD had Mini-Mental State Examination scores of 13 to 27 and those with MCI had 24 to 30. We calculated the ADAS-cog11 score based on the original 11 items (range: best to worse, 0 to 70), the DR item score (range: 0 to 10 words not recalled), and the ADAS-cog12 (range: 0 to 80). We assessed the rate of missing items for DR over time, the change scores, the association between scores and baseline performance, and used longitudinal mixed effects regression models to examine the rate of change. RESULTS: At baseline AD subjects were near floor on DR (8.93 ± 1.6 SD) and showed little change over 1 year (0.12 ± 1.34); the MCI subjects baseline DR was 6.2 ± 2.2 with 1-year change of 0.20±1.7. We compared standardized change (change/SD) for ADAS-cog11, and 12 in MCI and found a 10% improvement with ADAS-cog12; there was no improvement in the AD group. In a subset of MCI and AD cases with matching Mini-Mental State Examination (23 to 27), the ADAS-cog12 provided an 18% improvement in standardized change in MCI subjects, with no benefit in the AD cohort, primarily owing to increased variance. CONCLUSIONS/RELEVANCE: The addition of DR to the ADAS-cog score increased the ability to detect change in subjects with MCI over 1 year compared with the ADAS-cog11 but increased the variance in subjects with AD, even in those with mild impairment These findings speak to the need to tailor outcome measures to the specific study population and diagnosis for maximal efficiency and economy when conducting clinical trials.
Authors: Serge Gauthier; Barry Reisberg; Michael Zaudig; Ronald C Petersen; Karen Ritchie; Karl Broich; Sylvie Belleville; Henry Brodaty; David Bennett; Howard Chertkow; Jeffrey L Cummings; Mony de Leon; Howard Feldman; Mary Ganguli; Harald Hampel; Philip Scheltens; Mary C Tierney; Peter Whitehouse; Bengt Winblad Journal: Lancet Date: 2006-04-15 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Ronald C Petersen; Ronald G Thomas; Michael Grundman; David Bennett; Rachelle Doody; Steven Ferris; Douglas Galasko; Shelia Jin; Jeffrey Kaye; Allan Levey; Eric Pfeiffer; Mary Sano; Christopher H van Dyck; Leon J Thal Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2005-04-13 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Paul S Aisen; Kimberly A Schafer; Michael Grundman; Eric Pfeiffer; Mary Sano; Kenneth L Davis; Martin R Farlow; Shelia Jin; Ronald G Thomas; Leon J Thal Journal: JAMA Date: 2003-06-04 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Michael C Irizarry; David J Webb; Chanchal Bains; Steven J Barrett; Robert Y Lai; Janette P Laroche; David Hosford; Gareth Maher-Edwards; John G Weil Journal: J Alzheimers Dis Date: 2008-07 Impact factor: 4.472
Authors: Joshua D Grill; Lijie Di; Po H Lu; Cathy Lee; John Ringman; Liana G Apostolova; Nicole Chow; Omid Kohannim; Jeffrey L Cummings; Paul M Thompson; David Elashoff Journal: Neurobiol Aging Date: 2012-04-13 Impact factor: 4.673
Authors: Jeannine Skinner; Janessa O Carvalho; Guy G Potter; April Thames; Elizabeth Zelinski; Paul K Crane; Laura E Gibbons Journal: Brain Imaging Behav Date: 2012-12 Impact factor: 3.978
Authors: Joukje Oosterman; Laura C Derksen; Albert J M van Wijck; Roy P C Kessels; Dieuwke S Veldhuijzen Journal: Pain Res Manag Date: 2012 May-Jun Impact factor: 3.037
Authors: Holly Posner; Rosie Curiel; Chris Edgar; Suzanne Hendrix; Enchi Liu; David A Loewenstein; Glenn Morrison; Leslie Shinobu; Keith Wesnes; Philip D Harvey Journal: Innov Clin Neurosci Date: 2017-02-01
Authors: Michael W Weiner; Dallas P Veitch; Paul S Aisen; Laurel A Beckett; Nigel J Cairns; Robert C Green; Danielle Harvey; Clifford R Jack; William Jagust; John C Morris; Ronald C Petersen; Jennifer Salazar; Andrew J Saykin; Leslie M Shaw; Arthur W Toga; John Q Trojanowski Journal: Alzheimers Dement Date: 2016-12-05 Impact factor: 21.566