BACKGROUND: This study examined rates of dementia progression as ascertained by the Clinical Dementia Rating Sum of Boxes (CDR-SB) for symptomatic Alzheimer's disease (sAD), and assessed participant characteristics as predictors of CDR-SB progression. METHODS: Participants (n = 792) were enrolled in longitudinal studies at an Alzheimer's Disease Research Center, received a diagnosis of sAD with a global CDR of 0.5 (n = 466) or 1 (n = 326), and had at least one follow-up assessment. Progression in CDR-SB over time as a function of baseline global CDR was examined. RESULTS: A longitudinal increase (P < .0001) in CDR-SB was observed. The annual rate of change in CDR-SB scores was 1.43 (standard error [SE] = 0.05) in the CDR 0.5 sample and 1.91 (SE = 0.07) in the CDR 1 sample. For participants followed from the beginning of the CDR stage, time to progression to a higher global CDR was longer for individuals who were CDR 0.5 (3.75 years; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 3.18-4.33) than those who were CDR 1 at baseline (2.98 years; 95% CI: 2.75-3.22). In the total CDR 0.5 sample, the significant predictors of progression to the next global CDR stage (P < .01) were age at first sAD diagnosis and apolipoprotein E4 genotype. CONCLUSIONS: The study findings are relevant to sAD clinical trial design and accurate, reliable ascertainment of the effect of disease-modifying treatments.
BACKGROUND: This study examined rates of dementia progression as ascertained by the Clinical Dementia Rating Sum of Boxes (CDR-SB) for symptomatic Alzheimer's disease (sAD), and assessed participant characteristics as predictors of CDR-SB progression. METHODS:Participants (n = 792) were enrolled in longitudinal studies at an Alzheimer's Disease Research Center, received a diagnosis of sAD with a global CDR of 0.5 (n = 466) or 1 (n = 326), and had at least one follow-up assessment. Progression in CDR-SB over time as a function of baseline global CDR was examined. RESULTS: A longitudinal increase (P < .0001) in CDR-SB was observed. The annual rate of change in CDR-SB scores was 1.43 (standard error [SE] = 0.05) in the CDR 0.5 sample and 1.91 (SE = 0.07) in the CDR 1 sample. For participants followed from the beginning of the CDR stage, time to progression to a higher global CDR was longer for individuals who were CDR 0.5 (3.75 years; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 3.18-4.33) than those who were CDR 1 at baseline (2.98 years; 95% CI: 2.75-3.22). In the total CDR 0.5 sample, the significant predictors of progression to the next global CDR stage (P < .01) were age at first sAD diagnosis and apolipoprotein E4 genotype. CONCLUSIONS: The study findings are relevant to sAD clinical trial design and accurate, reliable ascertainment of the effect of disease-modifying treatments.
Authors: Guy M McKhann; David S Knopman; Howard Chertkow; Bradley T Hyman; Clifford R Jack; Claudia H Kawas; William E Klunk; Walter J Koroshetz; Jennifer J Manly; Richard Mayeux; Richard C Mohs; John C Morris; Martin N Rossor; Philip Scheltens; Maria C Carrillo; Bill Thies; Sandra Weintraub; Creighton H Phelps Journal: Alzheimers Dement Date: 2011-04-21 Impact factor: 21.566
Authors: Reisa A Sperling; Paul S Aisen; Laurel A Beckett; David A Bennett; Suzanne Craft; Anne M Fagan; Takeshi Iwatsubo; Clifford R Jack; Jeffrey Kaye; Thomas J Montine; Denise C Park; Eric M Reiman; Christopher C Rowe; Eric Siemers; Yaakov Stern; Kristine Yaffe; Maria C Carrillo; Bill Thies; Marcelle Morrison-Bogorad; Molly V Wagster; Creighton H Phelps Journal: Alzheimers Dement Date: 2011-04-21 Impact factor: 21.566
Authors: JoAnn T Tschanz; Chris D Corcoran; Sarah Schwartz; Katherine Treiber; Robert C Green; Maria C Norton; Michelle M Mielke; Kathleen Piercy; Martin Steinberg; Peter V Rabins; Jeanne-Marie Leoutsakos; Kathleen A Welsh-Bohmer; John C S Breitner; Constantine G Lyketsos Journal: Am J Geriatr Psychiatry Date: 2011-06 Impact factor: 4.105
Authors: Michael Grundman; Ronald C Petersen; Steven H Ferris; Ronald G Thomas; Paul S Aisen; David A Bennett; Norman L Foster; Clifford R Jack; Douglas R Galasko; Rachelle Doody; Jeffrey Kaye; Mary Sano; Richard Mohs; Serge Gauthier; Hyun T Kim; Shelia Jin; Arlan N Schultz; Kimberly Schafer; Ruth Mulnard; Christopher H van Dyck; Jacobo Mintzer; Edward Y Zamrini; Deborah Cahn-Weiner; Leon J Thal Journal: Arch Neurol Date: 2004-01
Authors: Tarja H Välimäki; Janne A Martikainen; Kristiina Hongisto; Saku Väätäinen; Harri Sintonen; Anne M Koivisto Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2015-09-09 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Adam L Boxer; David S Knopman; Daniel I Kaufer; Murray Grossman; Chiadi Onyike; Neill Graf-Radford; Mario Mendez; Diana Kerwin; Alan Lerner; Chuang-Kuo Wu; Mary Koestler; Jill Shapira; Kathryn Sullivan; Kristen Klepac; Kristine Lipowski; Jerin Ullah; Scott Fields; Joel H Kramer; Jennifer Merrilees; John Neuhaus; M Marsel Mesulam; Bruce L Miller Journal: Lancet Neurol Date: 2013-01-02 Impact factor: 44.182
Authors: Richard Dodel; Axel Rominger; Peter Bartenstein; Frederik Barkhof; Kaj Blennow; Stefan Förster; Yaroslav Winter; Jan-Philipp Bach; Julius Popp; Judith Alferink; Jens Wiltfang; Katharina Buerger; Markus Otto; Piero Antuono; Michael Jacoby; Ralph Richter; James Stevens; Isaac Melamed; Jerome Goldstein; Stefan Haag; Stefan Wietek; Martin Farlow; Frank Jessen Journal: Lancet Neurol Date: 2013-01-31 Impact factor: 44.182
Authors: Taylor F Levine; Samantha L Allison; Marta Stojanovic; Anne M Fagan; John C Morris; Denise Head Journal: Alzheimers Dement Date: 2020-02-11 Impact factor: 21.566
Authors: J Nicholas Cochran; Ethan G Geier; Luke W Bonham; J Scott Newberry; Michelle D Amaral; Michelle L Thompson; Brittany N Lasseigne; Anna M Karydas; Erik D Roberson; Gregory M Cooper; Gil D Rabinovici; Bruce L Miller; Richard M Myers; Jennifer S Yokoyama Journal: Am J Hum Genet Date: 2020-04-23 Impact factor: 11.025