Lon S Schneider1, Richard E Kennedy2, Guoqiao Wang2, Gary R Cutter2. 1. From the Departments of Psychiatry and Neurology (L.S.S.), Keck School of Medicine of USC, Los Angeles, CA; Division of Gerontology, Geriatrics, and Palliative Care, Department of Medicine (R.E.K.), and Department of Biostatistics (G.W., G.R.C.), University of Alabama at Birmingham. lschneid@usc.edu. 2. From the Departments of Psychiatry and Neurology (L.S.S.), Keck School of Medicine of USC, Los Angeles, CA; Division of Gerontology, Geriatrics, and Palliative Care, Department of Medicine (R.E.K.), and Department of Biostatistics (G.W., G.R.C.), University of Alabama at Birmingham.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: We tested the a priori hypothesis that older participants differ in rates of decline on cognitive outcomes compared with younger participants, and examined the potential effect of age distributions on individual clinical trial outcomes. METHODS: From a meta-database of 18 studies from the Alzheimer's Disease Cooperative Study and the Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative, we included a cohort of 2,793 participants for whom there were baseline demographic data and at least one postbaseline cognitive assessment on the Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale-cognitive subscale (ADAS-cog), Clinical Dementia Rating-Sum of Boxes (CDR-SB), or Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE). We used mixed-effects models (random coefficient models) to estimate change on the outcomes across 7 age groups ranging from younger than 61 years to older than 85 years after adjusting for education. RESULTS: Significant worsening occurred in all age groups on all outcomes over time. The 4 older groups, aged 71 years and older, showed slower rates of decline on the ADAS-cog than the younger groups (p = 0.001). The older groups scored 2-3, 2-5, and 4-6 points better than the younger groups at 12, 18, and 24 months, respectively. There were similar differences across age groups for the MMSE, but not for the CDR-SB. CONCLUSIONS: The differences in change on the ADAS-cog between older and younger participants are substantially greater than differences expected between experimental drugs and placebo in current trials or differences between marketed cholinesterase inhibitors and placebo. The clinical interpretation of change on the ADAS-cog or MMSE differs depending on age. Until predictors of decline are better understood, considering effects of age on rates of change is particularly important regarding clinical practice and outcomes of trials.
OBJECTIVE: We tested the a priori hypothesis that older participants differ in rates of decline on cognitive outcomes compared with younger participants, and examined the potential effect of age distributions on individual clinical trial outcomes. METHODS: From a meta-database of 18 studies from the Alzheimer's Disease Cooperative Study and the Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative, we included a cohort of 2,793 participants for whom there were baseline demographic data and at least one postbaseline cognitive assessment on the Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale-cognitive subscale (ADAS-cog), Clinical Dementia Rating-Sum of Boxes (CDR-SB), or Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE). We used mixed-effects models (random coefficient models) to estimate change on the outcomes across 7 age groups ranging from younger than 61 years to older than 85 years after adjusting for education. RESULTS: Significant worsening occurred in all age groups on all outcomes over time. The 4 older groups, aged 71 years and older, showed slower rates of decline on the ADAS-cog than the younger groups (p = 0.001). The older groups scored 2-3, 2-5, and 4-6 points better than the younger groups at 12, 18, and 24 months, respectively. There were similar differences across age groups for the MMSE, but not for the CDR-SB. CONCLUSIONS: The differences in change on the ADAS-cog between older and younger participants are substantially greater than differences expected between experimental drugs and placebo in current trials or differences between marketed cholinesterase inhibitors and placebo. The clinical interpretation of change on the ADAS-cog or MMSE differs depending on age. Until predictors of decline are better understood, considering effects of age on rates of change is particularly important regarding clinical practice and outcomes of trials.
Authors: P S Aisen; K L Davis; J D Berg; K Schafer; K Campbell; R G Thomas; M F Weiner; M R Farlow; M Sano; M Grundman; L J Thal Journal: Neurology Date: 2000-02-08 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: Walter A Kukull; Roger Higdon; James D Bowen; Wayne C McCormick; Linda Teri; Gerard D Schellenberg; Gerald van Belle; Lance Jolley; Eric B Larson Journal: Arch Neurol Date: 2002-11
Authors: R A Mulnard; C W Cotman; C Kawas; C H van Dyck; M Sano; R Doody; E Koss; E Pfeiffer; S Jin; A Gamst; M Grundman; R Thomas; L J Thal Journal: JAMA Date: 2000-02-23 Impact factor: 56.272
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: George M Savva; Stephen B Wharton; Paul G Ince; Gillian Forster; Fiona E Matthews; Carol Brayne Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2009-05-28 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: B C M Stephan; S Hunter; D Harris; D J Llewellyn; M Siervo; F E Matthews; C Brayne Journal: Mol Psychiatry Date: 2011-12-06 Impact factor: 15.992
Authors: Sebastian Ueckert; Elodie L Plan; Kaori Ito; Mats O Karlsson; Brian Corrigan; Andrew C Hooker Journal: Pharm Res Date: 2014-03-05 Impact factor: 4.200
Authors: Mitzi M Gonzales; Sudarshan Krishnamurthy; Valentina Garbarino; Ali S Daeihagh; Gregory J Gillispie; Gagan Deep; Suzanne Craft; Miranda E Orr Journal: Mech Ageing Dev Date: 2021-10-21 Impact factor: 5.498
Authors: Keith A Vossel; Kamalini G Ranasinghe; Alexander J Beagle; Danielle Mizuiri; Susanne M Honma; Anne F Dowling; Sonja M Darwish; Victoria Van Berlo; Deborah E Barnes; Mary Mantle; Anna M Karydas; Giovanni Coppola; Erik D Roberson; Bruce L Miller; Paul A Garcia; Heidi E Kirsch; Lennart Mucke; Srikantan S Nagarajan Journal: Ann Neurol Date: 2016-11-07 Impact factor: 10.422
Authors: Mackenzie E Fowler; Kristen L Triebel; Gary R Cutter; Lon S Schneider; Richard E Kennedy Journal: J Alzheimers Dis Date: 2020 Impact factor: 4.472
Authors: Nophar Geifman; Roberta Diaz Brinton; Richard E Kennedy; Lon S Schneider; Atul J Butte Journal: Alzheimers Res Ther Date: 2017-02-17 Impact factor: 6.982
Authors: Mahesh N Samtani; Steven X Xu; Alberto Russu; Omoniyi J Adedokun; Ming Lu; Kaori Ito; Brian Corrigan; Sangeeta Raje; H Robert Brashear; Scot Styren; Chuanpu Hu Journal: Alzheimers Dement (N Y) Date: 2015-10-09
Authors: Andres M Lozano; Lisa Fosdick; M Mallar Chakravarty; Jeannie-Marie Leoutsakos; Cynthia Munro; Esther Oh; Kristen E Drake; Christopher H Lyman; Paul B Rosenberg; William S Anderson; David F Tang-Wai; Jo Cara Pendergrass; Stephen Salloway; Wael F Asaad; Francisco A Ponce; Anna Burke; Marwan Sabbagh; David A Wolk; Gordon Baltuch; Michael S Okun; Kelly D Foote; Mary Pat McAndrews; Peter Giacobbe; Steven D Targum; Constantine G Lyketsos; Gwenn S Smith Journal: J Alzheimers Dis Date: 2016-09-06 Impact factor: 4.472