Detecting Treatment Group Differences in Alzheimer’s Disease Clinical Trials: A Comparison of Alzheimer’s Disease Assessment Scale - Cognitive Subscale (ADAS-Cog) and the Clinical Dementia Rating - Sum of Boxes (CDR-SB)

被引:0
作者
Alette M. Wessels
S. A. Dowsett
J. R. Sims
机构
[1] Eli Lilly and Company,
来源
The Journal of Prevention of Alzheimer's Disease | 2018年 / 5卷
关键词
CDR-SB; ADAS-Cog; clinical trial; outcome measures; Alzheimer’s disease;
D O I
暂无
中图分类号
学科分类号
摘要
The Alzheimer’s Disease Assessment Scale’s cognitive subscale (ADAS-Cog) has been widely used as an outcome measure in Alzheimer’s Disease (AD) clinical trials. In its original form (ADAS-Cog11), the scale has been used successfully in mild-to-moderate AD dementia populations, but its use is more limited in the study of earlier disease (mild cognitive impairment [MCI] or mild dementia due to AD) owing to lack of appropriate sensitivity of some items. With recent focus on earlier treatment, efforts have focused on the development of more sensitive tools, including the Clinical Dementia Rating-Sum of Boxes (CDRSB), a global assessment tool to evaluate both cognition and function. The ability of the ADAS-Cog and CDR-SB to detect treatment group differences in the clinical trial environment has not been systematically studied. The aim of this analysis was to compare the utility of these tools in detecting treatment group differences, by reviewing study findings identified through advanced searches of clinicaltrials.gov and Ovid, and press releases and scientific presentations. Findings from placebo-controlled studies of ≥ 6m duration and enrolling >100 participants were included; reporting of both the ADAS-Cog and CDR-SB at endpoint was also a requirement. Of the >300 records identified, 34 studies fulfilled the criteria. There were significant placebo versus active drug group differences based on findings from at least one measure for 14 studies. The ADASCog detected treatment differences more frequently than the CDR-SB. Based on these and previously published findings, the ADAS-Cog appears more useful than the CDR-SB in detecting treatment group differences.
引用
收藏
页码:15 / 20
页数:5
相关论文
共 166 条
  • [1] Rosen WG(1984)A new rating scale for Alzheimer’s disease Am J Psychiatry. 141 1356-1364
  • [2] Mohs RC(1997)Development of cognitive instruments for use in clinical trials of antidementia drugs: additions to the Alzheimer’s Disease Assessment Scale that broaden its scope Alzheimer Dis Assoc Disord. 11 13-21
  • [3] Davis KL(2010)The ADAS-cog in Alzheimer’s disease clinical trials: psychometric evaluation of the sum and its parts Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery & Psychiatry. 81 1363-1368
  • [4] Mohs RC(2013)Alzheimer’s Disease Neuroimaging Initiative Putting the Alzheimer’s cognitive test to the test I: traditional psychometric methods. Alzheimers Dement. 9 S4-S9
  • [5] Knopman D(2013)The ADAS-Cog revisited: novel composite scales based on ADAS-Cog to improve efficiency in MCI and early AD trials Alzheimers Dement. 9 S21-S31
  • [6] Petersen RC(1982)A new clinical scale for the staging of dementia BJPsych. 140 566-572
  • [7] Cano SJ(2011)Suitability of the Clinical Dementia Rating-Sum of Boxes as a single primary endpoint for Alzheimer’s disease trials Alzheimers Dement. 7 602-610
  • [8] Posner HB(2013)Rationale for use of the Clinical Dementia Rating Sum of Boxes as a primary outcome measure for Alzheimer’s disease clinical trials Alzheimers Dement. 9 S45-S55
  • [9] Moline ML(2015)A combined measure of cognition and function for clinical trials: the integrated Alzheimer’s disease rating scale (iADRS) JPAD. 2 227-S44
  • [10] Hobart J(2013)Progression of Alzheimer’s disease as measured by Clinical Dementia Rating Sum of Boxes scores Alzheimers Dement. 9 S39-309