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
  • [11] Cano S(2010)Seeing with new eyes: finding a path to early intervention trials in Alzheimer’s disease J Nutr Health Aging. 14 306-810
  • [12] Posner H(2000)A 1-year controlled trial of acetyl-lcarnitine in early-onset AD Neurology. 55 805-114
  • [13] Selnes O(2016)Results from a phase II study to assess the clinical and immunological activity of AFFITOPE® AD02 in patients with early Alzheimer’s disease JPAD. 2 103-1440
  • [14] Stern Y(2012)Safety and tolerability of the gamma-secretase inhibitor avagacestat in a phase 2 study of mild to moderate Alzheimer disease Arch Neurol. 69 1430-2070
  • [15] Thomas R(2016)Bapineuzumab for mild to moderate Alzheimer’s disease in two global, randomized, phase 3 trials Alzheimers Res Ther. 8 18-1911
  • [16] Raghavan N(2009)A phase 2 multiple ascending dose trial of bapineuzumab in mild to moderate Alzheimer disease Neurology. 73 2061-145
  • [17] Samtani MN(2010)Docosahexaenoic acid supplementation and cognitive decline in Alzheimer disease: a randomized trial JAMA. 304 1903-244
  • [18] Farnum M(1998)A 24-week, doubleblind, placebo-controlled trial of donepezil in patients with Alzheimer’s disease Donepezil Study Group. Neurology. 50 136-2388
  • [19] Hughes CP(1999)The Effects of Donepezil in Alzheimer’s Disease–Results from a Multinational Trial1 Dement Geriatr Cogn Disord. 10 237-999
  • [20] Berg L(2005)Vitamin E and donepezil for the treatment of mild cognitive impairment N Engl J Med. 352 2379-1561