Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

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)

The Journal of Prevention of Alzheimer's Disease Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Cite this article

Abstract

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Rosen WG, Mohs RC, Davis KL. A new rating scale for Alzheimer’s disease. Am J Psychiatry. 1984;141;1356–1364.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Mohs RC, Knopman D, Petersen RC, et al. 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. 1997;11;13–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Cano SJ, Posner HB, Moline ML, et al. The ADAS-cog in Alzheimer’s disease clinical trials: psychometric evaluation of the sum and its parts. Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery & Psychiatry. 2010;81;1363–1368.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Hobart J, Cano S, Posner H, Selnes O, Stern Y, Thomas R. Alzheimer’s Disease Neuroimaging Initiative. Putting the Alzheimer’s cognitive test to the test I: traditional psychometric methods. Alzheimers Dement. 2013;9;S4–S9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Raghavan N, Samtani MN, Farnum M, et al. The ADAS-Cog revisited: novel composite scales based on ADAS-Cog to improve efficiency in MCI and early AD trials. Alzheimers Dement. 2013;9;S21–S31.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Hughes CP, Berg L, Danziger WL, Coben LA, Martin R. A new clinical scale for the staging of dementia. BJPsych. 1982;140;566–572.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Morris JC. The Clinical Dementia Rating (CDR): current version and scoring rules. Neurology. 1993.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Coley N, Andrieu S, Jaros M, Weiner M, Cedarbaum J, Vellas B. Suitability of the Clinical Dementia Rating-Sum of Boxes as a single primary endpoint for Alzheimer’s disease trials. Alzheimers Dement. 2011;7;602–610. e602.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Cedarbaum JM, Jaros M, Hernandez C, et al. Rationale for use of the Clinical Dementia Rating Sum of Boxes as a primary outcome measure for Alzheimer’s disease clinical trials. Alzheimers Dement. 2013;9;S45–S55.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Wessels A, Siemers E, Yu P, et al. A combined measure of cognition and function for clinical trials: the integrated Alzheimer’s disease rating scale (iADRS). JPAD. 2015;2;227.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Williams MM, Storandt M, Roe CM, Morris JC. Progression of Alzheimer’s disease as measured by Clinical Dementia Rating Sum of Boxes scores. Alzheimers Dement. 2013;9;S39–S44.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Cedarbaum J, Crans G, Grundman M. Seeing with new eyes: finding a path to early intervention trials in Alzheimer’s disease. J Nutr Health Aging. 2010;14;306–309.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. (CDER) USDoHaHSFaDACfDEaR. Guidance for Industry -Alzheimer’s Disease: Developing Drugs for the Treatment of Early Stage Disease. 2013 [Available from: https://www.fda.gov/downloads/drugs/guidancecomplianceregulatoryinformation/guidances/ucm338287.pdf]

  14. Thal LJ, Calvani M, Amato A, Carta A. A 1-year controlled trial of acetyl-lcarnitine in early-onset AD. Neurology. 2000;55;805–810.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Schneeberger A, Hendrix S, Mandler M, et al. Results from a phase II study to assess the clinical and immunological activity of AFFITOPE® AD02 in patients with early Alzheimer’s disease. JPAD. 2016;2;103–114.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Coric V, van Dyck CH, Salloway S, et al. Safety and tolerability of the gamma-secretase inhibitor avagacestat in a phase 2 study of mild to moderate Alzheimer disease. Arch Neurol. 2012;69;1430–1440.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Vandenberghe R, Rinne JO, Boada M, et al. Bapineuzumab for mild to moderate Alzheimer’s disease in two global, randomized, phase 3 trials. Alzheimers Res Ther. 2016;8;18.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Salloway S, Sperling R, Gilman S, et al. A phase 2 multiple ascending dose trial of bapineuzumab in mild to moderate Alzheimer disease. Neurology. 2009;73;2061–2070.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Quinn JF, Raman R, Thomas RG, et al. Docosahexaenoic acid supplementation and cognitive decline in Alzheimer disease: a randomized trial. JAMA. 2010;304;1903–1911.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Rogers SL, Farlow MR, Doody RS, Mohs R, Friedhoff LT. A 24-week, doubleblind, placebo-controlled trial of donepezil in patients with Alzheimer’s disease. Donepezil Study Group. Neurology. 1998;50;136–145.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Burns A, Rossor M, Hecker J, et al. The Effects of Donepezil in Alzheimer’s Disease–Results from a Multinational Trial1. Dement Geriatr Cogn Disord. 1999;10;237–244.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Petersen RC, Thomas RG, Grundman M, et al. Vitamin E and donepezil for the treatment of mild cognitive impairment. N Engl J Med. 2005;352;2379–2388.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Wang J, Logovinsky V, Hendrix SB, et al. ADCOMS: a composite clinical outcome for prodromal Alzheimer’s disease trials. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2016;87;993–999.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Doody R, Ferris S, Salloway S, et al. Donepezil treatment of patients with MCI A 48-week randomized, placebo-controlled trial. Neurology. 2009;72;1555–1561.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Imbimbo BP, Troetel WM, Martelli P, Lucchelli F. A 6-month, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of eptastigmine in Alzheimer’s disease. Dement Geriatr Cogn Disord. 2000;11;17–24.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Hilt D, Gawryl M, Koenig G, Dgetluck N, Moebius H. EVP-6124, a selective alpha-7 partial agonist, has positive effects on cognition and clinical function in mild-to-moderate Alzheimer’s disease patients: Results of a six-month, double-blind, placebo controlled, dose ranging study. Alzheimer’s & Dementia: The Journal of the Alzheimer’s Association. 2012;8;S746.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Winblad B, Gauthier S, Scinto L, et al. Safety and efficacy of galantamine in subjects with mild cognitive impairment. Neurology. 2008;70;2024–2035.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Lasser R, Ostrowitzki S, Scheltens P. Efficacy and safety of gantenerumab from the phase 3 SCarlet RoAD trial, a study of ganenerumab in patients with prodromal AD. J Prev Alzheimer Dis. 2015;2;275–276.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Pasqualetti P, Bonomini C, Dal Forno G, et al. A randomized controlled study on effects of ibuprofen on cognitive progression of Alzheimer’s disease. Aging clinical and experimental research. 2009;21;102–110.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Investor Update -Roche announces phase II clinical results of crenezumab in Alzheimer’s disease. 2014 [Available from: http://www.roche.com/investors/updates/inv-update-2014-07-16.htm]

  31. Sevigny J, Ryan J, Van Dyck C, et al. Growth hormone secretagogue MK-677 No clinical effect on AD progression in a randomized trial. Neurology. 2008;71;1702–1708.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Aisen PS, Schafer KA, Grundman M, et al. Effects of rofecoxib or naproxen vs placebo on Alzheimer disease progression: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA. 2003;289;2819–2826.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Galasko D, Bell J, Mancuso JY, et al. Clinical trial of an inhibitor of RAGEAbeta interactions in Alzheimer disease. Neurology. 2014;82;1536–1542.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Harrington C, Sawchak S, Chiang C, et al. Rosiglitazone does not improve cognition or global function when used as adjunctive therapy to AChE inhibitors in mild-to-moderate Alzheimer’s disease: two phase 3 studies. Curr Alzheimer Res. 2011;8;592–606.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Maher-Edwards G, Watson C, Ascher J, et al. Two randomized controlled trials of SB742457 in mild-to-moderate Alzheimer’s disease. TRCI. 2015;1;23–36.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  36. Doody RS, Raman R, Farlow M, et al. A phase 3 trial of semagacestat for treatment of Alzheimer’s disease. N Engl J Med. 2013;369;341–350.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Doody RS, Thomas RG, Farlow M, et al. Phase 3 trials of solanezumab for mild-to-moderate Alzheimer’s disease. N Engl J Med. 2014;370;311–321.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Honig L, Aisen P, Carrillo M, Vellas B, Seimers E. Expedition 3: A Phase 3 Trial of Solanezumab in Mild Dementia Due to Alzheimer’s Disease. CTAD, 2016.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Siemers ER, Sundell KL, Carlson C, et al. Phase 3 solanezumab trials: secondary outcomes in mild Alzheimer’s disease patients. Alzheimers Dement. 2016;12;110–120.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Green R, Schneider L, Amato D, et al. Tarenflurbil Phase 3 Study Group: Effect of tarenflurbil on cognitive decline and activities of daily living in patients with mild Alzheimer disease: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA. 2009;302;2557–2564.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  41. Aisen PS, Gauthier S, Ferris SH, et al. Tramiprosate in mild-to-moderate Alzheimer’s disease–a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multi-centre study (the Alphase Study). Archives of medical science: AMS. 2011;7;102.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  42. Burstein AH, Grimes I, Galasko DR, Aisen PS, Sabbagh M, Mjalli AM. Effect of TTP488 in patients with mild to moderate Alzheimer’s disease. BMC Neurol. 2014;14;12.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  43. Tariot PN, Schneider LS, Cummings J, et al. Chronic divalproex sodium to attenuate agitation and clinical progression of Alzheimer disease. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2011;68;853–861.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  44. CTAD 2017 Highlights. [Available from: http://www.ctad-alzheimer.com/files/files/Highlights%20Nov%201%20and%20Nov%202.pdf]

  45. Aisen PS, Schneider LS, Sano M, et al. High-dose B vitamin supplementation and cognitive decline in Alzheimer disease: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA. 2008;300;1774–1783.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  46. Khan A, Yavorsky C, DiClemente G, et al. Reliability of the Alzheimer’s disease assessment scale (ADAS-Cog) in longitudinal studies. Curr Alzheimer Res. 2013;10;952–963.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  47. Burke WJ, Miller JP, Rubin EH, et al. Reliability of the Washington University clinical dementia rating. Arch Neurol. 1988;45;31–32.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  48. McCulla MM, Coats M, Van Fleet N, Duchek J, Grant E, Morris JC. Reliability of clinical nurse specialists in the staging of dementia. Arch Neurol. 1989;46;1210–1211.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  49. Rockwood K, Strang D, MacKnight C, Downer R, Morris JC. Interrater reliability of the Clinical Dementia Rating in a multicenter trial. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2000;48;558–559.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  50. Tractenberg RE, Schafer K, Morris JC. Interobserver disagreements on clinical dementia rating assessment: interpretation and implications for training. Alzheimer Dis Assoc Disord. 2001;15;155–161.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  51. Morris JC, Ernesto C, Schafer K, et al. Clinical Dementia Rating training and reliability in multicenter studies The Alzheimer’s Disease Cooperative Study experience. Neurology. 1997;48;1508–1510.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  52. Cummings J, Reynders R, Zhong K. Globalization of Alzheimer’s disease clinical trials. Alzheimers Res Ther. 2011;3;24.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  53. Chiu HF, Lam LC. Relevance of outcome measures in different cultural groups–does one size fit all? International psychogeriatrics. 2007;19;457–466.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Eli Lilly and Company, Indianapolis, IN, 46285, USA

    Alette M. Wessels, S. A. Dowsett & J. R. Sims

Authors
  1. Alette M. Wessels
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. S. A. Dowsett
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. J. R. Sims
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Alette M. Wessels.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Wessels, A.M., Dowsett, S.A. & Sims, J.R. 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). J Prev Alzheimers Dis 5, 15–20 (2018). https://doi.org/10.14283/jpad.2018.2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.14283/jpad.2018.2

Key words

search

Navigation