The Alzheimer’s Disease Assessment Scale: Modifications That Can Enhance its Use in Future Clinical Trials

  • Richard C. Mohs
  • Deborah Marin
  • Cynthia R. Green
  • Kenneth L. Davis
Part of the Advances in Alzheimer Disease Therapy book series (AADT)

Abstract

The Alzheimer’s Disease Assessment Scale (ADAS) is widely used in clinical trials of potential treatments for Alzheimer’s disease (AD). The cognitive portion of the ADAS (ADAS-Cog) consists of 11 items designed to assess the severity of memory, language, praxis and orientation impairments. The noncognitive portion of the ADAS (ADAS-Non-Cog) consists of 10 clinician rated items assessing the severity of depressive symptoms, psychosis, agitation, attention and tremors. These items are described in previous publications (Mohs et al., 1982; Rosen et al., 1984), and longitudinal data have demonstrated that the cognitive portion of the scale measures progressive cognitive impairment across a broad range of dementia severity (Stern et al., 1994). The ADAS-Cog has been used as the principal measure of cognitive outcome in several multicenter clinical trials of potential treatments for AD, including the trials of tacrine (Farlow et al., 1992; Knapp et al., 1994).

Keywords

Placebo Depression Dementia Rosen Aphasia 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Christensen KJ, Mutchu KS, Norstrom S et al. (1991): A cognitive battery for dementia. Development and measurement characteristics. Psychol Assessment 3:168–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ferris SH, Mackell J, Mohs RC, et al. (1996): A multicenter evaluation of new treatment efficacy instruments for AD clinical trials. Alz Dis and Assoc Disorders (in press).Google Scholar
  3. Farlow M, Gracon SI, Hershey LA, et al. (1992): A controlled trial of tacrine in Alzheimer’s disease. J Am MedAssn 268:2523–2529.Google Scholar
  4. Knapp MJ, et al. (1994): 30-week randomized controlled trial of high-dose tacrine in patients with Alzheimer’s disease. J Am MedAssn 271:985–991.Google Scholar
  5. Lawton MP, Brody EM (1969): Assessment of older people: Self-maintaining and instrumental activities of daily living. Gerontologist9:179–186.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Marin DB, Green CR, Schmeidler J, et al. (1996): Noncognitive disturbances in Alzheimer’s disease. J Am Geriat Soc (in press).Google Scholar
  7. Mohs RC, Knopman D, Petersen RC, et al. (1996): Development of cognitive Instruments for use in clinical trials of antidementia drugs: Additions to the Alzheimer’s Disease Assessment Scale that broaden its scope. Alz Dis and Assoc Disorders (in press).Google Scholar
  8. Mohs RC, Rosen WG, and Davis KL (1982): Defining treatment efficacy in patients with Alzheimer’s disease. In: Alzheimer’s Disease: A Report of Progress in Research, Corkin S, Davis KL, Growden JH, Usdin E and Wurtman RJ, eds. New York: Raven Press, pp. 351–356.Google Scholar
  9. Rosen WG, Mohs RC, Davis KL (1984): A new rating scale for Alzheimer’s disease. Am J Psychiat 141:1356–1364.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Stem RG, Mohs RC, Davidson M, et al. (1994): A longitudinal study of Alzheimer’s disease: Measurement, rate and predictors of cognitive deterioration. Am J Psychiatry 151:390–396.Google Scholar
  11. Welsh KA, Butters N, Hughes J, Mohs RC, Heyman A (1991): Detection of abnormal memory decline in mild cases of Alzheimer’s disease: use of the neuropsychological measures developed for the Consortium to Establish a Registry for Alzheimer’s Disease (CERAD). Archs Neurol 48:278–281.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Birkhäuser Boston 1997

Authors and Affiliations

  • Richard C. Mohs
    • 1
  • Deborah Marin
    • 1
  • Cynthia R. Green
    • 1
  • Kenneth L. Davis
    • 1
  1. 1.Psychiatry Service, VA Medical CenterMount Sinai School of MedicineBronxUSA

Personalised recommendations