Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-fscjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-24T13:54:58.794Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

24 - The Use and Development of Clinical Measures of Alzheimer’s Disease Trials

from Section 3 - Alzheimer’s Disease Clinical Trials

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 March 2022

By
John Harrison
Edited by
Jeffrey Cummings ,
Jefferson Kinney  and
Howard Fillit
Jeffrey Cummings
Affiliation:
University of Nevada, Las Vegas
Jefferson Kinney
Affiliation:
University of Nevada, Las Vegas
Howard Fillit
Affiliation:
Alzheimer’s Drug Discovery Foundation
Get access

Summary

The assessment of cognition is a key feature of study participant selection, evaluation, and characterisation in Alzheimer’s disease (AD) clinical drug trials. Measurement science requires using reliable, valid, and sensitive instruments for these purposes and typical trial measures, such as the ADAS-cog and MMSE, show adequate levels of reliability. Due to the absence of adequate indices of working memory, attention, and executive function, they cannot be considered valid tests. Further, scoring conventions and range restrictions limit their sensitivity. Hence a number of innovative solutions have been proposed and tested, with varying degrees of success. In this chapter we review critically cognitive measures such as the Neuropsychological Test Battery, the Repeatable Battery for the Assessment of Neuropsychological Status, and digital cognitive tests, such as those drawn from the CogState, CANTAB, and CDR systems. These measures are all considered with specific regard to issue of validity, assay sensitivity, and clinical relevance. We propose a methodology for establishing proof of concept for new chemical entities to rescue or preserve cognition in individuals living with AD.

Keywords

cognitiondementiaattentionmemoryneuropsychologicalexecutiveAlzheimer’sADAS-cogNTBRBANS
Type
Chapter
Information
Alzheimer's Disease Drug Development
Research and Development Ecosystem
 , pp. 281 - 291
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2022

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Rosen, WG, Mohs, RC, Davis, KL. A new rating scale for Alzheimer’s disease. Am J Psychiatry 1984; 141: 1356–64.Google ScholarPubMed
Folstein, MF, Folstein, SE, McHugh, PR. “Mini-mental state”: a practical method for grading the cognitive state of patients for the clinician. J Psychiatr Res 1975; 12: 189–98.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wesnes, KA, Harrison, JE. The evaluation of cognitive function in the dementias: methodological and regulatory considerations. Dialog Clin Neurosci 2003; 5: 77–88.Google Scholar
Hobart, J, Cano, S, Posner, H, et al. Putting the Alzheimer’s cognitive test to the test I: traditional psychometric methods. Alzheimers Dement 2013; 9: S4–9.Google Scholar
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. The Alzheimer’s Disease Cooperative Study. Alzheimer Dis Assoc Disord 1997; 11: 13–21.Google Scholar
Vellas, B, Andrieu, S, Sampaio, C, et al. Endpoints for trials in Alzheimer’s disease: a European task force consensus. Lancet Neurol 2008; 7: 436–50.Google Scholar
Ritchie, K, Ropacki, M, Albala, B, et al. Recommended cognitive outcomes in pre-clinical Alzheimer’s disease: consensus statement from the European Prevention of Alzheimer’s Dementia (EPAD) project. Alzheimers Dement 2017; 13: 186–95.Google Scholar
Podhorna, J, Krahnke, T, Shear, T, et al. Alzheimer’s Disease Assessment Scale – cognitive subscale variants in mild cognitive impairment and mild Alzheimer’s disease: change over time and the effects of enrichment strategies. Alzheimers Res Ther 2016; 8: 1–13.Google Scholar
Hendrix, S, Ellison, N. Are Alzheimer’s treatment failures due to inactive compounds or are we doing something wrong? Alzheimers Dement 2017; 13: P617.Google Scholar
Sevigny, JJ, Peng, Y, Liu, L, et al. Item analysis of ADAS-cog: effect of baseline cognitive impairment in a clinical AD trial. Am J Alzheimers Dis Other Demen 2010; 25: 119–24.Google Scholar
Winblad, B, Gauthier, S, Scinto, L, et al. Safety and efficacy of galantamine in subjects with mild cognitive impairment. Neurology 2008; 70: 2024–35.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hort, J, Andel, R, Mokrisova, I, et al. Effect of donepezil in Alzheimer disease can be measured by a computerized human analog of the Morris water maze. Neurodegener Dis 2014; 13: 192–6.Google Scholar
Hendrix, SB, Wells, BM, and the Alzheimer’s Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI).Time course of cognitive decline in subjects with mild Alzheimer’s disease based on ADAS-cog subscales and neuropsychological tests measured in ADNI. Alzheimers Dement 2010; 6: e50.Google Scholar
Gilman, S, Koller, M, Black, RS, et al. Clinical effects of Abeta immunisation (AN1792) in patients with AD in an interrupted trial. Neurology 2005; 64: 1553–62.Google Scholar
Rosenberg, A, Ngandu, T, Rusanen, M, et al. Multidomain lifestyle intervention benefits a large elderly population at risk for cognitive decline and dementia regardless of baseline characteristics: the FINGER trial. Alzheimers Dement 2018; 14: 263–70.Google Scholar
Harrison, JE, Rentz, D, Brashear, HR, et al. Psychometric evaluation of the Neuropsychological Test Battery in individuals with normal cognition, mild cognitive impairment, or mild to moderate Alzheimer’s disease: results from a longitudinal study. J Prev Alzheimers Dis 2018; 5: 236–44.Google Scholar
European Medicines Agency. Guideline on the clinical investigation of medicines for the treatment of Alzheimer’s disease. CPMP/EWP/553/95 Rev.2 2018. Avaialable at: www.ema.europa.eu/en/documents/scientific-guideline/guideline-clinical-investigation-medicines-treatment-alzheimers-disease-revision-2_en.pdf (accessed December 31, 2020).Google Scholar
Food and Drug Administration. Early Alzheimer’s Disease: Developing Drugs for Treatment. Guidance for Industry. US Department of Health and Human Services Food and Drug Administration Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER) Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER); 2018.Google Scholar
Leber, P. What is the evidence that a dementia treatment works? Criteria used by drug regulatory authorities. In Evidence-Based Dementia Practice, Qizilbash, N, Schneider, LS, Chui, H, et al. (eds.). Oxford: Blackwells; 2003: 376–87.Google Scholar
Food and Drug Administration. Guidance for Industry Alzheimer’s Disease: Developing Drugs for the Treatment of Early Stage Disease (FDA-2013-D-0077) Draft; 2013.Google Scholar
Harrison, JE. Cognition comes of age: comments on the new FDA draft guidance for early Alzheimer’s disease. Alzheimers Res Ther 2018; 10: 61.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Szlyk, JP, Myers, L, Zhang, YX, et al. Development and assessment of a neuropsychological battery to aid in predicting driving performance. J Rehabil Res Dev 2002; 39: 483–96.Google ScholarPubMed
Liu-Seifert, H, Siemers, E, Selzler, K, et al. Correlation between cognition and function across the spectrum of Alzheimer’s disease. J Prev Alzheimers Dis 2016; 3: 138–44.Google ScholarPubMed
Katz, R. Presentation to the Alzheimer’s Association Research Roundtable Scales for Alzheimer’s Disease Meeting. April 2008, Washington, reported in R. Black, B. Greenberg, J.M. Ryan et al. Perspectives scales as outcome measures for Alzheimer’s disease. Alzheimers Dement 2009; 5: 324–39.Google Scholar
Harrison, J, Minassian, S, Jenkins, L, et al. A neuropsychological test battery for use in Alzheimer disease clinical trials. Arch Neurol 2007; 64: 1323–9.Google Scholar
Wessels, AM, Edgar, CJ, Nathan, PJ, et al. Cognitive go/no-go decision-making criteria in Alzheimer’s disease drug development. Drug Discov Today 2021; 26: 1330–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Harrison, JE, Bradford, E, Edgar, C, et al. Testing compounds which facilitate learning: a new proof of principle paradigm from CDR. XXV CINP Congress, Chicago, July 9–13, 2006.Google Scholar
McIntyre, RS, Harrison, JE, Loft, H, et al. The effects of vortioxetine on cognitive function in patients with major depressive disorder (MDD): a meta-analysis of three randomized controlled trials. Int J Neuropsychopharmacol 2016; 19: pyw055.Google Scholar
Harrison, JE, Lophaven, S, Olsen, CK. Which cognitive domains are improved by treatment with vortioxetine? Int J Neuropsychopharmacol 2016; 9: pyw054.Google Scholar
Schneider, L, Goldberg, TE. Composite cognitive and functional measures for early stage Alzheimer’s disease trials. Alzheimers Dement 2020; 12: e12017.Google Scholar
Harrison, JE. Commentary: composite cognitive and functional measures for early-stage Alzheimer’s disease trials. Alzheimers Dement: Cogn Behav Assess 2020; 12: 1–3.Google Scholar
Harrison, JE, Hendrix, SB. The assessment of cognition in translational medicine: A contrast between the approaches used in Alzheimer’s disease and major depressive disorder. In Translational Medicine in CNS Drug Development. Handbook of Behavioral Neuroscience, Volume 25, Nomikos G (ed.). Amsterdam: Elsevier; 2019: 297–308.Google Scholar
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: 993–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jutten, RJ, Harrison, JE, Brunner, AJ, et al. The Cognitive–Functional Composite is sensitive to clinical progression in early dementia: longitudinal findings from the Catch–Cog study cohort. Alzheimers Dement (N Y) 2020; 6: e12020.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jutten, RS, Harrison, JE, Lee Meeuw Kjoeet, PR, et al. Assessing cognition and daily function in early dementia using the Cognitive–Functional Composite: findings from the Catch–Cog study cohort. Alzheimers Res Ther 2019; 11: 45.Google Scholar
Ferris, SH, Lucca, U, Mohs, R, et al. Objective psychometric tests in clinical trials of dementia drugs. Position paper from the International Working Group on Harmonization of Dementia Drug Guidelines. Alzheimers Dis Assoc Disord 1997; 11: 34–8.Google Scholar
Lannfelt, L, Blennow, K, Zetterberg, H, et al. Targeting Aβ as a modifying therapy of Alzheimer’s disease: safety, efficacy and biomarker findings of a Phase IIa randomised, double-blind placebo-controlled trial of PBT2. Lancet Neurol 2008; 7: 779–86.Google Scholar
Hilt, D, Gawryl, M, Koenig, G, et al. EVP-6124: safety, tolerability and cognitive effects of a novel A7 nicotinic receptor agonist in Alzheimer’s disease patients on stable donepezil or rivastigmine therapy. Alzheimers Dement 2009; 5: P4-348.Google Scholar
Scheltens, P, Twisk, JWR, Blesa, R, et al. Efficacy of souvenaid in mild Alzheimer’s disease: results from a randomized, controlled trial. J Alzheimers Dis 2012; 31: 225–36.Google Scholar
Nathan, PJ, Boardley, R, Scott, N, et al. The safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics and cognitive effects of GSK239512, a selective histamine H₃ receptor antagonist in patients with mild to moderate Alzheimer’s disease: a preliminary investigation. Curr Alzheimer Res 2013; 10: 240–51.Google Scholar
Grove, RA, Harrington, CM, Mahler, A, et al. A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, 16-week study of the H3 receptor antagonist, GSK239512 as a monotherapy in subjects with mild-to-moderate Alzheimer’s disease. Curr Alzheimer Res 2014; 11: 47–58.Google Scholar
Scheltens, P, Hallikainen, M, Grimmer, T, et al. Safety, tolerability and efficacy of the glutaminyl-cyclase inhibitor PQ912 in Alzheimer’s disease: results of a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled Phase 2a study. Alzheimers Res Ther 2018; 10: 107.Google Scholar
Rockwood, K. Size of the treatment on cognition of cholinesterase inhibitors for Alzheimer’s disease. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 2004; 75: 677–85.Google Scholar
Cummings, J, Scheltens, P, McKeith, I, et al. Effect size analyses of souvenaid in patients with Alzheimer’s disease. J Alzheimers Dis 2016; 55: 1131–9.Google Scholar
Rockwood, K, Black, SE, Robillard, A, et al. Potential treatment effects of donepezil not detected in Alzheimer’s disease clinical trials: a physician survey. Int J Geriatr Psychiatry 2004; 19: 854–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harrison, JE, Lam, R, Baune, BT, et al. Selection of cognitive tests for trials of therapeutic agents. Lancet Psychiatry 2016; 8: 1–13.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×