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 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 (CDR-SB), 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 ADAS-Cog 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.