Search

The Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale-Cognitive Subscale (ADAS-Cog) was developed in the 1980s to assess the level of cognitive dysfunction in Alzheimer's disease. Advancements in the research field have shifted focus toward pre-dementia populations, and use of the ADAS-Cog has extended into these pre-dementia studies despite concerns about its ability to detect important changes at these milder stages of disease progression. If the ADAS-Cog cannot detect important changes, our understanding of pre-dementia disease progression may be compromised and trials may incorrectly conclude that a novel treatment approach is not beneficial. The purpose of this review was to assess the performance of the ADAS-Cog in pre-dementia populations, and to review all modifications that have been made to the ADAS-Cog to improve its measurement performance in dementia or pre-dementia populations. The contents of this review are based on bibliographic searches of electronic databases to locate all studies using the ADAS-Cog in pre-dementia samples or subsamples, and to locate all modified versions. Citations from relevant articles were also consulted. Overall, our results suggest the original ADAS-Cog is not an optimal outcome measure for pre-dementia studies; however, given the prominence of the ADAS-Cog, care must be taken when considering the use of alternative outcome measures. Thirty-one modified versions of the ADAS-Cog were found. Modification approaches that appear most beneficial include altering scoring methodology or adding tests of memory, executive function, and/or daily functioning. Although modifications improve the performance of the ADAS-Cog, this is at the cost of introducing heterogeneity that may limit between-study comparison.

Background: LMTM is being developed as a treatment for AD based on inhibition of tau aggregation. Objectives: To examine the efficacy of LMTM as monotherapy in non-randomized cohort analyses as modified primary outcomes in an 18-month Phase III trial in mild AD. Methods: Mild AD patients (n = 800) were randomly assigned to 100 mg twice a day or 4 mg twice a day. Prior to unblinding, the Statistical Analysis Plan was revised to compare the 100 mg twice a day as monotherapy subgroup (n = 79) versus 4 mg twice a day as randomized (n = 396), and 4 mg twice a day as monotherapy (n = 76) versus 4 mg twice a day as add-on therapy (n = 297), with strong control of family-wise type I error. Results: The revised analyses were statistically significant at the required threshold of p