The Use of Episodic Memory Tests for Screening in Clinical Trials for Early Alzheimer’s Disease: A Comparison of the Free and Cued Selective Reminding Test (FCSRT) and the Repeatable Battery for the Assessment of Neuropsychological Status (RBANS)

Abstract

BackgroundScreening procedures for early Alzheimer’s disease (AD) trials seek to efficiently identify participants who fulfill clinical and biomarker criteria for AD and enrich for those most likely to experience significant clinical progression during the study. Episodic memory performance is often assessed in screening, but the utility of different memory tests for optimizing screening efficiency and/or rates of clinical progression remains uncertain.ObjectivesCross-study comparisons of the effects of inclusion criteria based on performance on the Free and Cued Selective Reminding Test (FCSRT) or the Repeatable Battery for the Assessment of Neuropsychological Status (RBANS) on screen-failure rates for episodic memory and β-amyloid (Aβ) positivity (by CSF or PET) and on subsequent rates of clinical disease progression in randomized participants across three clinical trials in early (prodromal-to-mild) AD.DesignSecondary analyses of cross-sectional and longitudinal clinical trial data.SettingMulti-center international clinical trials.ParticipantsIndividuals with prodromal-to-mild AD screened and/or randomized in clinical trials for crenezumab (CREAD, CREAD2) or semorinemab (Tauriel). Cross-sectional analyses of screening data for episodic memory impairment included participants from CREAD2 (n=2897) and Tauriel (n=887) and for Aβ positivity included participants from CREAD (n=1138), CREAD2 (n=1119), and Tauriel (n=483). Longitudinal analyses of rates of clinical progression included participants from CREAD (n=779), CREAD2 (n=773), and Tauriel (n=331).MeasurementsCross-sectional analyses examined eligibility rates per cutoffs defined for the FCSRT (CREAD, CREAD2) or RBANS (Tauriel) and per Aβ positivity using CSF and/or PET biomarkers. Longitudinal analyses examined rates of clinical progression on the Clinical Dementia Rating-Sum of Boxes (CDR-SB), the 13-item version of the Alzheimer’s Disease Assessment Scale-Cognitive Subscale (ADAS-Cog13), and Alzheimer’s Disease Cooperative Study-Activities of Daily Living Scale (ADCS-ADL).ResultsLower rates of study eligibility per episodic memory criteria were seen with the FCSRT (CREAD2) relative to the RBANS (Tauriel), but similar rates of eligibility per Aβ positivity criteria were seen amongst participants with episodic memory impairment per the cutoffs used on either assessment. Similar rates of clinical decline over 18 months on the CDR-SB, ADAS-Cog13, and ADCS-ADL were observed in study populations enriched using the FCSRT (CREAD, CREAD2) or the RBANS (Tauriel).ConclusionsCutoffs for episodic memory impairment on the FCSRT used in the CREAD and CREAD2 studies are more stringent than those on the RBANS used in the Tauriel study, resulting in lower rates of eligibility. However, given that study enrichment with either test yields similar rates of Aβ positivity and clinical progression, considerations beyond these factors may drive the decision of which assessment to use for screening in early AD clinical trials.